Screw the NHL

[kevin13697]

I don't think salary caps are necesary for a sport to survive but there is a use for them. One of the reasons that baseball gets away without one is because no individual player or even players dominates the game like the other 3 sports while its also more random in getting players. Its easier for a team with a small budget to compete in the MLB as compared to other sports. I don't think it can seriously be said that teams in the other sports could compete with one half of the budget of other teams let alone one quarter.

You were also very selective in how you presented the numbers for finals appearances and titles to make it appear as if there were significantly more parity in the MLB. Last 12 years;

MLB - 9 teams won, 14 made the finals
NFL - 8 teams won, 15 made the finals
NBA - 6 teams won, 11 made the finals
NHL - 10 teams won, 16 made the finals (parity becomes more apparent after salary cap)

As for the anti-worker comments I think it would hold more weight if we were talking about the support workers and not the players helping to keep them out of work because they are holding out to guarentee the top end players full contracts.

Teams are as competitive without a salary cap then they are with one.
This current lockout proves the NHL should not have a salary cap if it wants worldwide talent.
Some of the leagues most valuable players travel across the world to play in the NHL.
Why should they want to stay here to have their contracts reduced every few seasons because of failed league management?

[Bramaca]

Teams are as competitive without a salary cap then they are with one.
This current lockout proves the NHL should not have a salary cap if it wants worldwide talent.Some of the leagues most valuable players travel across the world to play in the NHL.
Why should they want to stay here to have their contracts reduced every few seasons because of failed league management?

Don't necesarily agree that teams are as competitive without a salary cap (depends a lot on the sport) and don't think this lockout has done anything to prove that the league should not have a cap.

[kevin13697]

Don't necesarily agree that teams are as competitive without a salary cap (depends a lot on the sport) and don't think this lockout has done anything to prove that the league should not have a cap.

Malkin,Ovechkin or Kovlachuk for example can make more $ in Russian playing less games. why would they want to play in the NHL?
Salary caps limit the amount of money a players can make. We know there are a number of teams that can afford these players but reducing our salary cap doesn't make that possible.
That would be like the NFL losing Rodgers Peterson & Calvin Johnson or the NBA losing Durant,Lebron & Rose.
It certainly changes the definition of the NHLs world champions and effects the future progress of the NHL.
Also players such as Lebron or Howard have followed talent knowing their salary is limited. We've seen that in the NHL with Parise & Weber. That doesn't make things fair.

[Bramaca]

Malkin,Ovechkin or Kovlachuk for example can make more $ in Russian playing less games. why would they want to play in the NHL?
Salary caps limit the amount of money a players can make. We know there are a number of teams that can afford these players but reducing our salary cap doesn't make that possible.

Maybe instead of keeping the negotiations in a stalemate over making sure the higher end players contracts are ensured maybe they should go for a lower % that restricts higher salaries and see if they can get profit sharing. I mentioned this last year during the NBA lockout, salary cap around 50 million (just a rough figure) with a max salary of say 7 million. But individual players can negotiate for a % of profit. Say there is a player like Crosby on a team like Toronto and he gets 25% of profit and the team makes a profit of 50 million. There's a salary of 19.25 million. If the team doesn't make a profit then he doesn't get any profit sharing.

Players shouldn't be getting a decade of guarenteed money. They want the high end salaries they should have to take on some of the risk which is what profit sharing would be. Less guarenteed money for top players but the potential to make more.

That would be like the NFL losing Rodgers Peterson & Calvin Johnson or the NBA losing Durant,Lebron & Rose.
It certainly changes the definition of the NHLs world champions and effects the future progress of the NHL.
Also players such as Lebron or Howard have followed talent knowing their salary is limited. We've seen that in the NHL with Parise & Weber. That doesn't make things fair.

Fair? Like making no salary cap which allows big market teams to load up on players is fair. It doesn't work that well and has been shown not to work well.

[fingerbang]

Russia has an even worse league in place. There's a few teams that can fill the seats and then there's a whole bunch of bottom feeders with no cash flow. There's an article floating out there where one of the owners says that most owners just do it as a status/ego thing. There isn't money to be made for most of those franchises. It's a broken system. You can't expect owners to support a league and run a deficit.

[fingerbang]

Fair? Like making no salary cap which allows big market teams to load up on players is fair. It doesn't work that well and has been shown not to work well.

It's amazing that some people actually still think no salary cap is a good solution. That's what they had before the last CBA. The NHL was on the verge of collapse, but hey, **** it, as long as the players make more money.

[kevin13697]

Maybe instead of keeping the negotiations in a stalemate over making sure the higher end players contracts are ensured maybe they should go for a lower % that restricts higher salaries and see if they can get profit sharing. I mentioned this last year during the NBA lockout, salary cap around 50 million (just a rough figure) with a max salary of say 7 million. But individual players can negotiate for a % of profit. Say there is a player like Crosby on a team like Toronto and he gets 25% of profit and the team makes a profit of 50 million. There's a salary of 19.25 million. If the team doesn't make a profit then he doesn't get any profit sharing.

Players shouldn't be getting a decade of guarenteed money. They want the high end salaries they should have to take on some of the risk which is what profit sharing would be. Less guarenteed money for top players but the potential to make more.

I like the idea but I don't feel hardline owners would ever agree to it.
There really isn't much of a risk to the owners, the league revenue is very high and 50% share would make some of these teams very profitable.

[Bramaca]

I like the idea but I don't feel hardline owners would ever agree to it.
There really isn't much of a risk to the owners, the league revenue is very high and 50% share would make some of these teams very profitable.

I think its more questionable whether the high earning players would agree to it. Some would make more, some would make less and there would be a lot less guarenteed money. And 50%+ profit sharing wouldn't work, it would have to be a lower % + profit sharing for it to work.

[Bramaca]

Russia has an even worse league in place. There's a few teams that can fill the seats and then there's a whole bunch of bottom feeders with no cash flow. There's an article floating out there where one of the owners says that most owners just do it as a status/ego thing. There isn't money to be made for most of those franchises. It's a broken system. You can't expect owners to support a league and run a deficit.

Russia is a joke of a league, the players are paid (when they actually get paid) out of the owners pocket. The league makes basically no money and the players are payed multiple times more then what they are worth. That will catch up to the league.

[Bramaca]

It's amazing that some people actually still think no salary cap is a good solution. That's what they had before the last CBA. The NHL was on the verge of collapse, but hey, **** it, as long as the players make more money.

European soccer leagues are always used as an example of how a 'free market' system works but they have started to put serious conditions on teams now because the that system was basically imploding.

[kevin13697]

It's amazing that some people actually still think no salary cap is a good solution. That's what they had before the last CBA. The NHL was on the verge of collapse, but hey, **** it, as long as the players make more money.

it's amazing how some people always blame workers salaries when a business begins to fail simply ignoring poor management or forgetting that was a time of the dead puck era.
it also resulted in shootouts,tag up offsides, goalie pad reductions, blue/red line size increase, goal line closer to boards,trapezoid etc. these rule changes also decrease games length by 10-15 minutes.
we are out of the dead puck era and the revenue has gone way up since.
owners said a salary cap would prevent future stoppages and here we are again.
'The players never asked for more money ever they just asked for a fair marketplace.

[fingerbang]

Was the league going down the crapper under the former economic model or not? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

An unsustainable economic model hurts everyone in the long run, the owners, the players, and the fans.

[kevin13697]

Was the league going down the crapper under the former economic model or not? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
An unsustainable economic model hurts everyone in the long run, the owners, the players, and the fans.

it was going down the crapper because the product being sold wasn't selling in 04'.
A salary cap was put in place to fix the NHL's economic problems by reducing players salaries by linking a cap to the revenue share.
Now in 12' the NHL is selling very well & owners demand to reduce that salary cap. The players have agreed to but owners are not willing to honor contracts signed before the CBA expired. It is not fair to the players.

[Bramaca]

it was going down the crapper because the product being sold wasn't selling in 04'.
A salary cap was put in place to fix the NHL's economic problems by reducing players salaries by linking a cap to the revenue share.
Now in 12' the NHL is selling very well & owners demand to reduce that salary cap. The players have agreed to but owners are not willing to honor contracts signed before the CBA expired. It is not fair to the players.

The salary cap was put in place to create cost certainty, that was just a step to fixing the leagues economic problems and not the entire solution. The 57% is what they could get then. Was it fair for the owners to have to agree to the last CBA knowing that over half the teams would still be losing money? The players have had beyond fair for a couple decades.

[kevin13697]

The salary cap was put in place to create cost certainty, that was just a step to fixing the leagues economic problems and not the entire solution. The 57% is what they could get then. Was it fair for the owners to have to agree to the last CBA knowing that over half the teams would still be losing money? The players have had beyond fair for a couple decades.

Twelve other teams lost money last season. They were: Phoenix ($20.6 million loss), Columbus ($18.7 million), New York Islanders ($16 million), Tampa Bay ($13.1 million), Florida ($12 million), Anaheim ($10.8 million), Buffalo (10.4 million), St. Louis ($10 million), Carolina ($9.4 million), Minnesota ($3.9 million), Nashville ($3.4 million) and San Jose ($900,000).
San Jose,Black Hawks, Red Wings and Rangers have openly claimed to have zero debt.
"Katz has said his team is losing money but has refused to show the books to the city council."-Forbes
We all know that team values are way up.
Owners need to start showing us the numbers if your going to claim most the league is losing money. & If so, why were they giving out so big contracts?