salary cap what do you think?

Question

4 years ago the owners wanted the salary cap because players where making to much money 3 years later the cap jumped from $39 mil to $50 mil now players are getting more are the owners just driving them selfs back to high price players. Penner played his first full season and hes making like $5 mil a year and this kid still hasnt proved him self to be that great then Vanek also one full season and this huge contract and he was never ment to be a future star like many others. i know Lowe did what he did but he was only trying to make his Oilers better. thasts the point im getting to is that the owners dont want to pay this players these crazy contracts but they will put them selfs in the hole. what do you guys think.

AND HEY TO EVERYONE

GO HABS GOI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Answer 1

Salaries for Year B can NEVER exceed 52% of TOTAL league revenues of Year A. So, the money is there BEFORE the players are signed. It's almost all good.



The reason the system is not perfect is that not every team makes the same amount of revenues. For example, the Toronto Maple Leafs account for 3.3% of the league's teams but account for 11.8%. Proctor and Gamble pays CBC $26K for a 30 second slot on a Maple Leaf HNIC game (compared to only $16K for Montreal and Vancouver games). So, in order to increase revenues, HNIC shows more Leaf games, and therefore increased Leaf exposure increases Leaf revenues which increases league revenues.



So, theoretically, teams shouldn't be able to put themselves in the hole by signing players to $50.3MM worth of contracts. It has been estimated that the Nashville Predators could cut their advertising budget by 80% without losing that many fans, which would drastically decrease their losses.

Answer 2

I like the cap because the GMs were putting the owners out of business by overpaying for everything in sight. Issue still exists because one player can take up to 20% of a team's cap. Even Lidstrom does play the whole game so why in a game where you need 6 warm bodies on the ice to play should any one player earn more than 8% of a team's cap? As for Kevin Lowe's moves, well time will tell but with all that young talent running around in Edmonton he still doesn't have a can't miss goalie and he's pretty short on veteran presence. I also wonder why he added Pitkanen, Tarnstrom and Souray? Those three may help the PP (eventually) but can't check their hats and are huge liabilities in their own end. He's no Slats, that's for sure.

Answer 3

The salary cap has done what it was intended to do, namely level the playing field. Under the old system the rich teams drove up salaries by offering massive contracts to marginal talent. Teams such as, but not limited to Toronto, Philly, Rangers had the financial ability to make up for their mistakes by signing free agents each year. This increased demand for the free agents to the point where salaries were becoming crazy. 9 million a year for Bobby Holik.



There was no consequence to those teams making a bad signing mistake because with almost limitless funds they could resign another to correct their mistakes.



The cap limits teams ability to make up for mistakes, this should help keep salaries under control. The fact that the free agency age is reduced will mean more free agents available to all.



The key in this error will be avoiding the big mistake, that is why I am surprised with the length of some of the deals signed this past summer. Teams like the Rangers made a big splash this summer but will be limited in future years because of the amount of money tied up in long term contacts.



Overtime it should result in more parity in the league and that will be a Great thing.

Answer 4

"Like I'm Telling You" has it right.



Salaries can't exceed 52 per cent of revenues, so if the cap has gone up to $50 million, it means teams are making more cash to cover it. The can't go in the hole anymore.



Personally I never believed teams were as cash-strapped as they were making out before the lockout, which may be one reason revenues have jumped in two years ... there's more transparency in their accounting departments ... so you can't hide secret streams of revenue anymore. And don't forget, now the richer teams are subsidizing the teams that come up short on revenues, so no one loses. I believe the year Carolina won the Cup, they received millions in cash from the league for equalization, while teams like Philly, Toronto and Detroit paid OUT tens of millions.



And don't get me going on the escrow system where a portion of each player's salary is held back during the season until the actual cap is determined. I don't have the energy to get through that one today.



I think cases like the Penner contract make it confusing because in reality, the two teams are in different cap-room situations. Penner IS worth $4 million to the Oilers because they've had trouble attracting top free agents, they needed a front-line forward and they have the space to pay him that amount, and fans in Edmonton tend to stay away from the rink if they believe the team isn't trying to ice a good product. Fewer fans = millions of dollars in lost revenue.



Penner ISN'T worth it to Anaheim because they don't have the cap space and they didn't want to set themselves up in a salary structure that would pay Penner's linemates the same.



It's simple supply and demand economics.



In terms of the "crazy contracts" I believe this new system is going to take at least 5 years to work itself out. Some of these moves will burn some teams, others will learn to take advanage of the new rules. Most of these GMs still don't have a model franchise to emulate. And what happens when most teams have spent up to the cap? Tampa has most of its budget tied up in three players, which can't be good for very long. The contracts will have to level off over time.



It's all very much a work in progress.



TACO: Briere and Drury leaving the Sabres has nothing to do with the cap. Two years ago both players offered to redo their contracts early and for less money and the team refused, and actually were kind of nasty about it. By the time contract negotiations arrived, both players decided to shop around because of the management's attitude. Plenty of players in the past two years have taken less cash to stay with a team where they feel wanted. It was the team that blew it, not the cap, since the Sabres share in equalization payments anyway.



BOB LOBLAW: You should check out how many players come back to live in Buffalo after their careers are over. The percentage is higher than most other NHL cities.

Answer 5

Welcome back. Some of us were wondering what happened to you.



Anyway, I'm for a salary cap if only to keep the players from becoming like those in baseball. There are too many fat cats in MLB and I don't think they are well motivated.



As for the teams and the health of the league, I think it is a great idea to impose a salary cap in order to keep operating costs at a certain level for that part of the business. Costs always go up, but they are easier to anticipate and form a financial strategy from than the unpredictable player salary demands are.



The only thing I don't like about it is that there is profit sharing to keep the small market teams alive. Plus, the "haves" are still the "haves" and the "have nots" are still the "have nots" where teams like NY Rangers, Philly, Detroit, etc. gobble up the pricey free agents.

Answer 6

It is indeed a more level playing field as there is also a minimum on the cap number. Like I am Telling You hit the nail on the head when he mentions how it coincides with revenue. Prior to the cap, salaries were like 70% of revenue (guess as I can't remember the exact total) but it was higher than all other major sports.

Also, as far as high player salaries, atleast it is the young guys who are coming into their own that are getting paid now as compared to the way it used to be where veterans in the decline of their careers were getting the big bucks. Teams are now locking up their young stars to long term contracts and in some cases, buying their FA period from them for a little extra.

The quick answer though is the fact that salaries correalate directly with revenue, if the league does well, the players prosper as well and if it doesn't do well or stays the same, the cap will not go up again. In fact, it is concievable for the cap to go down.

Answer 7

Hey back.



I think the salary cap is a good thing....but I see your point. They make a salary cap one year, then a few years later, raise the cap. But I suppose ANY salary cap at whatever amount is going to keep things to a level to a point.



And, I agree with Bob Loblaw about teams using the $$ towards younger players instead of paying veteran players big bucks. However, these young guys need to strut their stuff and earn their keep.



LITY is like a robot that spits out all kinds of statistics and scientific logic to the hockey questions. Most of it is good.

Answer 8

I have always believed salary caps were folly. It was fine, in order to save the old time NBA. The NFL certainly can't be crying poverty now, it should be lifted, and baseball doesn't need it.



As for the NHL, I think it ruins everything. For years, I have listened to fans whining and crying that there is no longer any loyalty, everybody leaves to get a fat contract, etc.



The salary cap makes it impossible for anyone to spend their career with one team, so exactly what have we accomplished? We lost a season, that's all.

Answer 9

Welcome back Habitant.

I have no problem with the salary cap. As stated it has helped level out the playing field, which needed to be done to help the small market teams.

Taco....as for Drury and Briere.....it wasn't the cap, it was upper management. They both wanted to stay with the Sabres and approached management early on this. But I guess they felt that 10 mill to Thomas Vanek(which in my opinion still hasn't proven himself and should still be considered a headcase) was more important. It's unfortunate cause I really wanted them both to stay. As stated...poorly managed.

Answer 10

i say

WELCOME BACK

and i think the cap was one of the stupidest things to happen to hockey. either players are upset because they can't make more money, or the owners are upset because they have to pay more money. i say, get rid of the cap. some teams feel like they have to go out and spend every single dollar. if their is no cap, players might get crazier, but will come down when no one offers them as much as they want.

Answer 11

the salary cap WAS a good idea



Now its so high that it doesn't make a difference anymore...



The cap's purpose was to the NHL an even playing field but by giving team's so much cap space, it did just the opposite.



Now teams like the Rangers can go out like old times and just buy everyone because the cap is so high



Lower the cap.

Answer 12

When the Rangers aquired Jagr it pushed their payroll that year to over $91 million. That is a far cry from $50 million.



Although that didnt help them too much, they still finished in 13th place that year.

Answer 13

Hi Hab.



A reasonably level playing field is always a good thing.



Now, if only our (The USA's) public school-system had the IQ to understand this, we'd all be doing ok.



Keep rockin!

JD

Answer 14

Hey man. I was wondering if youd ever mack a comeback. I saw you occasionally on the top ten contributors list and wondered what ever happened to you

Answer 15

The salary cap is a joke. Lowe did what he did because he was desperate to get players, because the teams with all the money are STILL getting all the good free-agents. There is something wrong when a team like the Rangers can mysteriously have Gomez, Drury, Jagr, Lundqvist, AND Shanahan when there is supposed to be a salary cap. Meanwhile, Buffalo was a Cup favorite and everyone bailed on them. Why? Money. The salary cap is just a myth.

Answer 16

GO LEAFS GO! The salary cap should be frozen and never changed from 50.3 million. It doesn't need to be any higher.

GO LEAFS GO!!!!!!!!