Each team can set an individual budget, like every business in America does. you are right they all can't say we all agreed to a cap of $35M but each team can have it's own budget. Problem is each team is too fiscally irressonsible to do so. So they need "Big Brother" (ie a new CBA) to protect themselves from themselves.
what like baseball, is there any chance in the next few years Baseball is going to have the problems facing Hockey now
A few random thoughts (and keep in mind I have 4 season tickets with a pretty mediocure Blue Jacket team): It's different because the NHL relies on individual teams making money for themselves, not large TV contracts. Therefore the teams like Detroit who has high ticket prices, sell out crowds and a huge following should not have to cut their player budget by 50% because some teams can't sell tickets. The NHL wants a hard cap with guaranteed contracts (Columbus's GM has said they will have to keep guaranteed contracts) which neither the NFL or NBA has. What does that mean. Well it means there will be a lot of solid veterans playing for the league minimum because the GM signed a couple star players to teh team and needs to fit 21 other players in with $20-25M cap (assuming a $35M cap and 2 stars will get $10-15M between them). The stars will ge tpaid, just like in the NBA and NFL and everyone else just goes wherever they fit salary wise. A salary cap does not equal parity. Compare the current NHL to the the NFL or NBA. The NBA has 3 championship teams the last 6-7 years it seems (Spurs., Lakers, Pistons) is that parity? Look at the NFL with the Pats and Eagles (granted teh Eagles have no SB appearances) and you can see their is only parity for the last couple playoff spots each year. Now look at the NHL the Tampa Bay Lightning won the cup. Some rich teams win (Wings) others lose (Rangers, Caps), and some poor teams win (Minny 2 years ago with a payroll less than $20M made the Western Finals). Finally it's the teams themselves who sign ridiculous contracts. Perfect example is Bobby Holik who is a nice 3rd line C, but he gets paid $9M a year. Would a salary cap prevent a GM from being stupid? It may help him avoid paying Holik $9m but he'll still be stupid enough to give him $7m (or whatever the number is). My point is simply if the GM's can't do their jobs why blame teh system? Maybe it's time to hire the "Money Balls" of the world who aren't ex-players and instead hire people who can make good decisions.
So why is there a cap in NFL and Nba?? Simply stated, the owners cannot control salaries without a structure to do so. They are not one homogeneous set of owners, with the same priorities. And stupid contracts will be signed. (not exclusive to Hockey -- hello Mo Taylor). So the higher revenue teams set the 'market' as far as arbitration, etc goes. The Stanley Cup runs by a variety of teams (especially the lower payroll teams) is a deceptive measure of parity. Hockey's a sport that can ride a 'hot' goalie for a cup run. The cinderella teams that are championed as evidence of parity tend to miss the playoffs the following year! And tend to play boring hockey. The disparity in team revenues, and the lack of big guaranteed revenue through a tv contract make this dispute more complex. But the concept of a cap itself is not as oppressive as the player reps would have you believe. And the hockey owners are no more foolish than those in the other leagues -- except that without the structure to control salaries, the whole thing's become a mess. You'll always have the Holik contracts (Hello Big Country Reeves), but the current system is clearly not working for the NHL. The frustration here, is that instead of negotiating over the last 18 months or more...both sides have been pouting away. I tend to blame the players reps more, because I just don't buy that a cap system...which works in other leagues...should be completely off the table. Perhaps they need to raise the proposed level, have more revenue sharing, loosen free-agency, have 'bird-right' exemptions to allow teams to resign players, or SOMETHING....but when the player reps pine away that they just couldn't possibly fathom the injustice of a salary cap...they lose all credibility with me.
You're probably right. What's left of the fan base in the States is going to suffer though. Plus I still can't believe that a bunch of supposed adults couldn't get this right in time. But if they finally hammer out a deal that ensures the long-term health of the league, then it's for the best.
You call it luck (a hot goalie) I say it's parity. Why doesn't a cap in the NHL and NBA create parity? Especially in the NBA where it's the Spurs and Lakers every year. Also you call Tampa boring? Was Calgary boring last year? Again I suppose you'll call them an anamoly but last year in the NHL showed teams with moderate payrolls could win.
I agree it's frustrating. But I found it interesting that owners want to make money and have their assets appreciate (their teams). If they are so worried about a cap, then have one but let the NHLPA have a peice of the action when a team is sold. Make it a true partership. If the owners want a partnership, then make it a true partnership. Let everyone make as much money as possible. Of course as soon as that is suggested the owners will walk away from the table. The owners want everything. A asset which holds great value and appreciates, while also making money each year. If they want cost certainty from the players that's ok, but give up part of the asset and share the wealth for the cost certainty.
NHL owners & players union = dumb & dumber Let's see if I got this right: Take a professional sport with waning popularity in the states and get into a public pissing contest. Oh, let's just shut this thing down until I get my way. I liked watching the Stars but really don't miss them at all. Let's see if the collective executive hockey IQ can rise above the fray D R
I agree... Everyone involved right now are pissing away their future.. the longer they hold out the sooner people realize life is fine without Hockey. NHL as an organization is struggling because they get the national TV contracts and the popularity is just waning. They need a cap to keep all teams competitive and protect the owners from themselves. J
Some of the American teams will either fold or move to Canada after one or two seasons... Looks like we are experiencing a reverse trend when teams like Winnipeg Jets and Quebec Nordiques moved to Phoenix and Denver... The ESPN analyst (I forgot his name) was right... Canada is where all the oxygen for hockey is... And also, they are not doing a good enough job in promoting hockey in the States, like organizing community programs just like in other professional leagues... adieu, NHL... at least for this season...
But how many teams can Canada support? On other forums that I visit I get the impression from Canadian posters that they actually enjoy seeing the NHL fail in the US.
Where is there an actual hard cap? MLB - No just a luxury tax. NBA - In theory but all the mid-cap exceptions, bird, rights and signing bonuses really make it tough to say there is a hard cap. If you need cap room just trade for a cap exception. NFL -Closest thing to a cap but the non-guaranteed contracts and signing bonuses make it pretty flexible as well. Finally salary caps help all teams stay in business. A the same time they allow bad run teams to stay bad teams for way too long because of the revenue sharing. Win or get out.
Back in the land above the 49th Parallel (except for Alaska), fans are still angered about the relation of the Jets and Nordiques... You can't say we people up here are happy to see some American teams go, but expanding to unknown markets (a la Miami) while not solidating its core (waning fan interest in traditional hockey towns like Pittsburgh) is not a good decision...
that's the key right there. here in canada we grow up playing hockey - minor leagues, or whatever. so we idolize the players we want to be. it is somewhat a lifestyle. now, obviously that will never be the case in the USA, but if they promoted hockey better to the community's and got kids interested in playing hockey, then the professional league also would have a lot more interest.
maybe the NHL should be a 20-22 team league when it returns. the Canada conference and the US conference. this would create deep rivalries between the best of each country and create excitement in the NHL finals - country vs country. Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Quebec, Winnepeg, and up to 3 of: St. Johns, Kelowna, Regina, Charletown. Minnesota, Detroit, New York, Philly, Pittsburgh, Boston, Chicago, Colorado, Dallas, Los Angeles, Tampa Bay i don't know, but i think it would add more interest.
