kaos Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Can anybody who uses this forum possibly tell me why there was an lockout in the NHL 2 years ago? Can anybody convince me that in the next 10 years there will not be another one, although I don't know how they can justify it with the contracts these stupid GM's are passing out. It just doesn't add up. 1. Teams are now forced to spend will over $30 Million dollars as mandated by the CBA. They could spend as little as they wanted before. 2. Average Player salaries are rocketing past the $1.2 Million mark, which is where they were before the salary cap. 3. You are now seeing 6 and 8 and 15 year contracts for huge dollars that we never saw before the cap. Infact, now that I look at it the salary cap only did two things for the NHL. 1. It embarrased the hell out of the players with the 24% rollback and caused huge infighting amongst Union members. 2. It drastically increased the value of NHL teams. What did Forbes value the Predators before the lockout at? $130 Million? And after the cap, something like $170 Million. Again can anybody tell me the real reason for the lockout? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMMR Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 To connect salaries to revenues I think so as they revenues go up so do players salaries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Because Gary Bettman served the owners a nice bag of empty promises they bought into. (JMMR is on the ball btw) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaos Posted July 2, 2007 Author Share Posted July 2, 2007 To connect salaries to revenues I think so as they revenues go up so do players salaries. Yes, but the revenues have basically stayed the same, yet salaries are skyrocketing faster than the early 90's. Its crazy. ITs lucky for the NHL and the Canadian organizations that the dollar is so high right now. Cause when it crashes, league revenues will drop, Canadian organizations are going to go bankrupt trying to pay these salaries. This is all going to look very bad in 5 to 10 years time. Sooner if the US ever pulls out of Iraq and gets there economy in order, Anybody know Bettmans view on the Iraq war? I betcha hes a supporter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMMR Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 I guess your right becausee the US dollar is dropping and Canadian dollar is rising and Canadian teams make so much more money when the Canadian dollar falls revenues will fall and the cap will go down and teams with long term BIG deal will truly be screwd and have to trade them for nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 to create parity and then later it will be parody like the NFL. They did it to keep the costs down. So the big teams like Rangers aren't buying a billion players for the moon so to speak. And its to help out the small market teams and the eventual movement of teams back to Canada against the dollar. (although at this rate it'll be the greenback with the issues) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMMR Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Keep teams like the rangers from signing two guys like Drury and Gomez ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smon Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 To connect salaries to revenues I think so as they revenues go up so do players salaries. Right, that is actually a major point. You guys are also forgetting that if league revenues drop down to a certain level during a season, then I believe a percentage of their salaries will be held in escrow (similar to how it was done in 2005-06), and then they will not be paid that portion. If revenues plunged league wide, the cap would be decreased and essentially all players with expiring contracts would be forced to sign for peanuts if they wanted to continue playing in the league. Pre-lockout, if league revenues crashed but the Rangers and Avs and Leafs and so forth still had dough they would happily sign all the best players for ridiculous $$$ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 basically it means you can only have one superstar. For example the Penguins have to win now, because that team can't stay together unless the players develop a NFL mentality of team over money, championships over bank account. Think of it like socialism. The good teams in a salary cap system understand the system and the players aren't greedy because they value championships over personal bank accounts. New England Patriots are the best example of this. Teams will constantly change but there will always be a core of 1 or 2 or 3 players. The rest are role players. It moves the sport away from a free wheeling spending to a more precise spending with more emphasis on team building. Again best example of how to run a team with a salary cap is the New England Patriots. They are the Marx and Engels of salary cap sports. They practically wrote the book. lol the political analogies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobRock Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 To connect salaries to revenues I think so as they revenues go up so do players salaries. And to get rid of Goodenow. I'd say both missions accomplished. They probably didn't expect the Saskin revolt though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsy Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 to create parity and then later it will be parody like the NFL. They did it to keep the costs down. So the big teams like Rangers aren't buying a billion players for the moon so to speak. And its to help out the small market teams and the eventual movement of teams back to Canada against the dollar. (although at this rate it'll be the greenback with the issues) Hey Pierre. The exact opposite of what you think just happened. The Rangers signed to of the biggest free agents. I guess you didn't happen to catch that info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Puck Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 It may not seem like it today but the lockout is responsible for slowing down the increase in player's salaries. While its true that a number of teams made huge offers to free agents today, don't forget that a number of other teams (e.g. Ottawa, NJ, Toronto, Pittsburg) didn't really get into the bidding because of cap concerns. Without the cap there would have been a lot more teams bidding for the top UFA's. Then the amounts paid would have been much higher. Even a team like Detroit could only afford Rafalski because Schneider left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Hey Pierre. The exact opposite of what you think just happened. The Rangers signed to of the biggest free agents. I guess you didn't happen to catch that info. that's fine, they're going with 3 players plus the goalie the rest ahlers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mils Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 It may not seem like it today but the lockout is responsible for slowing down the increase in player's salaries. While its true that a number of teams made huge offers to free agents today, don't forget that a number of other teams (e.g. Ottawa, NJ, Toronto, Pittsburg) didn't really get into the bidding because of cap concerns. Without the cap there would have been a lot more teams bidding for the top UFA's. Then the amounts paid would have been much higher. Even a team like Detroit could only afford Rafalski because Schneider left. This captures it, hook line and sinker. JMMR's point about connecting salaries to revenues is right on the mark, and this is a perfect example of how the system is working. The NHL is reaching a critical mass. Only so many players can have the highest salary cap number, whatever it is. Since teams have a limited salary to pay, there is a maximum of how much the average salary can be. (see math content below) So, while we are seeing rocketing salaries right now, it will all slow down over the next 2-5 years. The league will reach an equilibrium, the cap will stay about the same, and all of this post-lockout dust will settle. (Hopefully, the insane rule changes stop too.) Once the NHL starts to crank out consistent revenues year to year and there's a consensus on how the players want to treat escrow and the cap, the cap will stay about the same, salaries will adjust, and everything will be much more consistent than it is now. Just give it some time... and 1 less Bettman in the NHL central offices. Go back to the NBA. Another thing to consider when looking at the rapid increase of the salary cap is that the cap in 05-06 was a very conservative estimate of league revenues. (Probably geared to save the owners player salary dollars that they could put in their pockets.) The cap in 06-07 was closer to what we should expect long term, but it was still deflated because of the attendance dip due to the lockout. The cap, as dictated by league revenues should probably hang around 50,000,000 or so. The market will dictate exactly where it will settle year to year. The increase won't continue because the system won't allow it (unless people start selling out games in Long Island, Nashville, Florida, Phoenix, etc...) Finally, the system is helping keep things from spiraling out of control because the cap figure includes all bonuses and things of that nature. It prevents a guy from signing a $2 million deal, but with a bazillion dollars in signing bonuses and performance bonuses. (See Joe Sakic's contract from 1997, when he was a RFA and almost went to the NYR.) Math content: Highest possible average salary under the cap. - We have to assume that each team only signs, and is paying, 23 players at once with no extras or two way deals in the minors. (Full roster: 14 F, 7 D, 2 G) $50,300,000 (current cap) / 23 players (full roster, no extras) = $2,186,956.52 (Highest possible average salary this year) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House11 Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Hey Pierre. The exact opposite of what you think just happened. The Rangers signed to of the biggest free agents. I guess you didn't happen to catch that info. Yes but they have the cap room to do it ... Before the lockout a team like the Rangers would already be at a $50 mil payroll then sign players like Drury and Gomez to those kind of contracts. That's the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Lockout seems so useless now. If Brière and Gomez, who aren't even in the NHL top 7 players, sign for 10 mils each next year, then GOD DAMN what Crosby worth ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Puck Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Lockout seems so useless now. If Brière and Gomez, who aren't even in the NHL top 7 players, sign for 10 mils each next year, then GOD DAMN what Crosby worth ??? That's the purpose of the cap. No matter how good you think Crosby is he can only(?) be paid $10.1 million. This was Mils' point. Unlike pre-lockout the value of players can't keep spiralling upward (unless revenues do too). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Why? Well, what is stupid? 1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull. 2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question. 3. tediously dull, esp. due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party. 4. annoying or irritating; troublesome: Turn off that stupid radio. 5. in a state of stupor; stupefied: stupid from fatigue. 6. informal. a stupid person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 that's fine, they're going with 3 players plus the goalie the rest ahlers. That's not how it works at all. Shanahan, Drury, Gomez, Jagr, Lundqvist, Mara, Tyutin, Straka. A core consists of 7-8 players, not 1-3. Take any single team and they have a core of atleast 5-6 players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.