Jump to content

Salary Cap officially sees another increase


jetsniper
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seems like the players made out on the newest CBA ... but then again the league is making money too which is good. Teams need to be careful though cause all of a sudden that cap # can drop and teams could get stuck with alot over priced players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we had a lockout for what reason again?

I'm so tired of hearing this.

Yeah, players are still making an obscene amount of money but with a cap now, small market teams are able to open up their wallets. You think without a cap, Calgary would've been able to sign Iginla, Regehr, Kipper and Phanuef all to huge contracts? Not a chance in hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so tired of hearing this.

Yeah, players are still making an obscene amount of money but with a cap now, small market teams are able to open up their wallets. You think without a cap, Calgary would've been able to sign Iginla, Regehr, Kipper and Phanuef all to huge contracts? Not a chance in hell.

But was it worth a year without hockey and risk some fans not coming back when in a couple seasons we are right back where we started in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But was it worth a year without hockey and risk some fans not coming back when in a couple seasons we are right back where we started in my opinion.

No because where we started was only the big spending teams being able to afford the big money free agents. If you look at the landscape today, players are still getting the same amount of money but every single team out there has a chance to land that big name player. It's not for me to say whether it was worth it or not because that seems to be personal preference but attendance is up, revenue is up and the small market teams have been given an equal chance during UFA season. The league is in much better shape now then it was in 2002 or 2003 when everyone signed in Detroit or New York.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No because where we started was only the big spending teams being able to afford the big money free agents. If you look at the landscape today, players are still getting the same amount of money but every single team out there has a chance to land that big name player. It's not for me to say whether it was worth it or not because that seems to be personal preference but attendance is up, revenue is up and the small market teams have been given an equal chance during UFA season. The league is in much better shape now then it was in 2002 or 2003 when everyone signed in Detroit or New York.

I don't think so. Edmonton was never able to play near the cap and will not be able again until the team gets officially sold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lockout was completely worth it. Not only, as Jetsniper says, do small market teams actually have a chance to keep superstars, but the trauma of the lockout forced the crackdown on obstruction that has made the quality of hockey being played right now just about as high as it's ever been. Furthermore, the cap prevents cruddy organizations from buying their way out of problems, c.f. the Toronto Maple Leafs, while good developmental organizations such as the Oilers no longer get raped by league fatcats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so. Edmonton was never able to play near the cap and will not be able again until the team gets officially sold.

The sale became official last week.

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...idv-7HSJGAb-JMg

He has also promised to build the team a practice facility and spend the maximum allowed under the salary cap.

You NEVER would've seen that in "the old NHL"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem before the lockout was the players were making about the same they are now but revenues were alot less .. especially for lower end teams ... remember that the cap can change but only with revenues .. if they go down then the cap goes down ... Think about this .. when the cap was $39 million, that was based on revenue, now it's $57 million based on revenue. The league seems to be going in the right direction. How ever the problem that could come up is how high the floor is. Some team may not be able to handle that dollar figure. But I think that the limited revenue sharing should help.

so sadly yes the lockout was worth it. At least teams can't just spend like the Rangers used too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sale became official last week.

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...idv-7HSJGAb-JMg

You NEVER would've seen that in "the old NHL"

I totally missed that info. GREAT news for Edmonton (my 2nd favourite team) !!! :clap::clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also tired of hearing that "the lockout was for nothing" criticism, things have changed dramatically since the lockout. Unfortunately, as I used to mention often during the lockout, all poeple wanted was for players to "suffer", and bend over in front of the owners. When the CBA was signed, people were applauding the salary cap linked to league revenues... well guess what: it's the extact same system in place.

People may thing it's stupid that players make more moneybecause the owners get more revenues, well that's what people wanted, and it's what the owners wanted as well. So why complain?

In addition to what's already being mentionned, there is now a very small gap between what the richest ans poorest teams can spend, thanks to the salary cap and the salary floor. Also, the NHL has put in place a small revenue sharing system to help the small market teams afford spending at least at the floor level.

What's funny is that I didn't like that idea of a salary cap - and I still don't think it was the solution to the NHL's problems - and now I find myself defending it...

ps. The Oilers can't lend big free agents because they don't want to play there. Just like Montreal, the lact of success of the Oilers is now hurting them, and they're simply not a hot destination for the top players. Montreal is finally emerging as a contender again, and now players see Montreal as a possible destination again (ex. Hamrlik, Tanguay changed his mind about playing here, Sundin is considering Montreal, ...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

some of these teams cap numbers are mind boggling. the rumour is that the ducks have signed brendon morrison and yet they have only 300k in cap room and haven't signed all their rfa's yet. WTF? Calgary is 1.5 mill over the cap. WTF? how are they going to be able to get under the cap and have 23 players. On the othe hand L. A. needs to spend somewhere around 12-14 million to reach the floor. Maybe they should be looking to sign Sundin BLDS and wait lets tell jagr it ain't over yet come to L.A.. :wacko:

Edited by habs rule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the new cap what I would like to know is what is the maximum that any 1 player can make now?

I've been wondering since the Canucks offered Sundin 20 mil/2yrs. I didnt think a player could make 10 mil but I guess this new cap makes that possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the new cap what I would like to know is what is the maximum that any 1 player can make now?

I've been wondering since the Canucks offered Sundin 20 mil/2yrs. I didnt think a player could make 10 mil but I guess this new cap makes that possible.

Max player salary is 20% of the total team payroll, isn't it?

That puts the max at 11.2 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

some of these teams cap numbers are mind boggling. the rumour is that the ducks have signed brendon morrison and yet they have only 300k in cap room and haven't signed all their rfa's yet. WTF? Calgary is 1.5 mill over the cap. WTF? how are they going to be able to get under the cap and have 23 players. On the othe hand L. A. needs to spend somewhere around 12-14 million to reach the floor. Maybe they should be looking to sign Sundin BLDS and wait lets tell jagr it ain't over yet come to L.A.. :wacko:

That's why we've seen many veterans end up in the minors in the last few years, for example I believe the Ducks could still send Todd Marchant in the minors so that his salary doesn't count towards the cap (although he's 34 and if I remember the limit is 35). Otherwise, they're only slightly over the cap, so that could keep a 22-men roster instead of 23. However, they're more likely to trade either Marchant (if anyone takes him) or otherwise Schneider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand people who say the lockout was pointless since nothing has changed.

Just about every thread here nowadays includes discussion of team caps. Without the cap, the Rangers or Detroit would sign Sundin and Campbell and probably more stars. Even teams in small markets now have to spend 40 million. With some skill and luck that's enough money for any team to be competitive given the max of 57 million.

The cap has changed everything about building a team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand people who say the lockout was pointless since nothing has changed.

Just about every thread here nowadays includes discussion of team caps. Without the cap, the Rangers or Detroit would sign Sundin and Campbell and probably more stars. Even teams in small markets now have to spend 40 million. With some skill and luck that's enough money for any team to be competitive given the max of 57 million.

The cap has changed everything about building a team.

Well again, I think most people just wanted to see players make less money, regardless of the finances of the NHL in general. They applauded the salary cap linked to league revenues, but now that the league has more revenues and therefore players make more money, they're still not satisfied and think the lockout was all for nothing.

Personally, although I was against a cap I the first place, I think they mostly need to fix a few loopholes and increase the level of revenue sharing to ensure that all markets can be highly competitive (provided they average 15000+ sold tickets and make good hockey decisions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand people who say the lockout was pointless since nothing has changed.

Just about every thread here nowadays includes discussion of team caps. Without the cap, the Rangers or Detroit would sign Sundin and Campbell and probably more stars. Even teams in small markets now have to spend 40 million. With some skill and luck that's enough money for any team to be competitive given the max of 57 million.

The cap has changed everything about building a team.

Problem is : if the $Can drops dramatically (let's say it goes back to 0.89$US) the teams revenus will fall down and the owners will start to complain about how the salaries are high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well again, I think most people just wanted to see players make less money, regardless of the finances of the NHL in general. They applauded the salary cap linked to league revenues, but now that the league has more revenues and therefore players make more money, they're still not satisfied and think the lockout was all for nothing.

Personally, although I was against a cap I the first place, I think they mostly need to fix a few loopholes and increase the level of revenue sharing to ensure that all markets can be highly competitive (provided they average 15000+ sold tickets and make good hockey decisions).

perhaps I just have the luxury of rooting for teams that can spend to the max - Red Sox, Pats, Canadiens - but screw more revenue sharing.

We are not talking about the working poor - this is a business where billionaires pay millionaires to entertain the upper middle class (and the multi-billion dollar companies that buy the skyboxes). Now it is in the league's interest to have teams outside of the 10 best hockey markets, so it makes sense to have some revenue sharing. Other sports, most notably football, accomplish much of the revenue sharing by a national TV contract, which the US NHL market has in only the most theoretical sense.

If Florida can't support two hockey teams, don't give them corporate welfare! Let the Panthers go try Seattle or Portland or Winnipeg or Hamilton or Mississauga or Quebec City or Oklahoma City (yeah right) or whatever. And what if the Thrashers can't make a go of it? Contract to 28 teams... I guarantee you that the Panthers and the Thrashers do not represent 7% of the NHL's revenue. You want to lower salaries (which I personally don't care about except as far as salaries relate to putting together a team in the cap world)? Lower demand, i.e. contract the league.

Why should my Red Sox, who have the 4th highest payroll in the league pay for teams like Royals or Marlins - who spend less on payroll than they receive in revenue sharing? Obviously this phenomenon is more pronounced in baseball than in hockey, probably because of the the soft cap/hard cap issue.

Why the hell should revenue sharing be tied to revenue anyways? If you are going to have revenue sharing, why not reward small market teams for exceeding their market and punish big market teams for abusing theirs?

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/31/biz_07...tions_Rank.html

Per Forbes, the Chicago Blackhawks had $69mil in 2007 revenues, good for 20th in the league. They basically tied with the Hurricanes, IN RALEIGH! Metro Raleigh - 1.5 million people who are new to hockey. Metro Chicago 10 million people who have had hockey for generations. Now, both teams were a bit about the point where they would get revenue sharing (I think), but the Islanders were 30th in revenue! Even considering that they compete with the Devils and the Rangers for market share, a team in the largest media market in the United States should do better than 30th! How do you feel that some percentage of your ticket at Bell Centre is going to pay for the poor citizens of Long Island?

A modest solution - set the revenue share BEFORE calculating revenues. Set revenue share based on market size, length of stay (we give new teams time and assistance in building fan bases) and competition with other sports (maybe Atlanta's ability to pay for hockey is significantly impeded by the presence of the Braves, Hawks, and Falcons where the Hurricanes are comparatively operating as a monopoly).

Under this system Chicago would pay similar luxury tax as, let us say, the Canadiens. Quebec - Gatineau < Metro Chicago, but the habs generally have most of Quebec to itself. Is there any chance in the world that the Blackhawks would have left TV money on the table if they knew they were going to pay luxury tax? The Islanders will also get taxed, so they better go try to fight for share against the Rangers and Devils - I imagine most economists would say this would lead to an overall bigger pie to split up in the NYC metro area. Imagine what the Kings would do?

Now look at small market teams that succeed - we still give them credit because they are helping the league beyond their apportioned region. Metro Edmonton is only marginally smaller than metro Ottawa (and Edmonton has oil). The Senators were 6th in revenue and the Oliers were 18th. Each are less than half the size of Phoenix and about 1/4 the size of Washington, D.C. Now perhaps we give the canadian teams a bit less credit - it does seem easier to make a hockey buck in the Canada after all, but Phoenix was 25th and Washington 28! Why should Ottawa's 1.2 million give a cent to a franchise that is unable to tap a fast growing 3 million person proto-metropolis in Phoenix?

If you set the revenue share without looking at actual revenues, every team is always incentivized to maximize revenue and profits, which will undoubtedly lead to a more relevant league with a larger overall fanbase. Will certain teams falter or move? Sure, but why should we care? This is not like real state welfare, nobody is starving, they just don't get to run hockey teams anymore. A pre-share league would encourage teams to move to the right markets AND work hard to make money there. A team that wants to move to a bigger market - let us say Nashville to Seattle - can't just be lazy because there are more fans available. We will, rightly, expect more from the Seattle Predators. In a pre-share league we'd actually get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with some of what you said. Revenue sharing should be used to help a franchise compete despite operating in a smaller market (or a brand new market that needs to be developed) and not to compensate for bad hockey operations, nor should it be used for keep a franchise artificially alive where the fan base simply isn't there (or developping).

However, revenue sharing is important to ensure the stability of the league in general. As you pointed out, you cannot have a top profesionnal league with only a handful of franchises, therefore large markets need the smaller markets to make the NHL legitimate. Without them, there would revenues to share in the first place.

Basically my point of view is that revenue sharing should be used so that if any franchise is relatively successful at the gate - let's say at least 17,000 tickets sold on average every game - it should be in a position to afford keeping its best young players, and comfortably spend more than the salary floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with some of what you said. Revenue sharing should be used to help a franchise compete despite operating in a smaller market (or a brand new market that needs to be developed) and not to compensate for bad hockey operations, nor should it be used for keep a franchise artificially alive where the fan base simply isn't there (or developping).

However, revenue sharing is important to ensure the stability of the league in general. As you pointed out, you cannot have a top profesionnal league with only a handful of franchises, therefore large markets need the smaller markets to make the NHL legitimate. Without them, there would revenues to share in the first place.

Basically my point of view is that revenue sharing should be used so that if any franchise is relatively successful at the gate - let's say at least 17,000 tickets sold on average every game - it should be in a position to afford keeping its best young players, and comfortably spend more than the salary floor.

is that not the case right now? Are there many teams with good attendance figures that can't spend way above the floor?

Lets look at some small markets

Home attendance (Rank) v. Actual Payroll (better guide of finances)

Buffalo (2) - $49mil (they have lost some guys, but it seems to be because of 1) offer sheets and 2) cap ceiling issues

Ottawa (3) - $52mil

Calgary (6) - $61.8mil (that will have to change before the coming season)

Minnesota (10) - $49.7mil

San Jose (14) - $52 mil

Pittsburgh (16) - $51 mil

Edmonton (18) - $51.5 mil

Carolina (20) - $47.5 mil

Now lets look at teams near the floor

LA Kings (21) - $28.3 - no team in the second largest media market has an excuse to fail (even if it is warm and shared with another team)

Atlanta (22) - $32mil. I wonder how much of their attendance is paid.

NYI (30) - $38 mil. No sympathy for the Islanders at all. They have no attendance and they share the largest media market.

Phoenix (29) - $38 mil. Perfect example of a team not getting attendance in a large market. Now they are still working their way into the market, although they are already on their 2nd arena. Certainly we don't design a system to save Phoenix.

Nashville (27) - $43mil. Everybody knows that their attendance figures are inflated by giveaways and that they (IMO) have been very bad corporate citizens of Nashville. No sympathy.

So which team can fill their arena but can't sign players because of finances? I'm not seeing too much of that. Now there are certainly teams (of all market strengths) who have lost players because of cap issues, but I am not seeing much evidence of finances being a primary cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well in my opinion payroll doesn't really mean anything because it doesn't tell us whether the franchise is making a profit, breaking even, or losing money. After all, there was a lockout because according to the league, too many owners were losing money, and finances were out of control.

I agree with you that this seems to have changed a lot, and it will be interesting to see what numbers Bettman and the NHL come up with next year as the CBA comes to its first deadline (although players will likely not want to renegociate, and accept the extension). If they post those numbers anyway...

However, looking at your Forbes link, I see that some teams like San Jose and Colombus, both doing pretty well attendance-wise, appear to have had small losses for the 2006-07 season . However, since we don't know how Forbes came up with those numbers, that there several factors to consider (like San Jose taking on Malakhov's large contract for a draft pick), and that those losses are slim, there's no point in debating that.

Again, the important thing is that the NHL must make sure that teams that sell hockey tickets have the money to be competitve. Otherwise, I agree with tour "no sympathy" policy for teams like New Jersey (great team for a decade yet no support), Pheonix (whether it's a bad market or a bad marketing team, they still don't sell tickets, Los Angeles (huge population, long history)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...