Salary Cap Thoughts

Shantz My Pants · Jul 17, 2015

To spark some conversation around here with the lull of the offseason, I figured I'd see what everyone thinks about the NHL and the salary cap.

I know Ken Campbell of THN does not like it one bit due to larger market teams who can pay more are getting screwed due to the cap.

I've always liked it since it's another thing teams need to take into account when acquiring talent and trying to create a balance. It also puts more of a premium on drafting and developing talent instead of being the Rangers and just overpaying for over the hill NHLers pre-salary cap era.

It's also made the league more competitive since every team has a certain amount they can spend, and not one team always getting the top tier UFAs.

Thoughts...?

Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

Raskolnikov · Jul 17, 2015

Nice topic. The NHL cap feels a bit tight to me. You shouldn't have teams like the Avalanche having to jettison a player they drafted like Ryan O'Reilly so early, or the Blackhawks losing a 2 cup winner in Saad at 22 when they only have 2 max players, 2 sixes, a 4, and a couple 2's. It means so many guys are stuck at the minimum for cap reasons or clubs will just go younger. Desjardins at 900,000 for an example. Not good enough to get that 1.8 middling players capable of holding a starting spot but nothing more get.

The cap is necessary but I don't think its necessary to set it where its comfortable for the majority of franchises. If a cap is 90,000,000 it allows the overspenders to mess things up a bit and get messy but still compete in a big market where its good for the league. A small market still has a chance with 70,000,000 and has the option to spend up to the cap in years when they know they have developed the talent and have a winning club. It seems bad for the league when teams don't have the flexibility to take talent like Bickell off the blackhawks hands because cap is too tight. My guess is 82,000,000 in the NHL would be about right where you could buy a team, but you couldn't guarantee anything with just 1 or 2 more good players on the spenders, and I feel like there is suppressed dollars at the bottom end too that need to have some pressure off the ability to pay the desjardins of the world and such.

I'm all for cap min's and max's, that allow a small market team to go into a mini-shell for a period of years but emerge quickly when ready to spend in a market thats been kept reasonably fair for them.

Ton · Jul 17, 2015

You raise the max, and that will inflate player salaries.

As long as there is some dumb GM out there willing to pay a 3rd line player 2nd or 1st line money, then it won't matter where you put the dollar amount. To me, managing the Cap is more about percentages than actual dollar amounts.

Chief Walking Stick · Jul 17, 2015

Ton said:
You raise the max, and that will inflate player salaries.

As long as there is some dumb GM out there willing to pay a 3rd line player 2nd or 1st line money, then it won't matter where you put the dollar amount. To me, managing the Cap is more about percentages than actual dollar amounts.

Dion Phaneuf and Bobby Ryan

Sunbiz1 · Jul 17, 2015

Raskolnikov said:
Nice topic. The NHL cap feels a bit tight to me. You shouldn't have teams like the Avalanche having to jettison a player they drafted like Ryan O'Reilly so early, or the Blackhawks losing a 2 cup winner in Saad at 22 when they only have 2 max players, 2 sixes, a 4, and a couple 2's. It means so many guys are stuck at the minimum for cap reasons or clubs will just go younger. Desjardins at 900,000 for an example. Not good enough to get that 1.8 middling players capable of holding a starting spot but nothing more get.

The cap is necessary but I don't think its necessary to set it where its comfortable for the majority of franchises. If a cap is 90,000,000 it allows the overspenders to mess things up a bit and get messy but still compete in a big market where its good for the league. A small market still has a chance with 70,000,000 and has the option to spend up to the cap in years when they know they have developed the talent and have a winning club. It seems bad for the league when teams don't have the flexibility to take talent like Bickell off the blackhawks hands because cap is too tight. My guess is 82,000,000 in the NHL would be about right where you could buy a team, but you couldn't guarantee anything with just 1 or 2 more good players on the spenders, and I feel like there is suppressed dollars at the bottom end too that need to have some pressure off the ability to pay the desjardins of the world and such.

I'm all for cap min's and max's, that allow a small market team to go into a mini-shell for a period of years but emerge quickly when ready to spend in a market thats been kept reasonably fair for them.

"The NHL cap feels a bit tight to me."

Understatement of the year, Bowman's had achy balls for weeks.

This hard cap is crap, and players deserve more $$. Hockey requires the most amount of skill in ANY team sport, and the season is longer than baseball. Yet they are paid the least when compared to NFL/NBA/MLB.

It feels like 2011 again, and results will be the same b/c that's how the NHL wants it...so that places like Columbus can support a team while Seattle does without.

Hope Saad enjoys the $$, b/c fans in that state care only for 2 things...football and NASCAR.

ClydeLee · Jul 17, 2015

Sunbiz1 said:
"The NHL cap feels a bit tight to me."

Understatement of the year, Bowman's had achy balls for weeks.

This hard cap is crap, and players deserve more $$. Hockey requires the most amount of skill in ANY team sport, and the season is longer than baseball. Yet they are paid the least when compared to NFL/NBA/MLB.

It feels like 2011 again, and results will be the same b/c that's how the NHL wants it...so that places like Columbus can support a team while Seattle does without.

Hope Saad enjoys the $$, b/c fans in that state care only for 2 things...football and NASCAR.

Because they have smaller audiences than those other 3 sports... that's what draws money and causes the cap to rise and shrink. They don't deserve more than other athletes. they deserve what they earn, which is what they get by drawing attention.

ClydeLee · Jul 17, 2015

That's the very establishment of the relationship you build in a CBA with your players agreement. They're a union is what they are and they don't deserve more money because other sports do. Athletes make salaries based upon the amounts of money they can draw in on the league scale.

If they got paid like NBA/NFL players the league would go bankrupt and where would they be getting that money from then? Then can only get so much to support the league which comes from how much support the league gets via fanbases.

DMelt36 · Jul 18, 2015

Sunbiz1 said:
This hard cap is crap, and players deserve more $$. Hockey requires the most amount of skill in ANY team sport, and the season is longer than baseball. Yet they are paid the least when compared to NFL/NBA/MLB.

While this is a nice thought and all, it's just not realistic. The NHL doesn't make enough money to have salaries that compete with those three sports.

It's also worth mentioning that the NHL's salary cap is tied to the total revenue generated by the entire league. A certain percentage (believe it's in the mid-50s) of the HRR (Hockey-related revenue) is spent on the players, which is how they determine the salary cap for each team. This was one of the HUGE arguments during the last lockout and I believe it's now locked in for a decade from the signing of the current CBA at the end of said lockout. That's why growing the game would be a huge help for teams like the Hawks, as more revenue for the league means a higher salary cap.

Now, as a fan of a team with a ton of money to spend, I hate the salary cap. I hate that the Hawks have had to give up on so many different players over the last 5-6 years because they couldn't make the finances work. On the other hand, though, I see it as a necessary evil, because I don't believe the NHL would survive without it--certainly not as a 30-team league. Too many of the teams in shitty markets without big budgets wouldn't be able to keep up with teams like the Hawks, Rangers, and the Canadian teams, and those teams would have to fold or move somewhere else because they'd lose money while constantly putting inferior products on the ice.

Sunbiz1 · Jul 18, 2015

DMelt36 said:
While this is a nice thought and all, it's just not realistic. The NHL doesn't make enough money to have salaries that compete with those three sports.

It's also worth mentioning that the NHL's salary cap is tied to the total revenue generated by the entire league. A certain percentage (believe it's in the mid-50s) of the HRR (Hockey-related revenue) is spent on the players, which is how they determine the salary cap for each team. This was one of the HUGE arguments during the last lockout and I believe it's now locked in for a decade from the signing of the current CBA at the end of said lockout. That's why growing the game would be a huge help for teams like the Hawks, as more revenue for the league means a higher salary cap.

Now, as a fan of a team with a ton of money to spend, I hate the salary cap. I hate that the Hawks have had to give up on so many different players over the last 5-6 years because they couldn't make the finances work. On the other hand, though, I see it as a necessary evil, because I don't believe the NHL would survive without it--certainly not as a 30-team league. Too many of the teams in shitty markets without big budgets wouldn't be able to keep up with teams like the Hawks, Rangers, and the Canadian teams, and those teams would have to fold or move somewhere else because they'd lose money while constantly putting inferior products on the ice.

Then why not improve revenue by moving poor market teams into better locations?

Seattle and Portland are huge untapped markets, while the Blue Jackets have remained in obscurity for over a decade.

DMelt36 · Jul 18, 2015

Sunbiz1 said:
Then why not improve revenue by moving poor market teams into better locations?

Seattle and Portland are huge untapped markets, while the Blue Jackets have remained in obscurity for over a decade.

You think teams can just build a fan base overnight? It takes time, man. And CBJ's attendance has steadily improved in the last 3 seasons because their team is loading up with young talent and is starting to look pretty good. That's their biggest problem: they've only made the playoffs twice in their existence. You put a shitty team in Columbus or Seattle or Portland or Chicago and people won't go.

And it's easy to say, "yeah, just move a team." Arizona's been trying to do that for several years now. Rarely that simple.

TV money and sponsorship (especially beer) money is where the real money is in pro sports, anyway. The NHL just needs to make its brand better-known on the national scene in the US. Not an issue in Canada, obviously. That's the best way to raise the league's revenue.

Raskolnikov · Jul 18, 2015

Chicago is making the game more popular. Kane leading the league in points I think would help, as would Kane leading the U.S. on an epic gold medal run.
The canadians are going to be a terror up the middle another 2 olympics, but Kane has to find a way along with the other capable U.S. stars.

Are the Hawks spending more than other teams? How many teams were within 5 million of cap last year? Thats my question if its too tight. The numbers are all fudged, as 27 teams including blackhawks reported revenue losses. That figure does not include net value growth.

So is it 5 teams up to the cap, or like 29? If its 29 somebody is lying and the cap is too tight.

Sunbiz1 · Jul 18, 2015

DMelt36 said:
You think teams can just build a fan base overnight? It takes time, man. And CBJ's attendance has steadily improved in the last 3 seasons because their team is loading up with young talent and is starting to look pretty good. That's their biggest problem: they've only made the playoffs twice in their existence. You put a shitty team in Columbus or Seattle or Portland or Chicago and people won't go.

And it's easy to say, "yeah, just move a team." Arizona's been trying to do that for several years now. Rarely that simple.

TV money and sponsorship (especially beer) money is where the real money is in pro sports, anyway. The NHL just needs to make its brand better-known on the national scene in the US. Not an issue in Canada, obviously. That's the best way to raise the league's revenue.

Marketing NHL players presents more of a challenge, most homegrown talent are just regular Joe's and the rest are from overseas. Much different than the NFL, where we know players intimately well before they are even drafted...sometimes for the wrong reasons.

Guys like John McDonough have the skill-sets for this job, as our ratings generally are better than markets of similar populations.

BlackHawkPaul · Jul 20, 2015

Sunbiz1 said:
Marketing NHL players presents more of a challenge, most homegrown talent are just regular Joe's and the rest are from overseas. Much different than the NFL, where we know players intimately well before they are even drafted...sometimes for the wrong reasons.

Guys like John McDonough have the skill-sets for this job, as our ratings generally are better than markets of similar populations.

There aren't many markets that have 9 million people.
Dallas?
NY?
LA?
Toronto?

That's probably it.

Tjodalv · Jul 20, 2015

Simply raising the cap only brings in short-term relief; as the next round of FA signees or re-signings will want their contract to be based on a % of the total cap. That's just how it works: cap rises, player salaries (especially top-tier) rise in relation to the cap, everybody is right up against the ceiling again in a few years. Pretty much the only real relief would be found in players that are locked into very long term deals; but many of them would likely ask for a restructuring with a salary increase as soon as they see lesser players making a few mil more per year than them.

Yes, losing young talent sucks, but every team has to do it from time to time -- either that or keep the top end of their team barren of superstars in order to have more depth via mid-level contracts.

Edit: if you wanted to be able to keep several super stars on your team while also paying young talent I suppose you could put a maximum contract cap (a la basketball), but I really don't see that happening in the NHL.

Sunbiz1 · Jul 20, 2015

BlackHawkPaul said:
There aren't many markets that have 9 million people.
Dallas?
NY?
LA?
Toronto?

That's probably it.

And zero markets with 9M plus 3 titles, yet LA/NY both support 2 teams...God forbid that should ever happen here.

There are 3 cities I still feel have the ability to support NHL teams better than a few of the current sunbelt organizations:

Seattle, Portland, and Milwaukee...yes Millwaukee.

winos5 · Jul 20, 2015

Houston could support an NHL team.

Ton · Jul 20, 2015

Sunbiz1 said:
And zero markets with 9M plus 3 titles, yet LA/NY both support 2 teams...God forbid that should ever happen here.

There are 3 cities I still feel have the ability to support NHL teams better than a few of the current sunbelt organizations:

Seattle, Portland, and Milwaukee...yes Millwaukee.

I think Milwaukee would be at the top of the list if not for Chicago being so close... the Hawks might have to sign off on something like that and who knows, maybe they have nixed it every time the possibility is brought up.

BlackHawkPaul · Jul 20, 2015

Ton said:
I think Milwaukee would be at the top of the list if not for Chicago being so close... the Hawks might have to sign off on something like that and who knows, maybe they have nixed it every time the possibility is brought up.

Correct.
WWW didn't want a team in Milwaukee and Rocky won't either.

ClydeLee · Jul 21, 2015

BlackHawkPaul said:
Correct.
WWW didn't want a team in Milwaukee and Rocky won't either.

I highly doubt Rocky would fight it.

But the thing is you still need someone with the finances to want to build the team in the spot. I read looking at it a few months back there is even some strife currently with the stadium in relation with the AHL team that plays there right now. So situations beyond fanbase are really difficult to fit into the spot right now but if someone has the ducats and desire to keep it at that stadium in Milwaukee it would probably be accepted. Them getting a team wouldn't hurt this Hawks market it's not the situation or fear of competition world Bill imagined he was in.

winos5 · Jul 21, 2015

Las Vegas and Quebec City only groups that submitted formal bids. No Seattle, Kansas City, Toronto or Milwaukee. Per TSN.

Salary Cap Thoughts

New member

CCS Donator

New member

Heeeh heeeeh he said POLES

New member

New member

New member

Bolland > You

New member

Bolland > You

CCS Donator

New member

Fartbarf

Discoverer of Dragosaurs

New member

CCS Donator

New member

Fartbarf

New member

CCS Donator