24K Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 1 hour ago, HKSR said: That's a terrible excuse. The intention of the salary cap was for the sake of parity across the league. Take that away and you get teams like VGK or TBL with cumulative cap hits of $100m for the playoffs. We all can see it so clearly, yet the NHL turns a blind eye. Well the actual intention of the cap is player wage suppression. Parity is just a beneficial side effect of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 3 minutes ago, 24K said: Well the actual intention of the cap is player wage suppression. Parity is just a beneficial side effect of that. Help! Help! We're being repressed! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUSK v2.0 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 16 hours ago, Sativika said: Do you mean Knights are doing such to bring them back for playoffs? Um, yeah. Cap space is a real thing that all the Sign Petterson camp doesnt see. Its a tricky to rock a rhyme thats right on time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUSK v2.0 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 15 hours ago, The Arrogant Worms said: Canucks recall Jett Woo from AHL, place Carson Soucy on LTIR General Manager Patrik Allvin announced today the following roster moves: - F Dakota Joshua placed on retroactive injured reserve - D Carson Soucy placed on retroactive LTIR - D Jett Woo recalled from Abbotsford (AHL) Well, its not as fancy as Vegas, but at least someone is paying attention to the cap. Hopefully Soucy doesnt have the same hand doctor as Pearson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUSK v2.0 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 10 minutes ago, 24K said: Well the actual intention of the cap is player wage suppression. Parity is just a beneficial side effect of that. The side effect is Toronto saying everyone is worth $10mil + dollars! how far does that go? Toronto's LTIR is crazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 32 minutes ago, 24K said: Well the actual intention of the cap is player wage suppression. Parity is just a beneficial side effect of that. https://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/insightshub/finance-investing-accounting/salary-cap#:~:text=They were instituted to enhance,average players' salaries over time. "Salary caps have been around since 1994 and are used in all North American professional sport leagues with different degrees. They were instituted to enhance competitiveness among league teams, and to large extent were successful in achieving this goal." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24K Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 1 minute ago, HKSR said: https://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/insightshub/finance-investing-accounting/salary-cap#:~:text=They were instituted to enhance,average players' salaries over time. "Salary caps have been around since 1994 and are used in all North American professional sport leagues with different degrees. They were instituted to enhance competitiveness among league teams, and to large extent were successful in achieving this goal." For other leagues yeah, but not the nhl where total salary have eclipsed revenues for some teams before the cap. Just look at how Penguins have to lay Lemieux with shares of the team cause they can't come up with the case. A hardcap like the one we have in the nhl is designed to keep salary down otherwise we would have gotten a soft cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 Just now, 24K said: For other leagues yeah, but not the nhl where total salary have eclipsed revenues for some teams before the cap. Just look at how Penguins have to lay Lemieux with shares of the team cause they can't come up with the case. A hardcap like the one we have in the nhl is designed to keep salary down otherwise we would have gotten a soft cap. The cap wasn't designed to keep salary down. It was designed to provide parity and the by product is salaries actually go up. You can read up more about it in that article and others. NHL included. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4ZZY Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 16 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said: Well Gillis tried to circumvent the cap with the Luongo contract. Just New Jersey with the Kovalchuk contract. League ****'d us with a dead cap hit. League *LESSENED* the original penalty imposed on New Jersey....because "reasons" I hate this league sometimes. So much inconsistency from the higher ups. Can't wait until Bettman and his cronies are finally gone one day. He has no interest in growing the game in Canada; but more in the US. Like is Atlanta really a city that they would go back to? There's no interest there in hockey. Nobody even knew the Thrashers existed while they were there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 21 minutes ago, N4ZZY said: I hate this league sometimes. So much inconsistency from the higher ups. Can't wait until Bettman and his cronies are finally gone one day. He has no interest in growing the game in Canada; but more in the US. Like is Atlanta really a city that they would go back to? There's no interest there in hockey. Nobody even knew the Thrashers existed while they were there. Even the Atlanta Flames were hardly a terrible team. I *think* they were a playoff team that a good number of players were on the roster that won the Cup with Calgary when the team moved there. It wasn't a case of a city not supporting a sh*tty team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24K Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 2 hours ago, HKSR said: The cap wasn't designed to keep salary down. It was designed to provide parity and the by product is salaries actually go up. You can read up more about it in that article and others. NHL included. The cap is to keep salary down with respect ti revenue. It is designed to limitit financial risk and improve financial integrity of the league and part of that is to prevent an arms race in player salaries to avoid situations where player comp exceeds revenue. It has the bonus effect of having smaller market teams to be competitive due to them now not having to go into a salary arms race with the big market teams. I think we can agree on that the cap does 2 things at once. Allows the big market teams to suppress salary and allow small market teams the chance to compete all due to not having to go into an salary arms race for players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 8 minutes ago, 24K said: The cap is to keep salary down with respect ti revenue. It is designed to limitit financial risk and improve financial integrity of the league and part of that is to prevent an arms race in player salaries to avoid situations where player comp exceeds revenue. It has the bonus effect of having smaller market teams to be competitive due to them now not having to go into a salary arms race with the big market teams. I think we can agree on that the cap does 2 things at once. Allows the big market teams to suppress salary and allow small market teams the chance to compete all due to not having to go into an salary arms race for players. I get what youre saying, but the original intent was to provide parity so the big markets wouldn't dominate over the small market teams by simply spending more. It wasn't designed to simply suppress salaries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24K Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 2 hours ago, HKSR said: I get what youre saying, but the original intent was to provide parity so the big markets wouldn't dominate over the small market teams by simply spending more. It wasn't designed to simply suppress salaries. The intent was both. Large teams want to get salary under control and small teams wants the large team to be limited in what they can spend so they get a chance at good players. Ofcourse the public messaging is gonna be for parity otherwise it would be disaster pr for the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 Just now, 24K said: The intent was both. Large teams want to get salary under control and small teams wants the large team to be limited in what they can spend so they get a chance at good players. Ofcourse the public messaging is gonna be for parity otherwise it would be disaster pr for the league. No it wasn't. There's tons of articles around that talk about the intent of the cap. Top guys still get paid top dollars. It's the lower end guys that pay the price. The worst of it is actually in the other leagues. Some of those leagues top guys get paid $50m+ a season whereas the lower tier guys on the same team get $750k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24K Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 (edited) 16 minutes ago, HKSR said: No it wasn't. There's tons of articles around that talk about the intent of the cap. Top guys still get paid top dollars. It's the lower end guys that pay the price. The worst of it is actually in the other leagues. Some of those leagues top guys get paid $50m+ a season whereas the lower tier guys on the same team get $750k. Do you not understand the concept of PR? League is not gonna come out and say they are doing it to control salary and the media ain't gonna come out and bite the hands that feed them. Just look at how media is treating the bad officiating throughout the league. Also the point is first and foremost to control the high salary of top end players so not sure what point you are trying to make there. For businesses, it doesn't care how much of the pie each individual is getting, all it care about is total compensation cost. I am done arguing. The intend is honestly both. Control salary and increase parity. For PR, they definitely will push the latter to the public. Let's not hold the owners as some sort of saints that care so deeply about competiveness throughout the league above all else. Edited February 22 by 24K 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 6 minutes ago, 24K said: Do you not understand the concept of PR? League is not gonna come out and say they are doing it to control salary and the media ain't gonna come out and bite the hands that feed them. Just look at how media is treating the bad officiating throughout the league. Also the point is first and foremost to control the high salary of top end players so not sure what point you are trying to make there. For businesses, it doesn't care how much of the pie each individual is getting, all it care about is total compensation cost. I am done arguing. The intend is honestly both. Control salary and increase parity. For PR, they definitely will push the latter to the public. Let's not hold the owners as some sort of saints that care so deeply about competiveness throughout the league above all else. Why the hell do they care about PR? This was a decision between the players association and the league. So what if they came out and said they wanna control salaries? Does that impact the public in some way? Or is that really a negative? Think that one through. Fact is the cap was intended to build parity within the league. The other factors are a by product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoop Hogg Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 9 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said: Help! Help! We're being repressed! Lawdy lawdy we’ll never roam free! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24K Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 (edited) 3 hours ago, HKSR said: Why the hell do they care about PR? This was a decision between the players association and the league. So what if they came out and said they wanna control salaries? Does that impact the public in some way? Or is that really a negative? Think that one through. In any labour dispute, it not only the unions and employers that are the stakeholders, the customer or consumer also plays a role in applying pressure to one side or the other. If you can avoid it, you want the customer to be on your side. If you are the league, you rather want to paint the players as greedy than being painted yourself as greedy billionaire that nickle and dime the players. The patience of the fans is greatly dependent on who they blame. Patience will be high if court of public opinion is with the players as most would identify more with the labor than owners while patience would be low if with the owners. Prime example is the writers and actor strike last year. The only reason it lasted that long and the unions getting pretty much everything they wanted was because the public was on their side after the shenanigans studio execs pulled with the starving them out comment generating extremely bad PR. Donations flooded in from the public after that resulting in a larger war chest for the guilds to out last the studios. 3 hours ago, HKSR said: Fact is the cap was intended to build parity within the league. The other factors are a by product. I offered you an olive branch but.... Where is your facts? Sources? Frankly I was being too differential to your arguments cause after doing a little search, the league didn't even bother with the parity narrative and just plainly stated their desire for cost certainty. Reports from 2005. "Owners insist the caps are necessary to control accelerating salaries that have pushed teams into the red. But the players' association has challenged the financial projections owners have used to justify the caps and has instead pushed for revenue-sharing among teams." http://edition.cnn.com/2005/SPORT/02/05/nhl.lockout/ "The league has said it doesn't believe in a luxury tax because it's not predictable and doesn't guarantee cost certainty. On Tuesday, Bettman called a luxury tax "guesswork." https://www.espn.com/nhl/news/story?id=1935455 "There were numerous issues on the bargaining table in 2004–05: higher player fines for misbehavior, reducing the schedule of games, minimum salaries, playoff bonuses for players, free agency, operation of the salary arbitration process, and revenue sharing. Overshadowing all other issues, however, was the league’s desire for “cost certainty,” provided by a maximum team salary cap linked to league revenues." " Levitt (NHL) found that the league lost $273 million in the 2002–03 season, with 19 teams losing money and 11 teams profitable. 9 In an earlier internal report, the league found that it spent 76 percent of its annual revenue Monthly Labor Review December 2005 25 on player salaries, significantly more than corresponding spending in other sports." https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/12/art3full.pdf If that wasn't enough. Straight from the horse's mouth. Two mention of parity and the rest is all about economic, cost certainty, and player salary. Edited February 23 by 24K 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 1 minute ago, 24K said: In any labour dispute, it not only the unions and employers that are the stakeholders, the customer or consumer also plays a role in applying pressure to one side or the other. If you can avoid it, you want the customer to be on your side. If you are the league, you rather want to paint the players as greedy than being painted yourself as greedy billionaire that nickle and dime the players. The patience of the fans is greatly dependent on who they blame. Patience will be high if court of public opinion is with the players as most would identify more with the labor than owners while patience would be low if with the owners. Prime example is the writers and actor strike last year. The only reason it lasted that long and the unions getting pretty much everything they wanted was because the public was on their side after the shenanigans studio execs pulled with the starving them out comment generating extremely bad PR. Donations flooded in from the public after that resulting in a larger war chest for the guilds to out last the studios. I offered you an olive branch but looks like you decided this is the tree you want to hang yourself on so who am I to deny you your wish. Where is your facts? Sources? Frankly I was being too differential to your arguments cause after doing a little search, the league didn't even bother with the parity narrative and just plainly stated their desire for cost certainty. Reports from 2005. "Owners insist the caps are necessary to control accelerating salaries that have pushed teams into the red. But the players' association has challenged the financial projections owners have used to justify the caps and has instead pushed for revenue-sharing among teams." http://edition.cnn.com/2005/SPORT/02/05/nhl.lockout/ "The league has said it doesn't believe in a luxury tax because it's not predictable and doesn't guarantee cost certainty. On Tuesday, Bettman called a luxury tax "guesswork." https://www.espn.com/nhl/news/story?id=1935455 "There were numerous issues on the bargaining table in 2004–05: higher player fines for misbehavior, reducing the schedule of games, minimum salaries, playoff bonuses for players, free agency, operation of the salary arbitration process, and revenue sharing. Overshadowing all other issues, however, was the league’s desire for “cost certainty,” provided by a maximum team salary cap linked to league revenues." " Levitt (NHL) found that the league lost $273 million in the 2002–03 season, with 19 teams losing money and 11 teams profitable. 9 In an earlier internal report, the league found that it spent 76 percent of its annual revenue Monthly Labor Review December 2005 25 on player salaries, significantly more than corresponding spending in other sports." https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/12/art3full.pdf If that wasn't enough. Straight from the horse's mouth. Two mention of parity and the rest is all about economic, cost certainty, and player salary. I gave you a source from an actual university study on the topic. Then there's also this article with background info that led to the lockout and subsequent cap implementation. The big teams finally realized you didn't need to spend massive dollars to ice a competitive team. With the big markets on board, they finally got to the table to discuss the cap more seriously. https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-2004-05-lockout-impacts-2020/ Here's another: https://thewincolumn.ca/2023/08/17/exploring-whether-the-nhl-should-implement-a-luxury-tax-as-opposed-to-a-hard-salary-cap/#:~:text=The NHL's salary cap was,veteran players to massive contracts. "The NHL’s salary cap was implemented during the 2004–05 lockout season. The idea was first proposed during the 1994–95 lockout to combat larger market teams with higher revenues from signing veteran players to massive contracts. This inevitably led to teams like the New York Rangers being loaded with talent while smaller market teams had no way of coming close to matching the contracts being offered by big market teams" The cap was clearly pushed to allow small market teams to compete, otherwise the league would have contracted to just the large market teams. The reason there was so much hemoraging was because the league was so unbalanced to the point fans were abandoning the game in droves. And just use your logic. If the league and players union came out and said they were implementing a cap to limit salary increases, it basically tells the public that they will be able to better control costs including ticket prices. If anything that's exactly what I'd expect them to say. It's the easiest "sell" for a lockout that pissed off a ton of hockey fans otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24K Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 1 minute ago, HKSR said: I gave you a source from an actual university study on the topic. Then there's also this article with background info that led to the lockout and subsequent cap implementation. The big teams finally realized you didn't need to spend massive dollars to ice a competitive team. With the big markets on board, they finally got to the table to discuss the cap more seriously. https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-2004-05-lockout-impacts-2020/ Here's another: https://thewincolumn.ca/2023/08/17/exploring-whether-the-nhl-should-implement-a-luxury-tax-as-opposed-to-a-hard-salary-cap/#:~:text=The NHL's salary cap was,veteran players to massive contracts. "The NHL’s salary cap was implemented during the 2004–05 lockout season. The idea was first proposed during the 1994–95 lockout to combat larger market teams with higher revenues from signing veteran players to massive contracts. This inevitably led to teams like the New York Rangers being loaded with talent while smaller market teams had no way of coming close to matching the contracts being offered by big market teams" The cap was clearly pushed to allow small market teams to compete, otherwise the league would have contracted to just the large market teams. The reason there was so much hemoraging was because the league was so unbalanced to the point fans were abandoning the game in droves. And just use your logic. If the league and players union came out and said they were implementing a cap to limit salary increases, it basically tells the public that they will be able to better control costs including ticket prices. If anything that's exactly what I'd expect them to say. It's the easiest "sell" for a lockout that pissed off a ton of hockey fans otherwise. University study from an financial analyst using game theory does not shown intent. It was an analysis of the effects more than about the history. I quoted a paper from the US labor department from 2005 stating their analysis and the need of salary control due to hemorrhaging of money. I used sources from reporting at the time to reduce hindsight bias. Also read a bit below that article and see this quote to completely disprove your point about the Rangers paying to win. "However, what the Rangers and Red Wings found out the hard way was money doesn’t necessarily buy Stanley Cups. The Rangers finished the regular season with a record of 27-40-7-8 for a lowly 69 points. They scored just 206 goals and won a paltry 13 games at home in Madison Square Garden. It was an ugly season that ended with them missing the playoffs" I am not going to deny that the cap have the effect of allowing smaller market team to compete. That is part of the reason but the mean reason is cost certainty where player cost exploded relative to other leagues and revenue. Also reason for hemorrhaging was due to weak Canadian dollar, and relative small slice hockey take in from tv, and rapid expansion which I would concede caused imbalance and having them quickly becoming irrelevant. The league learned from that with how generous the expansion was for Vegas and Seattle. The labor department report lists compelling reasons for why teams were hemorrhaging money. Like I said, it is a combination of both and not just for parity sake along. Now take the olive branch cause this is taking up a lot of time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 3 minutes ago, 24K said: University study from an financial analyst using game theory does not shown intent. It was an analysis of the effects more than about the history. I quoted a paper from the US labor department from 2005 stating their analysis and the need of salary control due to hemorrhaging of money. I used sources from reporting at the time to reduce hindsight bias. Also read a bit below that article and see this quote to completely disprove your point about the Rangers paying to win. "However, what the Rangers and Red Wings found out the hard way was money doesn’t necessarily buy Stanley Cups. The Rangers finished the regular season with a record of 27-40-7-8 for a lowly 69 points. They scored just 206 goals and won a paltry 13 games at home in Madison Square Garden. It was an ugly season that ended with them missing the playoffs" I am not going to deny that the cap have the effect of allowing smaller market team to compete. That is part of the reason but the mean reason is cost certainty where player cost exploded relative to other leagues and revenue. Also reason for hemorrhaging was due to weak Canadian dollar, and relative small slice hockey take in from tv, and rapid expansion which I would concede caused imbalance and having them quickly becoming irrelevant. The league learned from that with how generous the expansion was for Vegas and Seattle. The labor department report lists compelling reasons for why teams were hemorrhaging money. Like I said, it is a combination of both and not just for parity sake along. Now take the olive branch cause this is taking up a lot of time. I'll give you credit because you actually took the time to find sources unlike a bunch of other morons on these boards. Anyways, I think we're done here. The game is on, kinda wanna focus on that right now. Enjoy the game! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 The only thing holding onto pre-cap era level of playoffs ... is this: I don't mind either. Canucks should get into this too. Bury someone and bring them back and Geuntzal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 (edited) 10 hours ago, HKSR said: I gave you a source from an actual university study on the topic. Then there's also this article with background info that led to the lockout and subsequent cap implementation. The big teams finally realized you didn't need to spend massive dollars to ice a competitive team. With the big markets on board, they finally got to the table to discuss the cap more seriously. https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-2004-05-lockout-impacts-2020/ Here's another: https://thewincolumn.ca/2023/08/17/exploring-whether-the-nhl-should-implement-a-luxury-tax-as-opposed-to-a-hard-salary-cap/#:~:text=The NHL's salary cap was,veteran players to massive contracts. "The NHL’s salary cap was implemented during the 2004–05 lockout season. The idea was first proposed during the 1994–95 lockout to combat larger market teams with higher revenues from signing veteran players to massive contracts. This inevitably led to teams like the New York Rangers being loaded with talent while smaller market teams had no way of coming close to matching the contracts being offered by big market teams" The cap was clearly pushed to allow small market teams to compete, otherwise the league would have contracted to just the large market teams. The reason there was so much hemoraging was because the league was so unbalanced to the point fans were abandoning the game in droves. And just use your logic. If the league and players union came out and said they were implementing a cap to limit salary increases, it basically tells the public that they will be able to better control costs including ticket prices. If anything that's exactly what I'd expect them to say. It's the easiest "sell" for a lockout that pissed off a ton of hockey fans otherwise. Fans weren't leaving. Lived through salary escalation. And your bang on with NYR, they loaded up with their huge bank accounts like a Grandma playing penny slots in Reno. NHLPA got so greedy. So fast. We didn't need expansion. That part sucked the air and talent out fast. Salary escalation got so bad, fans actually sided with the owners at the end. Bettman is a lot of things, but he did save the league. It's not NBA. Or NFL and especially not MLB. Where one TV deal covers all the wages. Losing the Nords, but adding SJ, ANA and OTT was a tough pill to swallow. Same as WNP. WTF. Those were a result of all funds in US dollars. The Canucks were bleeding money too. Bure refused not to be paid in US funds, and back then it was around 60 cents CAN on the dollar. Plus high taxes. So here we are, in a 53% tax bracket, and EP's next deal bothers us. 12 x 8. Too much, maybe. Likely even. What to do? Edit: Fans didn't abandon WNP and Quebec City. What's hilarious, is ARI average attendance. Also funny that Patrick Kane, Toews, and Keith were sent to malls in CHI giving out free tickets after all their sucking. And even funnier, CAR (formally Hartford, and can cheer for those guys anyway) they won a cup... and also went to a final.. yet needed some sort of Thunderstruck WTF is going on gimmicky crap to bring fans back to Raleigh and they are a fucking good team! At least Bettman reluctantly relented and let us have WNP back. Quebec City did everything humanly possible, spent 400 (800 easily today) million to build a world class hockey arena ... yet somehow their "market" is too small. It's ok to have 3-5k fans to show up. lol. Wow. No it's not. Sure hope, at the very least, they can put a pin on future expansion. The NBA. NFL and MLB has. A 32 team league is bad enough. Prefer a 24 team league but get that's never going to happen. Adding two teams per division should be the 20 year plan. Not a 10 year one. And shouldn't happen for at least another 10 years. The talent is finally catching up with it. Don't ruin that. McDavid and Mathews, are at best maybe Crosby and Ovi, and definitely not Gretkzy and Mario. Edited February 23 by IBatch 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cluminati Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 Put Mik on ltir. 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.