Two interesting articles on the lockout

[Guest Marcelo Cordoba]

UBC professor weighs pros/cons of a cap

Baseball owners settled for luxury tax

[GekigangarIII 0]

HE'S ALIVE!!! :) :)

[Jim Bob 0]

If a cap is anti-fan, then why do so many fans like the NFL and want the NHL to adopt a similiar system?

Could it be that a system like the NFL's allows fans of all teams to have the hope that if their team is run well that they can compete regardless of market size?

Nah, that can't be it............................

[Chadd 916]

An NFL style cap would force more player turnover every season. When a large percentage of your team is new every year, it's hard to have good chemistry.

Small market teams have to make good decisions and have to be very lucky. A few injuries can wreck a season for a team. Tampa went all season without any major injuries, for example.

[Jim Bob 0]

If a cap is anti-fan, then why do so many fans like the NFL and want the NHL to adopt a similiar system?

Could it be that a system like the NFL's allows fans of all teams to have the hope that if their team is run well that they can compete regardless of market size?

Nah, that can't be it............................

LOL...What rubbish.

All you have to see is the playoffs from the past 3 seasons to see that lower payroll teams were actually more successful then higher ones. What a concept.

Not to say some kind of system is not needed (because it is), but to say that lower payroll teams can't compete is absurd. Especially when given a few years to stock up on youth and getting a system going. If a team like Carolina made it into the finals, fans of almost every NHL city can be assured that given some time and good management moves, their team can have some degree of success. Hockey is one sport where you can never predict a victor of any game.

Really?

http://www.thn.com/en/editorletter/Detail....de=25021&lieu=8

In the Last 1 year:

80% of the top 1/3 in payroll made the playoffs

40% of the middle 1/3 in payroll made the playoffs

40% of the bottom 1/3 in payroll made the playoffs

In the past 3 years:

77% of the top 1/3 in payroll made the playoffs

47% of the middle 1/3 in payroll made the playoffs

37% of the bottom 1/3 in payroll made the playoffs

In the past 5 years:

75% of the top 1/3 in payroll made the playoffs

58% of the middle 1/3 in payroll made the playoffs

33% of the bottom 1/3 in payroll made the playoffs

[Jim Bob 0]

An NFL style cap would force more player turnover every season. When a large percentage of your team is new every year, it's hard to have good chemistry.

Small market teams have to make good decisions and have to be very lucky. A few injuries can wreck a season for a team. Tampa went all season without any major injuries, for example.

I doubt the effects would be that great.

Cory Stillman was in his first season in Tampa Bay and was 2nd on the team in scoring, last season.

Chemistry in hockey is vastly different than learning new schemes in football.

The leveling of the playing field throughout the NHL would make there be less horrible games for teams to have to sell tickets for and give more fans hope that their team can compete in the near future.

Look at the Penguins. Do you think their fans have any real hope for competing in the future without a salary cap that would actually give them a sliver of hope of being able to keep players once they become really good?

In Pittsburgh, the fans only have real hope that the Steelers will do anything. Why? Simple, the NFL's salary cap and revenue sharing allows the Steelers to compete.

The Pirates and Penguins can't compete with the other top teams in their league merely because of economics.

And you can see how well the NHL and MLB are doing right now..........

[Jim Bob 0]

When in the playoffs: Anaheim, Calgary, and Carolina making it to the finals show how they were just as successful as higher payroll teams.

Its just holds no water when you say that low payroll teams cannot make noise in the playoffs. Ok, I exaggerated my points. But come on! The Wild, ducks, Lightening, Flames, etc have shown that it can be anyones game. The failures of the Rangers, wings, Leafs and Philly also show that high payroll do not equal the ultimate success. Maybe they get into the playoffs, but when have those 4 won a cup last?

You also say that the fans cannot expect anything if they have a low payroll. Talk to some TB fans a few years ago and then now. They will laugh.

How many of the smaller market teams that have had deep runs into the playoffs have been able to sustain that level?

Buffalo didn't.

Washington didn't.

Anaheim was horrid this past season.

And yet teams like Detroit, Colorado, and New Jersey that are well run and have top 1/3 payrolls keep getting results.

Certainly how you spend the money you've got is important. But, so is how much you can spend.

And personally, how much revenue a team can bring in affecting whether a team can be competitive or not is not good for a sports league as a whole.

Especially when it means that entire fanbases have no real hope that their team can win merely because of market size.

How good will Calgary fans feel if Kipper turns into a smaller Roman Turek and they go another 7 years without a playoff berth because they can't buy their way out of mistakes ala the Red Wings?

[Jim Bob 0]

Can't argue much with that. Most of those teams disapointed the next season. Although new teams usually make runs the following year. If there was a season this year, maybe Atlanta, Florida and Nashville could have been the teams.

How well Atlanta does depends on a lot on whether they can get Kovalchuk re-signed or not.

Who knows if the Thrashers can afford to keep Kovalchuk?

[Jim Bob 0]

And thats the worst thing at all. A lower payroll team might need to draft well a few years before becoming good since they can't sign many big names/ etc. But what happens when these players become good and demand more money?

Look at the continous job of re-cycling that the Oilers have to do.

[jay 1]

A salary cap will likely make recycling more common throughout the league. Not just a phenomena related to small market teams.

I think a lot of the success of small market teams in the playoffs in recent years has been about goaltending and coaching The coaches for teams like Carolina, Anaheim, and Calgary did exceptional jobs getting the most out the players they had and they got fantastic goaltending. None of them won the cup however and all were beaten by teams with a great deal more talent throughout the lineup.

A salary cap isn't necessarily going to guarantee a level playing field to the fans either. Just because there is a cap doesn't mean that the teams ownership has to spend that much. Lazy and lousy owners can use the cap as a crutch to make sure they make money and never give a crap about the on-ice product.

[Jim Bob 0]

A salary cap isn't necessarily going to guarantee a level playing field to the fans either. Just because there is a cap doesn't mean that the teams ownership has to spend that much. Lazy and lousy owners can use the cap as a crutch to make sure they make money and never give a crap about the on-ice product.

True, but a salary cap does level the playing field for the teams with owners that want to compete, but only if it makes economic sense to do so.

Plus, there could be a salary floor, along with a salary ceiling, in the NHL's system. That would eliminate the owners from not spending on players to line their own pockets.

[Chadd 916]

A salary cap isn't necessarily going to guarantee a level playing field to the fans either. Just because there is a cap doesn't mean that the teams ownership has to spend that much. Lazy and lousy owners can use the cap as a crutch to make sure they make money and never give a crap about the on-ice product.

*cough* Bill Wirtz *cough*

[Jim A 4]

Notes on a cap

- a lot of people are saying how the lower payroll teams advanced to Finals ,etc..we're not discussing talent..rather profitability in this CBA..those teams that made it to the Finals oftentimes barely eked out a profit...that is the issue

-a cap, typically is both a floor/ceiling..and in the NFL made the then tightwad owners..ie Tampa Bay increase their payroll by 100%..Culverhouse and co were among the most profitable teams despite having little to no success on the field..once a cap was in place..they were forced to spend $ as it was then open knowledge as to what they were spending..

problem with a cap in the NHL is that the contracts are typically longer and guaranteed ...NFL while they can be similar in length..aren't guaranteed..

personally..i'd love to see some sort of phased in cap/tax system where its phased down over a couple years...and that teams can pay a bit more to hold on to their own players when they are up for free agency..ala NBA....

actually lets' see..

entry level like MLB where they can renew contracts unilaterally

earlier UFA-ie. 26/27 with original team owning the ability to pay the most

no contracts longer than 4 years if 28 and under, 3 if over...

Cap/tax..worked in over 3 years..maybe a tax first 3 years..and then a cap if salaries can't be effectively tied to revenues after that..

-also any monies received via revenue sharing has to be put into payrol/marketing,etc....that is the biggest joke of the MLB system..the Yankees pay their sharing, etc..and teams..even one like Minnesota a couple years back..rec'd more in rev sharing than their payroll...so what's the incentive..that is why I like a cap..