Salary Cap

[burrn 0]

So the cap has been effect for 6 seasons, and I guess it's　at a turning point now.

There's been a lot of talk with the Erhoff, Campbell situations (among others) how the cap floor is BS and it's ruining the league. What are your thoughts on this?

Here's my take:

While it is sort of uncomfortable to see guys like Erhoff get so much money, I think, in the long term, that the system is finally starting to click.

Originally, the cap was imposed to stop teams like the Rangers, Detroit, etc. from throwing stupid money at FAs and swipe all the players from other teams. Obviously, it didn't exactly work, at first. (Oh Scottie Gomez, I still have your jersey, for some reason)

But now, the teams at the floor are the ones starting to throw the money (Although, there obviously is a limited revenue for these teams too, so you've still got to take that into account). This will inflate the salary for "mediocre player", and the guys that want the money can dart to those "floor teams". Not to say everyone will take money over everything else, but they also have to make a living, and I totally respect that. So, after 6 seasons, the floor teams have started to gain leverage in some respects, and I think it's finally starting to balance out the payrolls of all the teams, which was the initial objective.

The "ceiling teams" are starting to go with front loaded contracts now, and that'll obviously be addressed one way or another in the next CBA.

so... agree or disagree?

[ibeck 38]

The lower end teams like Colorado and Florida are only "throwing money" in order to meet the minimum value. Don't forget the cap was also put in place so that the bad teams must spend money they get from revenue sharing and making sure the owners put a competitive team on the ice instead of just pocketing all the money for themselves.

[TeamHonda401 54]

The lower end teams like Colorado and Florida are only "throwing money" in order to meet the minimum value. Don't forget the cap was also put in place so that the bad teams must spend money they get from revenue sharing and making sure the owners put a competitive team on the ice instead of just pocketing all the money for themselves.

One could refer to it as the Toronto rule. I like what it has done for the league, forcing owners of smaller teams to try and field a competative team instead of using the team only to make money. Plus it gives all the players with albatross contracts somewhere to go.

[flaming_june 2]

One negative point is that the low paying players are still being paid less than a mil a year while middle league-ers and top end talents are earning more than before when the lockout was first introduced, counting inflayshon.

[burrn 0]

The fact that there are takers(via trade) for the rotten contracts signed by high payroll teams is another thing not good that just came to mind...

One negative point is that the low paying players are still being paid less than a mil a year while middle league-ers and top end talents are earning more than before when the lockout was first introduced, counting inflayshon.

Good point, although the low paying players reallize they can get a hefty raise when they reach that middle level

That's another thing: if you want to overpay for some new signing, you are practically obliged to part with another pending RFA/UFA on your roster, because you won't be able to fit them under the cap if that RFA/UFA wants a raise like everybody else does.

I think it's something that appears "bad" at first sight, but might not be in the long term.

[ibeck 38]

I don't really mind the front loaded deals, not really such a big deal like some people make it. I do however don't think that anything more than a 6 year contract is smart for teams. But then again what are you going to do? If I don't offer you a 12 year deal, someone else will. I'm all for 1 player staying with one team is whole career since it is very rare, just dont like the idea of a 10 year deal. Sooner or later 1 side isn't going to be happy.

[ryanhockey21 0]

The only reason players are signed to long term deals is to lower the annual salary cap number.

[shotty 7]

inflayshon.

seriously?

[ibeck 38]

The only reason players are signed to long term deals is to lower the annual salary cap number.

And to guarantee they will have work and be getting paid for X amount of year

[DEATHTRON 19]

On the players side big money long term contracts are like the lotto. Most agents will tell their client to get as much money as they can grab.

The only problem I have with the salary cap is the cap raising as much as it has, I think team's should only be required (if they are at the cap floor) to only come up a certain percentage per season. So, if you were at the minimum last season, you dont have to come up another X million to the floor. Or in Florida's case this summer..20 million. Also worth noting that 17 teams WERE under the cap minimum before free agency. While I understand it is not a perfect example (as in Dallas case, of the 10 million they were under, 7.8 of that was Brad Richards). In the end, I do actually think this system will work in making league parity, but at what cost? Teams are already losing money (not all because of the cap)...

Zach

[Chadd 916]

Don't forget the cap was also put in place so that the bad teams must spend money they get from revenue sharing and making sure the owners put a competitive team on the ice instead of just pocketing all the money for themselves.

Umm, no. The floor was put in place in order to get the players to agree to a cap. Most of the teams putting out low payroll rosters don't make much money and have to go with low payrolls in order to lose less money or break even. Very few teams will put a low payroll team on the ice when they have the ability to pay more.

[ibeck 38]

Umm, no. The floor was put in place in order to get the players to agree to a cap. Most of the teams putting out low payroll rosters don't make much money and have to go with low payrolls in order to lose less money or break even. Very few teams will put a low payroll team on the ice when they have the ability to pay more.

umm yes, all part of revenue sharing. If Montreal makes 20 million in revenues, why should they share with Phoenix, a team who declared bankruptcy and I'm sure if a cap wasnt in place would just take their earnings from revenue sharing to make their losses less.

EDIT: My bad, the floor WAS put in place for the reasons you said. My last comment wasn't a reason for the cap.

[hamstercaster 2]

I don't really mind the front loaded deals, not really such a big deal like some people make it. I do however don't think that anything more than a 6 year contract is smart for teams. But then again what are you going to do? If I don't offer you a 12 year deal, someone else will. I'm all for 1 player staying with one team is whole career since it is very rare, just dont like the idea of a 10 year deal. Sooner or later 1 side isn't going to be happy.

I mind those front loaded deals simply because it's the GMs and under the leagues approval who are circumventing what they fought so hard to implement. The rich teams are still aquiring top end players because they figured out where the grey area was and they are taking advantage of it. It's a bit hypocritical IMO to fight for a salary cap, then turn around and find ways around it.

IMO the cap has done nothing good for the league. The poor teams just got poorer because they absolutly have to meet the cap floor and if they sell enough seats, then they will be entitled to a couple of millions in revenue sharing. These teams did not get any better and for the most part, they are overpaying on average talent to meet the floor because nobody wants to sign there because the team is not competitive and doesn't project to be in the near future either. The rich and better teams however have no problem attracting star players and forking out the money on ridicoulusly long front loaded deals to get a smaller cap hit. Players signed before the age of 35 will come off the cap when they retire so it's really a no brainer to give a player a 10 year front loaded contract to lower the cap hit and see the player's salary disappear from the team's cap when he retires.

The poor teams could not compete before the cap era and they still can't in this cap era.