Cap going to $50.3M!

[DredJAw]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=212226&hubname=

Cap going to $50.3M

Gives a lot more teams more felxibility.

And gives this years free agents even more bargaining power because more teams will likely be involved in the bidding.

.... and before anyone says something like "so what was the lockout for?" remember that this cap is TIED TO REVENUE!

The cap is 54% of league wide revenue. Before the lockout players were making roughly 75% of the leagues revenue. Huge difference.

This is the deal the players and league agreed to and earned.

 

[Big Tall]

So...what was the lockout for?

 

[cards-gotta-go]

so why have a cap at all? Up 11+ million in 2 years? So that makes the max contract $10.06 million (20% of Cap)...

... so, who's getting 10M first?

 

[stab107]

so why have a cap at all?

I hope this is a rhetorical question. The cap isn't really about individual player salaries as much as it's about putting every team on a level playing field.

 

[bunny89]

This is actually excellent news for owners, fans and players, as it means the sport that all of us love is both successful and profitable. Yaaay....

 

[frankiefives]

I hope this is a rhetorical question. The cap isn't really about individual player salaries as much as it's about putting every team on a level playing field.

The cap was supposed to stop big market teams from spending like crazy while the smaller markets couldn't keep up. Now, at 50 mil, it's going to push it right back to the way it was before. The lockout was useless...

 

[odjickfan]

so why have a cap at all? Up 11+ million in 2 years? So that makes the max contract $10.06 million (20% of Cap)...

... so, who's getting 10M first?

Sid The Kid Crosby?

 

[DredJAw]

The cap was supposed to stop big market teams from spending like crazy while the smaller markets couldn't keep up. Now, at 50 mil, it's going to push it right back to the way it was before. The lockout was useless...

No....

Before the lockout players made 75% of league wide revenue. That guy Levitt was a neutral party, audited the league and confirmed this. His credentials and record on integrity are impeccable.

Now, both sides, the NHLPA and the league/owners agreed that players are tied down to a maximum of 54% of revevnue. How that gets dispursed among players is up to the GM's but the point is the players TOTAL salaries cannot exceed 54% of revenue. And it hasnt.

Further, couple that with fact that there is some amount of "revenue sharing" going on. Just look at the small market teams that started "spending" money after the cap. Minny went out signed Kim Johnsson, and Mark Parrish, traded for Demitra.... Calgary was able to keep Iginla and Kipper AND traded for a 5.7M Tanguay.... Nashville added Arnott, Kariya, etc.

I don't see how anyone can say the lockout was useless considering the cap is determined essentially by the fans going to games. The lockout has worked exactly as advertised.

 

[jaywings19]

I don't see how anyone can say the lockout was useless considering the cap is determined essentially by the fans going to games. The lockout has worked exactly as advertised.

It's simple. People think it's the salaries driving the cap. Instead, it's the league revenues driving the cap driving the salaries. So there are checks and balances. At some point, the league revenues will plateau and the cap will remain constant. That is when some of the teams will start to regret signing the middle-tier players to top-tier salaries because they are anticipating the cap to go up the following year.

 

[odjickfan]

The revenue sharing thing is the key point to put small and large markets at the same level.

 

[DredJAw]

It's simple. People think it's the salaries driving the cap. Instead, it's the league revenues driving the cap driving the salaries. So there are checks and balances. At some point, the league revenues will plateau and the cap will remain constant. That is when some of the teams will start to regret signing the middle-tier players to top-tier salaries because they are anticipating the cap to go up the following year.

I agree with you to a certain extent. I read somewhere that in the history of "capped sports" the cap has NEVER once stayed the same or gone down from the previous year. Simple inflation suggests the cap will increase. Most teams up there ticket charges (even by 5%) than reduce them. For every 1 team that reduces ticket prices theres probably 5 teams that increase them. And for every team that stinks and sees a decline in ticket sales/ attendance(i.e. Chicago and Nashville) theres another that sees an increase (Pittsburgh and Buffalo).

Anyways, my point (and I know you agree with it is that the salaries are driven by the league revenues so people can't say "what was the lockout for?"

 

[TheGriceBoys]

Ern, do you think the cap high enough now that my "team" can afford to chase all the Free Agent's UD is inserting in The Cup?

 

[odjickfan]

... so, who's getting 10M first?

I think we got a winner called Brière.

At least, this is what they were saying on TV.

 

[MGiuseffi1969]

I believe in Pure Capitalism and "survival of the fittest" so to me the Salary Cap is brutal. I think it was only necessary because the league over-expanded into markets that cannot support a Pro Sports Franchise. Nashville pops to mind right now. This is common in all sports, not just hockey. The Marlins have a "fire sale" in Florida every few years, because win or lose they only draw about 10k to their games. I think baseball now has it right with a Luxury Tax. If teams want to spend the big bucks then kick some money as a "tax" that the league can distribute to the less fortunate teams. Honestly guys, tell me another industry that allows a salary cap. Imagine a successful actor looking for his next movie deal and all the studios saying. I can only offer you $7.36MM because that's the rule... My $.02...Mike

 

[TheGriceBoys]

I believe in Pure Capitalism and "survival of the fittest" so to me the Salary Cap is brutal. I think it was only necessary because the league over-expanded into markets that cannot support a Pro Sports Franchise. Nashville pops to mind right now. This is common in all sports, not just hockey. The Marlins have a "fire sale" in Florida every few years, because win or lose they only draw about 10k to their games. I think baseball now has it right with a Luxury Tax. If teams want to spend the big bucks then kick some money as a "tax" that the league can distribute to the less fortunate teams. Honestly guys, tell me another industry that allows a salary cap. Imagine a successful actor looking for his next movie deal and all the studios saying. I can only offer you $7.36MM because that's the rule... My $.02...Mike

I hear ya Mike, it has changed the game so much but we'll see in time if it works. I think we need to give it a few more years.

BTW, for 7.36 Mil, I dunno what kind of "film" you're doing, but I'll let you guys retake multiple angles of me!

 

[langway05]

Here's a good article to go along with most of the above comments.

What hath Bettman wrought?

 

[sholi2000]

Save our Jets...

There goes the save our Jets idea.....again.