TheAntar Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Just like the last thread... You want to encourage teams to have a bad (low-spending) year and then a season where they spend a lot and "go for it" ... The system encourages bad teams and good teams in total contravention of the intent of the cap. A system that rewarded spending to the cap makes for a better league. The opposite would have -- well -- the opposite effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted March 6, 2014 Author Share Posted March 6, 2014 ^Darn you! That's a reasonable answer to argue with! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAntar Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 And /thread ? Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taiwanchik Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 This idea of rewarding teams that "spends wisely" is basically going to induce NHL teams to end up being cheap on how they pay players. And even if it allows a team a carried over cap number, there's no guarantee that teams such as NY Islanders or Buffalo Sabres willing to spend to that amount. If anything, a personal team cap that is in compliance with the league's minimum means that much more money to the owners. I can see how some teams will use this rule to somehow avoid going to the cap ceiling each season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted June 15, 2014 Author Share Posted June 15, 2014 We REALLY need this to make things more malleable/flexible & bloody confusing, for all us armchair-GM's! Vote YES! for the 10% rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Sock Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 We REALLY need this to make things more malleable/flexible & bloody confusing, for all us armchair-GM's! Vote YES! for the 10% rule.How many drinks have you had tonight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted June 15, 2014 Author Share Posted June 15, 2014 ^Mellow out mate. Have a nice cuppa' tea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WonderTwinPowers Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Yeah but teams that don't spend to the cap usually do it for a reason . generally being they can't afford too. So how could they not afford to spend to the cap one year, probably not get any playoff revenue. Then spend as you said up to 10% higher next year? Where's the money coming from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted June 15, 2014 Author Share Posted June 15, 2014 Yeah but teams that don't spend to the cap usually do it for a reason . generally being they can't afford too. So how could they not afford to spend to the cap one year, probably not get any playoff revenue. Then spend as you said up to 10% higher next year? Where's the money coming from? In the hard-azz world of American, right-wing biz, it will be survival of the fittest. Now both sides have their 50/50, & the pie is expanding like American waistlines. They will do everything legally, but I think the league will turn ruthless on teams which try to exist, shoe-string. As this sport finally goes mainstream, they'll round up 30 rich/mafia-types(already got plenty!) to run it as they please. Unless the general economy caves(always possible), I foresee a league where everyone spends, when they're surging. The notion of haves & nots will likely filter down to the AHL, instead. This 10% rule would be a way for owners/GM's to annually demarcate who's a 'player' for the Cup(top 10-12 teams), & the 8-10 teams that need to step back & re-load. The 6-8 teams in the middle would be compelling to watch. Some might 'open' cap space, yet still sneak into the PO's & do damage/go on a run. It would be against the odds, & sports fans LOVE that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted January 25, 2015 Author Share Posted January 25, 2015 Yeah, time to bump. Cratering economy might hit the NHL where it hurts. Predicting the cap will hover, due to economy/currency volatility. Also predicting the NHLPA won't vote for the 5% cap-increase. Poor Bettman will have his 29th official public conniption-fit. Which is a PERFECT opportunity for an innovative change to the cap system... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skolozsy2 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Really? ok say Florida leaves 10mil open every year for 5 years...by your logic that means they would have 50mil more cap then what the cap would be...You saying that extra cap wouldent be a huge factor in them being more competitive then any other team in their conference? This just does not work...and the game of hockey vs business is very different...The league would have to spend more to ensure to monitor it properly so businesswise still makes no sense To add on to your point, what happens in year seven? Wouldn't Florida basically have to have the league's biggest fire sale just to get back under the cap? Sounds like this would encourage a large amount of one year mercenary contracts and cap-dumping, one-sided trades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted January 25, 2015 Author Share Posted January 25, 2015 ^That person was likely joking around?..Of course that was the time of the dragon(2014); now it's the Yr of the Sheep. Unlikely to get response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skolozsy2 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 ^That person was likely joking around?..Of course that was the time of the dragon(2014); now it's the Yr of the Sheep. Unlikely to get response. But its a legitimate worry. Whats stopping teams from gutting their payroll one year knowing Crosby, Stamkos, Tavares, etc...are hitting the free agent market the next year. Not only will those teams get high draft picks, they can throw obscene amounts of money at free agents. This system rewards tanking even more than the current system. And why would any elite player ever sign more than a one year contract. They know each year there will be teams with plenty of roll-over cap available, and if their services are always in demand, why wouldn't they just opt for one year deals and just keep jumping to the teams that can pay them the most? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted January 26, 2015 Author Share Posted January 26, 2015 ^Well Skolo, how would you define "gutting" a payroll. You've got to maintain 23 players(approx), & you can't go below the cap floor. If a GM wanted to waive decent players, he'd only hurt his own team. Keep in mind, all 29 opposing GM's would be preparing for late-season,+ the next one to come. This would make it more challenging to work deals that open cap, where perhaps 10~15 GM's would expressly be targeting a similar strategy. Again I'd emphasize, the 10% fluctuation would only apply to two adjoining yrs(wouldn't accumulate 4 or 5 yrs, like someone's attempted example, erroneously assumed). Another general, overall point: I believe many fans today are almost as excited about team-building(trades, draft, deadlines, FA's, waivers), as actually watching on-ice play. Likely it's a function of all the online-info the modern day fan can pore over. In a sense, I'd suggest such GM flexibility would be a huge interest-draw for that category of fan. The NHL would be catering to this demand, which would be beneficial in terms of entertainment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted January 26, 2015 Author Share Posted January 26, 2015 Sorry Sk, forgot your 2nd question. Yes it may lead to shorter contracts, but I wouldn't see that as the likely effect. Top players will always want to protect their future, LT, to the possibilty of injury. At the end of the day, players would still get 50% of the pie, only their choice of restaurant might adjust more quickly... & finally, as a general question, what possible value(besides obvious schadenfreude, for 29 other fanbases), does David Clarkson's presence hold for the NHL? There should be a mechanism whereby incompetent GM's(after their dismissal, so then, their successors) can purge the league of these ugly albatrosses. Why should the paying fan be forced to see a player, contractually-forced to stay in-league? How does this improve the overall game/product, in ANY way? It's as useful as driftwood on a beach. Only fit for a bonfire. If there's a fair buyout-number(I gave 80%), let some young kid have a crack, if the albatross-vet can't cut the mustard. Supposedly the "Best" hockey league in the world, ought to be a Darwinian existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted June 13, 2016 Author Share Posted June 13, 2016 Since this came up today..decided to 'bump the slump'. Like the variation this would lend to GM's(for current & future cap-strategy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kragar Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 16 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said: Since this came up today..decided to 'bump the slump'. Like the variation this would lend to GM's(for current & future cap-strategy) Thanks for bumping this, so I didn't have to try to find it. I'll answer here rather than continue in the other thread, in case it derails things. I"m still not sold that you have refuted the naysayers, and my thoughts seem to fall in line with theirs. Sure, it would be nice (esp for the players) if all teams spent to the cap. It might mean more stars who are playing in the KHL, etc. would choose the NHL instead, since there would be more money to throw around. If it doesn't pull in those players, the talent pool might be further spread around, leading to increased parity but less quality playoff hockey. So, under the assumption that there will still be a fair number of teams who do not spend to the cap regularly, the weaker teams would suffer under your plan, and a small handful of better run, richer teams would typically win the Cup. I don't think this is best for the game. It would make the TDL more interesting, but that's not necessarily a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted June 14, 2016 Author Share Posted June 14, 2016 1 minute ago, Kragar said: Thanks for bumping this, so I didn't have to try to find it. I'll answer here rather than continue in the other thread, in case it derails things. I"m still not sold that you have refuted the naysayers, and my thoughts seem to fall in line with theirs. Sure, it would be nice (esp for the players) if all teams spent to the cap. It might mean more stars who are playing in the KHL, etc. would choose the NHL instead, since there would be more money to throw around. If it doesn't pull in those players, the talent pool might be further spread around, leading to increased parity but less quality playoff hockey. So, under the assumption that there will still be a fair number of teams who do not spend to the cap regularly, the weaker teams would suffer under your plan, and a small handful of better run, richer teams would typically win the Cup. I don't think this is best for the game. It would make the TDL more interesting, but that's not necessarily a good thing. Yeah, appreciate your view. I'd forgotten most of these details(& my countering replies). If you go back 2 posts to my reply(Jan 26, 2015), citing the Clarkson example, still feel this is relevant. As the best league in the world, strongly feel there should be a method/tool whereby non-performers can be moved out. Over these past coupla' yrs WHAT in Gawd's name has THAT contract contributed to this league's entertainment-value? Are we so obsessed with punishing poor GM's, that the paying fan must be punished, having to buy tickets to watch these bums? Overall, my intention with this thread was to encourage ideas/insights..any input on roster flexibility. Sure there should be penalties(say, for poor contracts), but I'd like to see these kinds of tools, to promote more creative(& aggressive GM'ing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kragar Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 16 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said: Yeah, appreciate your view. I'd forgotten most of these details(& my countering replies). If you go back 2 posts to my reply(Jan 26, 2015), citing the Clarkson example, still feel this is relevant. As the best league in the world, strongly feel there should be a method/tool whereby non-performers can be moved out. Over these past coupla' yrs WHAT in Gawd's name has THAT contract contributed to this league's entertainment-value? Are we so obsessed with punishing poor GM's, that the paying fan must be punished, having to buy tickets to watch these bums? Overall, my intention with this thread was to encourage ideas/insights..any input on roster flexibility. Sure there should be penalties(say, for poor contracts), but I'd like to see these kinds of tools, to promote more creative(& aggressive GM'ing). Brainstorming is great... nothing wrong with floating new ideas, and it's rare that any idea is perfect right out of the gate, even when it is a good idea. A forum is a great place to discuss ideas. The concern I have with promoting "more creative and agressive GM'ing) is that it tends to lead to lockouts, as GM's go in over their head, salaries get too big, and costs get out of control. Or, something Canuck fans are familiar with: finding a loophole, using it, and then getting punished after the fact, even though the practice was legal under the agreement in which the contract (Luongo's) was made. We already have a mechanism for getting rid of bad contracts, and I am comfortable with the penalties applied in that case. Without those cap penalties, what is to stop teams from handing out inflated contracts in the hope of putting together a winner, only to have an easy way to dump them later on when that player no longer fits their structure. It hurts smaller market teams from being competitive, and at times like this when the CDN$ is hurting, the Canadian teams suffer even more, since the Canadian teams don't own the league share of Canadian TV revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 On 2014年1月23日 at 6:54 AM, Nuxfanabroad said: Yes, that would be the counter-argument towards such an initiative. Based on rev/markets the first 7 seasons of cap(2006-2012) it's probably valid. With the new CBA(especially enhanced Revenue-sharing), & NHL rapidly climbing with profits, the momentum will probably permeate even into the smaller markets. Or they might be moved to more viable regions(eg:Flor/Phx to Seattle, or Quebec). Especially now that owners have the 50/50 terms they yearned for. If this occurs, it's conceivable almost every franchise might eventually spend to the cap. Then richer teams will aim for spending-advantages mostly in team-infrastructure/development/scouting, etc... Bumping this to dovetail with today's 'Broke The Floor' thread. Lots of people get bored with these numbers, but cap is increasingly important as the franchise hierarchy decides which direction to move..go for it quickly, or aim 2 or 3 seasons later? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.