Slegr Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 I’m a big fan of the NHL’s salary cap. Pre-cap, it was painful watching teams like the Ranger and Leafs strip teams of their players by signing whichever UFA they pleased for however much was needed. The salary cap was brought in to keep teams in larger markets (with more revenue) from signing all of the top players and extending their advantage over smaller-market franchises. For the most part, it works well. However, seeing the Leafs sign Babcock last year to an insane amount of money was jaw-dropping and dramatically altered the financial outlook for all other coaches in the NHL. The eight-year, $50 million deal set an unprecedented ceiling for coaches’ salaries, and it reeked of a larger market getting its way by extending its advantage over small-market franchises. Babcock had no initial desire to go to the Leafs, but the amount was too big to refuse. In fact, Babcock is paid more than any current player on the Leafs. Back when the salary cap was introduced, coaches were still earning a small percentage of most players’ salaries. Now, coaches’ salaries are trending upwards at a proportionately higher rate than players, and it has become all too easy for teams to simply dump a coach and sign a new one as an attempt at a quick-fix. If the NHL was to increase the salary cap by the amount of the average coach’s salary, and begin to include coaches’ wages as part of a team’s salary cap, we would begin to see some more reasonable signings. Moreover, it wouldn’t give such big market teams an unfair edge that the NHL had tried to eradicate. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Toronto is hooped.........Excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said: Desjardins must be working on a internship. That explains quite a bit. Explains it "real gooood". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 No thanks. Where does it end? Should we rope in the salaries of all personnel into the salary cap? Because if you have to include the head coach then you have to include the GM, associate coaches etc etc. As far as fired coaches, should they count on the Cap? If the Jackets hadn't hired Tortorella, the Canucks would be forced to pay him and Willie their salaries and that would be reflected on the cap. How are you going to make this work anyway? The cap is calculated by revenue which is split equally 50-50 between owners and players. You would have to implement a separate cap for coaches and add that to the existing cap. How would such a cap be calculated? The coaches are not players and hence they do not belong to the player's union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Where does it end? I could hire 10x the number of scouts and analytics guys if I wanted. I'm sure Toronto spends more on it's management than most of the other teams. The good coaches are rare. When you cross over from players to hockey operations that seems too much. Keep it as NHL players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 It's the Leafs, they can afford it. There's 2 coaches worth a contract like that in the entire league. Babcock and Quennville. There's no chance the league changes rules for 1 maybe 2 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 9 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said: Quenneville makes a salary comparable to Babcock but the numbers were never released officially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlanB Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 I can see a scenario where teams would just hire coaches who would work for the league min and spend the rest on players. I guess under the op's system that would be their choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 That literally can't happen. The salary cap is part of the player pay agreement. Adding in the coach's salary would reduce the percentage of HRR that players receive, in violation of the CBA. Plus, players accepted the salary cap via their union. I doubt there is one that represents the coaches, so how would an agreement even be made that was legally binding if the people who would be directly affected aren't represented in the process? Coaches are completely separate and their pay should be separate. If people are concerned about pay equity then that should be dealt with separately from the salary cap. But really, what's the point? Companies can pay as much as they want for their executives and NHL teams are just that, companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slegr Posted May 10, 2016 Author Share Posted May 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, Warhippy said: There's no chance the league changes rules for 1 maybe 2 people. I think there are many, from Gretzky to Sean Avery who would argue otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuktravella Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 no ones cares bout how much coaches make stop making lame ideas for more cap stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slegr Posted May 10, 2016 Author Share Posted May 10, 2016 7 minutes ago, Toews said: No thanks. Where does it end? Should we rope in the salaries of all personnel into the salary cap? Because if you have to include the head coach then you have to include the GM Not at all. GMs are different in my mind. Coaches are at Ice level on the benches. Don't let logistics make such a strong nay-say. It could be done pretty easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 6 minutes ago, poetica said: That literally can't happen. The salary cap is part of the player pay agreement. Adding in the coach's salary would reduce the percentage of HRR that players receive, in violation of the CBA. Plus, players accepted the salary cap via their union. I doubt there is one that represents the coaches, so how would an agreement even be made that was legally binding if the people who would be directly affected aren't represented in the process? Coaches are completely separate and their pay should be separate. If people are concerned about pay equity then that should be dealt with separately from the salary cap. But really, what's the point? Companies can pay as much as they want for their executives and NHL teams are just that, companies. And that ends the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slegr Posted May 10, 2016 Author Share Posted May 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said: And that ends the thread. .... Right. That attitude will take you far in life. Of course the players union would need to be involved, or a separate stream for coaches that still impacts bottom line of cap is implemented. It's really not that hard to sort out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 1 minute ago, Slegr said: Not at all. GMs are different in my mind. Coaches are at Ice level on the benches. Don't let logistics make such a strong nay-say. It could be done pretty easily. Why does it matter that they are at ice level? One could argue that GMs have more influence on the roster and hence a team's win loss column. Why shouldn't associate/assistant coaches be included in your proposed cap? What about goalie coaches? At what point do you draw the line? You maybe comfortable drawing the line at head coaches but there will be those that will want to take it further. Logistics have to be discussed to see whether your idea is realizable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slegr Posted May 10, 2016 Author Share Posted May 10, 2016 I'd be for all coaching staff to be included, but not GMs. They are the ones actually doing the hiring and sorting out their caps (often with staff support). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Just now, Slegr said: I'd be for all coaching staff to be included, but not GMs. They are the ones actually doing the hiring and sorting out their caps (often with staff support). Why is that relevant? What about the ones that do both jobs? What if Toronto were to hand Babcock the title of GM and coach? Then say he is only making 1M for his coaching job and 5M for his duties as GM. How would you reconcile that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlanB Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 5 minutes ago, Slegr said: .... Right. That attitude will take you far in life. Of course the players union would need to be involved, or a separate stream for coaches that still impacts bottom line of cap is implemented. It's really not that hard to sort out. You actually see a scenario where the NHLPA would want to split their piece of the pie with coaches meaning their players get less of the overall cap? Good luck negotiating that one..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, Slegr said: .... Right. That attitude will take you far in life. Of course the players union would need to be involved, or a separate stream for coaches that still impacts bottom line of cap is implemented. It's really not that hard to sort out. If it's so easy, go have a quick chat with the NHL and the BOG, and the NHLPA, and see what they say. Just because you have an idea doesn't mean it should be implemented. I'm a realist. I would love to see the NHL go to 28 teams. Despite the fact the league would probably save money long term on the deal, and would improve the quality of the NHL. The NHL wouldn't do it because it hurts TV deals, and it doesn't want the reputation of being one of the few leagues to contract it's size. That's also getting rid of 40 NHLPA jobs, and hurts it's expansion plans. Would I like to see 28 teams yes, will it happen, not bloody likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.