Nuxfanabroad Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Salary floor is 52 mill..is it still relevant(the floor's existence?)? 29 teams( merely 1 left) are closer to the ceiling than the floor. Carolina appears the only that doesn't want to spend. I would imagine they are quietly being shopped; & a move to Quebec wouldn't shock me. 24 outa 30 teams are spending 95~100% of their allowed cap-limit(ceiling). BOG got the CBA they wanted, & surprise, surprise.. their Oly-commitment will hinge upon a quid-pro-quo, 3 yr CBA extension. With all the empty seats I see(despite all cameras FIXATED on the ice sheet) with mainly US games, is the league's revenue as an entity rising, vs the individual team's gates? I'm sure they're still streaming(thru rev sharing) a tonne of our suckers'-fee up north, down to their southern counterparts(this biz-detail smells like sh*te, IMO) ****************************: ******************************** ************************: Coupla' yrs back, I made a thread suggesting teams can swing 10%(spending above cap, one season); provided they dip under by that same amount the following yr. Give respective GM's more leeway to go 'all-in'; as well as armchair-GM's more to plan/gab over in this ultra tech-social age. At the time I suggested there appeared an approaching parity in all team's spending. I hereby submit that moment has arrived... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 From my point of view, spending to the cap makes cap increases more necessary. You'll never get a budget increase if you didn't blow your wad in the previous year. If your margins were good, you have an even better case for a bigger budget, lower risk, high reward potential. It's possible that the majority of GM's/owners were in favour of a higher cap but they got dragged down by Buttman's boner for the football crowd and caved to the 6 or so teams that can't turn coin because they're in footballville. The profit sharing scheme should be limited to a certain term of black hole money then they gotta move. If Carolina does move, my guess is they're going to Seattle. The uncertainty of how Trump's hatred of NAFTA will affect the Canadian dollar is almost too risky... I like your over cap / cap back proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katobaron Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 +1 for over cap/under cap! It would certainly free up a lot more possibilities for trade deadline deals and a last kick at the bucket for teams with a closing window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 Thanks Lucky..as analogies go, it increasingly feels like we're all stuck shopping in the same generic, big box store. Ma & Pa shops went extinct. Whether it's music, Hollywood or sport, everything feels overpackaged & produced. So I was trying to think of a way to welcome more variability, fwiw... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 4 minutes ago, Katobaron said: +1 for over cap/under cap! It would certainly free up a lot more possibilities for trade deadline deals and a last kick at the bucket for teams with a closing window. Thanks Kato, & take our team as current example. With about 10-15 mill comin off our books, say we have a good Dec/Jan(or some team will, with our economic-whereabouts), so that team DECIDES to spend an extra 10% over the cap, THIS spring. Hence, they decide this summer they'll be tame for spending... It's a trade-off either way, but adds an element of interest for league-fans(grist for the mill, as it were). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmm Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 the NHL, teams and fans, are a very short sighted bunch. All rule changes whether on ice or cap related are only viewed for possitive outcome. Never the possible negative outcome. There was a thought a few years back that revenue would only and always rise. The reality has changed over the last few years, but the concept has not. Remember when Sbisa and Dorsett were signed to silly contracts many fans said, "Don't worry, by year three those contracts will look great". All contracts are signed with the intent of continued inflation. The escrow thing, which I don't fully understand seems like another mechanism to not face the financial reality of the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 1 minute ago, Nuxfanabroad said: Thanks Lucky..as analogies go, it increasingly feels like we're all stuck shopping in the same f***ing, generic, big box store. Ma & Pa shops went extinct. Whether it's music, Hollywood or sport, everything feels overpackaged & produced. So I was trying to think of a way to welcome more variability, fwiw... You struck a chord with me there, I've worked for a family business for over a decade; a business that has found a way to grow and succeed in spite of big box mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 7 minutes ago, luckylager said: You struck a chord with me there, I've worked for a family business for over a decade; a business that has found a way to grow and succeed in spite of big box mentality. If your product is necessary, surely you'll be absorbed/devoured in one way, or the other! Through this haphazard life-path that I've staggered, have become a hearty proponent to going somewheres that you're rendered confused & confusing..NA had become deadly-boring for me, & increasingly fascist. & like the good hypocrite I am..even in Japan, love that Costco pizza! :^) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 37 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said: If your product is necessary, surely you'll be absorbed/devoured in one way, or the other! Through this haphazard life-path that I've staggered, have become a hearty proponent to going somewheres that you're rendered confused & confusing..NA had become deadly-boring for me, & increasingly fascist. & like the good hypocrite I am..even in Japan, love that Costco pizza! :^) The product is strictly leisure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 48 minutes ago, luckylager said: You struck a chord with me there, I've worked for a family business for over a decade; a business that has found a way to grow and succeed in spite of big box mentality. Apologies if my first comment sounded overly cynical..no disrespect to the efforts of your family. Just increasingly appears TPTB try to control such biz-interests, & stifle the individualism that once flourished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 14 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said: Apologies if my first comment sounded overly cynical..no disrespect to the efforts of your family. Just increasingly appears TPTB try to control such biz-interests, & stifle the individualism that once flourished. I couldn't agree more. I wonder if you'll get suspended for derailing your own thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 Just now, luckylager said: I couldn't agree more. I wonder if you'll get suspended for derailing your own thread? One would hope they consider I'm Gemini? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintPatrick33 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 I really like this idea NFA, but I do not think the league is ready for any paradigm changes which involve excitement. One of my favorite writers, Down Goes Brown, commented on the NHL's marketing strategy which fails to highlight individual players, and instead focuses on team. In comparison, the NBA thrives on marketing their stars, and the players are better off for it with billions in corporate sponsorship deals. Also, given the cheap nature of the NHL owners, I do not think they would vote in favor of this because only contending teams would do so, thereby negating the leagues wonderful "parity" initiative. We are headed for yet another lockout anyways, when you see players like Trouba and Kucherov taking bridge deals which pay them way less than they are worth, I think we are due for another long one. Thanks Buttman! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 It would make more sense that every year the team gets one buyout with no impact on the cap. It would provide cap relief for stupid contracts. (I am glad there's now term limits, too late for guys like Gillis I'm afraid.) The team is still out money, but they at least can get out of one ugly contract a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABNuck Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Do not agree at all with the any argument that involves raising the cap. As stated above, by nature business people will spend to the budget, no matter where it is set, so the only limit then will be how much cash an owner can extract from his market (ticket prices, TV deals, merchandise and game day sales etc etc) and unfortunately, every dime of that either comes directly from the immediate market or from the market as a whole (revenue sharing). The problem that exists in the NHL today is the high limit set on personal contracts...the teams who have the star players are almost forced to spend to the player cap max to keep the stars that they've drafted, trained and groomed into star players. Every product has two values: 1/ comparative value (ie/ steak vs. hamburger) 2/ relative value (ie/ a hamburger is worth more than a steak if a burger is all that's available to a starving person with cash to spend). So when the NHL says the max that can be spent on any given single contract is for example 10mil, well then by logic the top players in the league must be worth 10mil (relative value)...but when negotiating contracts for similar players the comparative argument is always used by agents / teams (and occasionally leads to arbitration due to this argument). This process bumps up average salaries for average players across the board (and causes the Clarkson/Bickell effect). The counter argument to this would be the Edmonton/Horcoff effect (where teams give stupid contracts to reach the floor) but this effect was an anomaly created by too many quality players on ELC's...I doubt we'll see it again. What needs to change to help teams in the F/A market and at TDL time for playoff pushes is a lowering of the personal contract rate (ie/ keep the cap at 74mil but lower the individual contract level to say 7.5mil...enough to keep any star players from bolting to rival leagues). This in reality would free up cash without costing the consumer, and quite possibly lead to a higher average quality product (ie/ attract some better players in rival leagues who could now compete for jobs on teams where they have a couple superstars that aren't chewing up half the team's cap...I'm looking at you Chicago and Minnesota!)...and would help teams with aging superstars who have fallen below their contract value (I think we all know who I'm talkin' 'bout here). The best sytem I would love to see is the reinstatement of some sort of depreciating contract value for players over 30 with a limit as to contract length (so that the retirement front loaded contract game can't be played). But if wishes were dollars...you know the rest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 If not specifically here(as in, THIS one thread), I'm hoping to see more general, inquisitive & informed discussion about the economic issues, mainly as it pertains to the NHL product, & our fav franchise. As this game takes on 'addiction-proportions' for a good chunk of us(mostly Cdn males), I think it's wise to avoid the ostrich-approach regarding these finer points. A lot of things I've posted on this topic, are opinions that for me started taking shape in the early 90's(basically just before Buttman took over). In short, admit disappointment that economic-issues have become so intertwined with pro sport(esp this 1), but it appears a necessary(?, no, I say inevitable) evil. Don't wanna appear to be trying to gain some 'edge' in debate here(or win some silly argument)..but feel there's worthy 'grist for the proverbial-mill', & I'd like to hear a lot of your guys' insights on a few of these things. Will add more later today, at a decent hr... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.