Salary Cap: Your thoughts?

[flopfish]

When the cap first came into effect, it was a great thing for hockey. It balanced out a lot of teams and made poorer markets get a better overall team. That being said, it went from $39 million to $70 Million this year, gaining $4 million a year on average. Personally, I think keeping the cap at around $50 million is good for the game. What are your thoughts?

[ravens_creed]

It's not exactly doing what it was originally supposed to do, that's for sure. There are bound to be winners and losers no matter how you go about things. My team (Leafs) were arguably the biggest losers coming out of the last lockout. They were a playoff team every year leading up to the lockout, and they haven't been back since the salary cap's inception. As a fan, I hate it, even though I'm familiar with the "better parity around the league" argument that backs it. Parity is generally a good thing, but I'm greedy when it comes to the Leafs, and I can't always tell myself that the current system is what's best for the league. It's certainly not what's best for me as a Leaf fan.

This is a hockey snob way of looking at it, but here's where we're at currently: New Jersey, Nashville, Florida and the league-owned-and-controlled Phoenix Coyotes all got to enjoy great seasons and playoffs, much to the enjoyment of their few hundred fans, while the Leafs and Habs, the two most historic franchises in the sport, sucked, and got to watch with bitter envy, much to the dismay of their millions and millions of fans.

Is that ultimately what's best for the sport?


Either way, I'm sure every fan of every smaller market team would love to tell me where to stick it. :) That's fair.

[jlai624]

"bitter lead fan" is a good title for you, haha. jkjk...

I think, as long as revenues are up then it can justify the capp, but if it goes down then players must live with salaries going as the same % point.

I really want to see the end of these 10-15 year deals... everyone knows those are freaking bogus.

Make a hard limit of years per contract at 5-8 and we would get rid of that stupid loo-pull.

[TysonX504]

I think the cap floor should be 45 mill and the roof at 60. It's the only way to control player salaries and not overpay. But players will never agree to it.

[jlai624]

I think the cap floor should be 45 mill and the roof at 60. It's the only way to control player salaries and not overpay. But players will never agree to it.

I hear ya, but think of it from their POV. Just like us at our jobs in our lives, you would think 99% of people would never agree to a "hard" pay level.

[TysonX504]

Why are salaries so high? Because the lower market teams have to overpay for average players to make it to the cap floor which in turn drives up everyone else's salary. It's a system that has a few flaws. But we're getting right back to where we were with the lock out.

[flopfish]

I guess the other thing I forgot to mention was the KHL factor... they don't have a cap over there. Hence why NHL's is going up.

Another thing I think is a factor is length of contract issues. These long contracts shouldn't be allowed. While they are a key tool, it's also unfair that a guy will make $12 million for his first 3 years and $3 for the last 3 but have a balanced cap hit that is around 8. The NHL grew a lot post lockout, and partially because it wasn't the same teams making the playoffs.

Raven, I understand where you can be frustrated, but at some point both Montreal and Toronto needed a rebuilding year... or 3. Toronto simply tried to buy a team for the now and salvaged their future in doing so which bit their butt for lack of a better term. Now they seem to be on the rebound.

[centrehice]

Make it an even 60 million and call it a day, but, implement a rule that one player cannot take more than 15% of the total year's Cap maximum.

In other words, you cannot pay one player more than $9 million per year under any circumstances. That would help front loaded contracts be a thing of the past.

[RGM81]

I've never been one to say that a person should be deprived of being able to make as much money as possible. If a billionaire wants to get some new toys to play with, it's their money, not mine.

Do I find it absurd that Zach Parise and Ryan Suter are reportedly asking suitors for not one, but TWO, lump sum signing bonuses of $12M? Absolutely I do! Are they good players? Yes. But these aren't guys that you put on the marquee in the hopes of generating additional revenue, and while they improve whatever team they're on, they're not going to be anything more to their new teams that they were with their current ones: valued pieces of a greater puzzle. I find the whole exercise to be as obscene as giving Daniel Briere an 8-year, $50M+ contract a couple years back. It's a weak crop and teams are desperate to show that they're doing something.

Depending on where they end up, they may just become nothing better than salary cap munchers on a good-to-really good team. I don't see Zach Parise being a guy that puts a middling contender over the top. He may be the final piece for a team that's only one part away, but how many teams are truly in that position?

Overall, I don't have any issue with the cap's ongoing increase. The owners wanted it tied to NHL revenues, and business has been really good since the lockout.

[MatsSundin13Rocks]

The issue is that the salary cap is based on a percentage of league revenue. The players are getting 57% of it. The owners get 43%. Oh wait, no they don't. as the owners have to pay for other staff like management, coaches, scouting, trainers, arena staff, overhead costs, operating expenses, etc and etc! The players like to make it out as the owners are getting rich off of their backs while they are struggling and need more. Sorry but the way it is right now most owners are LOSING money! The ones that are making money, are making good money as they are driving league revenues up. Toronto, Montreal, Boston, Chicago, New York Rangers, Vancouver, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Calgary. Teams that you think should be making money but aren't are New Jersey, San Jose, Dallas, St.Louis, Colorado, New York Islanders, etc.

The league's revenue keeps increasing so salaries keep increasing. Go to a luxury tax system. Have a floor of around $35 million. Then have a luxury tax on teams that spend over $60 million. If a team spends $80 million on salary then they have to pay a luxury tax of $10 million to the league which distributes to the teams that are losing money. The luxury tax would be additional to any revenue sharing agreement that is already in place.

As a Leafs fan they have huge profits that they can't reinvest into players because of the salary cap. As a Leafs fan parity isn't good. It would be much better if teams like Florida, Phoenix, Nashville, etc were all at about $35 million just trying to put a NHL roster together as cheaply as possible while the Leafs spend big money to try and win.