Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Can We Talk About the Salary Cap?


Recommended Posts

Let's rap on the cap for a second.

 

It was the star of the show this weekend, as complete uncertainty froze the trade market, followed by the NHLPA's decision to decline the escalator and lock the cap in around 1.5M short of where it was expected to be.

 

It drove at least two big trades this weekend (Subban and Marleau), and will almost assuredly drive more as teams try to find a way to work with less space than had been surmised.

 

It's inexorably linked to player salaries - as the cap rose, so too have salaries.

 

It's given us two lockouts - one to get it, and one for players to get a bigger slice of it. It'll likely give us a third.

 

Recent events have had many folks put increasing scrutiny as to whether the current hard-cap system works. It clearly worked 14 years ago when introduced, and it appeared to work well into the first half of the decade, even through that stupid second lockout. There have been some fundamental sea changes in the NHL during the hard-cap era that may require a re-evaluation of how this whole thing works, and why. Most notably, the game has gotten faster and younger, and RFAs - rightfully so - no longer take the team-friendly bridge deals that made this whole thing work. Further, these franchise altering players almost never hit UFA, making the UFA market both increasingly boring (for the fans, anyway - not sure that matters) and increasingly risky to dip into.

 

Curious as to this group's thoughts on this one - is the cap still viable? How does it need to change, if at all? What's got to happen in order to both keep the positive parity that's come of the cap, but give teams more flexibility to maneuver around it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the point of the salary cap?

 

It does not create parity among teams. We seen the same teams "dominate" the league for the last 2 decades. We have 3 teams that have won multiple cups. We've had several others win 1 and lose in the finals. We've had the same teams be frequent members of the final four.

 

To help poor teams? No. We see "poor", "small market" teams up against the cap ceiling. Winnipeg has cap issues. Tampa Bay up against the cap, Panthers, Stars, Flames, etc. In the past, we've seen Buffalo at the ceiling, Oilers, Blues, Blue Jackets, Ducks, even the Senators were withing $3m of the cap ceiling 2 seasons ago. When all is said and done, you have 85% of the teams spending within 6% of the cap ceiling.

 

All the cap has done has made rich players richer, and poor players poorer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the point of the salary cap?

 

It does not create parity among teams. We seen the same teams "dominate" the league for the last 2 decades. We have 3 teams that have won multiple cups. We've had several others win 1 and lose in the finals. We've had the same teams be frequent members of the final four.

 

To help poor teams? No. We see "poor", "small market" teams up against the cap ceiling. Winnipeg has cap issues. Tampa Bay up against the cap, Panthers, Stars, Flames, etc. In the past, we've seen Buffalo at the ceiling, Oilers, Blues, Blue Jackets, Ducks, even the Senators were withing $3m of the cap ceiling 2 seasons ago. When all is said and done, you have 85% of the teams spending within 6% of the cap ceiling.

 

All the cap has done has made rich players richer, and poor players poorer.

 

"Cost certainty".

 

The owners now know they only have to pay X% against HRR. So they "guaranteed" themselves a break even scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's worked in the sense that the Ranger and Leafs don't have 130 million dollar payrolls. That has, presumably, kept individual salaries down to some extent.

 

But the Rangers and Leafs' trophy cases were not busting under the weight of their Stanley Cups pre-cap.Money by itself is not necessarily good management. It's only one variable .

 

Point being "cost certainty" is all this was ever about. Large market teams have a bigger window because they can more easily absorb a mistake or 2. And small market teams have less flexibility, and have to be ready to cut bait on the spot. Which is how we got Nash or Trouba.

 

What bothers me is we had a work stoppage basically to keep a team in Arizona which we now know could have moved to Vegas and printed money. But a mess of small market owners didn't want to give up their precious expansion money. I understand more teams are better, more jobs for players, spreads the costs. But nobody has gone out of business in over 40+ years hen the Scouts and then Barons folded. If the Panthers or Coyotes are failing, Houston or Quebec or KC are there. Enough nashing of teeth, move already. And another fallacy; these otherhwise good businessmen become idiots with their checkbooks when they see a talented player. The cap is a drag on player salaries, and all that means is players makes less and owners make more. When you go to a concert do you care what the arena gets and what the artist gets? Same thing with actors, movie studios. If the club owners cannot afford a player, fine, don't sign him. But at a loss why the sports media celebrates cap managment that at it's core screws players. And selfishly I don't care if there are a bunch of weak sister teams. Professional sports has been like that forever due mostly to dumb management whether there is or is not a salary cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the cap. I really do. What I wish is that teams had the ability for one players contract to not count against the cap. Here are the stipulations I think would be necessary to make it work. It has to be a player drafted by the team offering the contract. If that said player is delegated, it is as a "franchise" player and it has to be a flexed salary that his contract always has to be the average of the top x amount of salaries.

One player per team and there has to be a minimum to the length. Let's say 3 - 5 years, can't be used twice on the same player, and a maximum of 7-8 years for the contract. Also, if ever traded, salary then has a cap hit. I'm sure there are a lot of other parts to this that would have to be explored, but something along those lines.

The reason why I want to see something like this is at least it gives teams an incentive to keep a home grown talent, fan favorite, etc, and not have it destroy the clubs future.

Aka the Henrik rule lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My franchise tag idea:

- Each team can declare 1 player under the "franchise tag" per season

- Cap hit for this player does not count against the cap

- player must be drafted by their current team, or have played a minimum of 5 season/ X number of games with that franchise

- Tag can be moved season by season, or be the same individual for multiple, consecutive season (shouldnt be punished for drafting McDavid)

- Tag can not move from one player to another player during the season (including trades, LTIR, etc). Franchise Tag can not transfer from one team to another team during in-season trades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...