The cap is NOT the problem...Its the percentages, hence the league wanting to cut the players share to 46%. If they got 50% I think they would be very happy.


ie: At the current revenues:

The cap is at 70 million

Cut players share to 50% then cap would go to roughly 61 million.
- Iggysbff

And when the cap takes off some more to $85 million and you still have teams struggling to generate that much in revenue, ... then what? Cut the percentage some more? Propose moving teams around in some futile hope that eventually, everyone will be generating more revenue than the league average?

You can't keep going with one-time solutions that continually come at the expense of the players. At some point, the owners have to figure out who's really benefiting and at whose expense it comes. Right now, the high-revenue teams are driving the cap up at the expense of the low-revenue teams; if you don't give those teams some help [be it from increased revenue sharing or limiting revenues of the high-revenue teams when calculating the cap], all you do is ensure you have the same problem again down the road.

If they can't do long term contracts they can't be giving out 12 year deals were cap hit is low but paying out huge money at the start see weber, Shea. So it would force the contract to be actually worthless money or player cap hit would be close to 11 million for some players which hopefully we won't see.
- Yeti1181

Weber is a poor example; his contract was negotiated by Philadelphia. That said, so what if Weber is getting $13 million in the first 4 years of his 14-year deal, and much of it in the first 2 years is signing bonus? That money still counts against the cap; it's not like the team is getting some huge cap benefit by paying the money on 7/1 as opposed to paying it out over the course of the season. If teams really want to shell out $47 million on 7/1 in signing bonus, let them - just make sure they actually have to pay that amount in cap dollars over the life of the contract.

The fact that Weber [or anyone else] has an ultra-long, heavily front-loaded contract isn't a problem in and of itself; it's the fact that there's nothing in the CBA that guarantees "$ paid to the player while in the NHL" = "$ incurred against the cap" and virtually no one's ideas [save the "make cap hit = salary idea, which is DOA before the players ever hear it] fix that simple problem. If that mechanism is in place, then it doesn't matter whether a player is getting $12 million now or 10 years from now - because any "cap savings" realized up front is forced to be paid back down the road. That is the real problem with the ultra-long, front-loaded contracts. Not their length, and not the salary structure of the contract - it's that it's entirely possible for the player to be buried outside the NHL and the team to never have to pay back cap dollars it saved up front.

That said, look at the ultra-long [8 years or longer] contracts that have been negotiated under the current CBA. The only ones not signed by high-revenue teams are:

-- Rick DiPietro, NYI [15 years, $67.5 million]
-- Alexander Ovechkin, WSH [13 years, $124 million]
-- Vincent Lecavalier, TBY [11 years, $85 million]
-- Christian Ehrhoff, BUF [10 years, $40 million]
-- Nicklas Backstrom, WSH [10 years, $67 million]
-- Jordan Staal, CAR [10 years, $60 million]
-- Rick Nash, CBJ [8 years, $56 million]

That's it. 7 of 23 contracts that are 8+ years were signed by teams that are not "high-revenue" teams. Buffalo has an owner willing to spend everything and then some, Washington is the 8th largest market, and Staal's contract was pretty much negotiated by Pittsburgh - and DiPietro's contract has a flat salary over its life, so there's no gaming of the cap going on. Who's really to blame for those contracts in the first place? It's not the small-market teams that started that trend; it was the Philadelphia's [with Briere, arguably Richards and Carter, a screwed up attempt with Pronger, and finally Bryzgalov] and the Detroit's [with Zetterberg and Franzen] and the Chicago's [with Hossa, Campbell and Keith] and the Boston's [with Savard, and arguably Chara] and the Vancouver's [with Luongo].

Hey does anyone here know what happens to the guys on 2-way contracts if there is a lockout? Are they allowed to play in the AHL?

Read the whole blog earlier, loved it.

Though there is a question on the CBA bargain.. No cap at all? Well montreal would be a winner again but I think Paridy would go away ie. baseball. The Paridy in the NHL is what makes it the NHL. What other sport allows an 8th seeded team to win the championship... none.

NBA final four looks like 1vs2/1vs3
NHL final four looks like 5v8/1v4.... or so many different possibilities.

Leave a salary cap.

That said, look at the ultra-long
- Irish Blues[8 years or longer] contracts that have been negotiated under the current CBA. The only ones not signed by high-revenue teams are:

-- Rick DiPietro, NYI [15 years, $67.5 million]
-- Alexander Ovechkin, WSH [13 years, $124 million]
-- Vincent Lecavalier, TBY [11 years, $85 million]
-- Christian Ehrhoff, BUF [10 years, $40 million]
-- Nicklas Backstrom, WSH [10 years, $67 million]
-- Jordan Staal, CAR [10 years, $60 million]
-- Rick Nash, CBJ [8 years, $56 million]

That's it. 7 of 23 contracts that are 8+ years were signed by teams that are not "high-revenue" teams. Buffalo has an owner willing to spend everything and then some, Washington is the 8th largest market, and Staal's contract was pretty much negotiated by Pittsburgh - and DiPietro's contract has a flat salary over its life, so there's no gaming of the cap going on. Who's really to blame for those contracts in the first place? It's not the small-market teams that started that trend; it was the Philadelphia's [with Briere, arguably Richards and Carter, a screwed up attempt with Pronger, and finally Bryzgalov] and the Detroit's [with Zetterberg and Franzen] and the Chicago's [with Hossa, Campbell and Keith] and the Boston's [with Savard, and arguably Chara] and the Vancouver's [with Luongo].

You forgot Yashin, Parise and Suter.

I been saying forever a luxury tax would help alot. I hate and so would the players hate the franchise tag unless you limit it to a one time use. I also think there should be contract options. Just not sure if it would work in a hard cap.

You forgot Yashin, Parise and Suter.
- Gunslinger

Yashin was pre-lockout, so it doesn't really apply as it was signed without any consideration of the cap. Parise and Suter could fall in here; however, Minnesota isn't that far off of being in the high-revenue group. For the sake of the argument, though, I'll include them in the list though.

That's what, 9 of 25 contracts not from high-revenue teams? I'm still not convinced of this alleged epidemic of teams signing guys to ultra-long contracts they can't afford.

Yashin was pre-lockout, so it doesn't really apply as it was signed without any consideration of the cap. Parise and Suter could fall in here; however, Minnesota isn't that far off of being in the high-revenue group. For the sake of the argument, though, I'll include them in the list though.

That's what, 9 of 25 contracts not from high-revenue teams? I'm still not convinced of this alleged epidemic of teams signing guys to ultra-long contracts they can't afford.
- Irish Blues

I dont think the cap is the point or the issue in the discussion though. It was about small market teams not being able to sign and pay players for extensive contracts. Plus Kovalchuk wasnt mentioned and NJ isnt a big market team.

Why should the players pay to keep those teams afloat? Why not high revenue teams through more ervenue sharing or a luxury tax?
- Canada Cup

Duh...less teams means less players, means about 30-60 of them get their pay cheques taken away?

Hey Sid....why don't you pay a bum on the side of the road to teach you how to correctly tie a necktie....

that was exactly what he suggested. 7 plays 10, 8 plays 9 for the final 2 spots. likely a 3 game series...
- Big_Lightnin

Ya... And I can't see the point of having TWO wild card games per conference.

I dont think the cap is the point or the issue in the discussion though. It was about small market teams not being able to sign and pay players for extensive contracts. Plus Kovalchuk wasnt mentioned and NJ isnt a big market team.
- Gunslinger

As much as people think otherwise, New Jersey is around 10th in revenues [and probably higher with their run to the Finals this year]. That makes them a high-revenue team in my book.

I understand the issue you point out; however, it's important to realize that there's no way to make all 30 teams equal. Some teams are just going to have a fundamental advantage due to their size; the key is to minimize that advantage to prevent them from loading up while helping the smaller teams stay financially viable and reasonably competitive on the ice. Part of that is resolved via the salary cap and revenue sharing - but the current system isn't enough to fully accomplish the task [which is what helped lead us to the current moment].

-- Setting salary = cap hit doesn't do that; it actually forces low-revenue teams to spend more than they might have, which causes them to need more revenue sharing - without that additional revenue sharing, they become financially weaker. It also forces high-revenue teams to constrain spending, and eliminates the "let's load up for the Cup" plan as well as the "let's save up for the future" plan. If people think trades are already difficult, this plan would make them even more difficult.

-- Setting low caps on contract length may not do this; since players will be paid for a shorter period [likely in their peak years of production], they're likely going to demand higher salaries. Again, this puts more pressure on low-revenue teams who are already struggling to stay viable. I can also convince everyone who has rolled out a "contracts shouldn't be longer than 5/6/7 years" idea within 2 statements that they really don't want that idea - they want a tiered approach ... which I actually advocate [and would likely be much more acceptable to the players].

-- Any other idea to average salaries to calculate cap hits in a way that discourages front-loading of contracts virtually guarantees that "$ paid to the player while in the NHL" will not equal "$ incurred against the cap." Usually those cause $ incurred to be greater than $ paid, which works against the players.

So .... what to do? Keep it simple, and go back to the original plan [salary cap, revenue sharing] and tweak both of those. That avoids the addition of multiple rules, many of which open up new loopholes and then need other rules to "fix" them and all make the resulting CBA even more complex. Doing those should help [but not guarantee] that low-revenue teams can sign players long-term - but whether that really happens depends on the players who have to agree to those contracts.

Duh...less teams means less players, means about 30-60 of them get their pay cheques taken away?
- Iggysbff

And the circle goes round and round and players keep getting less and less while a few owners keep getting more and more. If those owners want a 30 team league, they should be doing more to keep all 30 teams viable. If there aren't 30 viable teams, then some get dropped and they employ fewer players. And the quality of the game improves.

#14 would be an extremely poor idea. Fans would become even more angry than they are now with high prices. Wouldn't it be more simple to exclude the offending team from the revenue sharing? I think so. Why screw the fans!
I think that a week to woo free agents is an excellent idea.
4 more teams in the playoffs?! Oi! I didn't watch the New Jersey Trappers play the LA Left Wing Locks because there are better things to do in June. Why add another week or 2 of mediocrity.

to figure the cap...

don't use the top 5 teams in revenue or the bottom 5...

just use the revenues of the remaining 20 teams to figure the cap...

This NHLPA counter-offer is interesting, and clever. The more I hear the details, the more I think Donald Fehr is after 1 of 2 things. The first is that this is a PR move. This is a sign that the Union is going to bargain in good faith. If the owners don't take the deal, or at least move in that direction with concessions, they are painted as the undisputed villains. My only question is whether or not there are a few "landmines" that aren't public knowledge placed in the proposal that the NHLPA knows the owners won't go for, and can use it as a public spin to get what they want when and if the owners say "no way".

The second angle, the one I think Fehr is leaning towards is that he's not trying to "win" this CBA, but has his sights on the next one. In 2005, the players were backed into a corner, and (thankfully) basically had the deal shoved down their throat. They had very little bargaining power and they knew it. This time around, they have some more leverage, but not quite enough. The league is still growing, and the players aren't miserable where they stand now. My guess is that they predict that the league will continue to grow. If a deal is reached here in 2012 which the players concede to most of what the owners want again, they have the leverage in the next CBA in and around 2018 or so, to say "look, we conceded in 2005, and we accepted the status quo in 2012, now it's our turn to make some major changes", and they'll probably get the public support, and it will be the owners that are backed into a corner by public opinion.

I understand the issue you point out; however, it's important to realize that there's no way to make all 30 teams equal. Some teams are just going to have a fundamental advantage due to their size; the key is to minimize that advantage to prevent them from loading up while helping the smaller teams stay financially viable and reasonably competitive on the ice. Part of that is resolved via the salary cap and revenue sharing - but the current system isn't enough to fully accomplish the task
- Irish Blues[which is what helped lead us to the current moment].

This is the point I've been trying to make for the longest time. This isn't the NFL, hockey doesn't have NFL revenue streams, hockey doesn't have multiple national TV contracts. That's the reason why the NFL is 32 equal teams. I support reasonable attempts to balance the playing field, but I think we're starting to go a little too far in the other direction.

This NHLPA counter-offer is interesting, and clever. The more I hear the details, the more I think Donald Fehr is after 1 of 2 things. The first is that this is a PR move. This is a sign that the Union is going to bargain in good faith. If the owners don't take the deal, or at least move in that direction with concessions, they are painted as the undisputed villains. My only question is whether or not there are a few "landmines" that aren't public knowledge placed in the proposal that the NHLPA knows the owners won't go for, and can use it as a public spin to get what they want when and if the owners say "no way".

The second angle, the one I think Fehr is leaning towards is that he's not trying to "win" this CBA, but has his sights on the next one. In 2005, the players were backed into a corner, and (thankfully) basically had the deal shoved down their throat. They had very little bargaining power and they knew it. This time around, they have some more leverage, but not quite enough. The league is still growing, and the players aren't miserable where they stand now. My guess is that they predict that the league will continue to grow. If a deal is reached here in 2012 which the players concede to most of what the owners want again, they have the leverage in the next CBA in and around 2018 or so, to say "look, we conceded in 2005, and we accepted the status quo in 2012, now it's our turn to make some major changes", and they'll probably get the public support, and it will be the owners that are backed into a corner by public opinion.
- buffalofan19

I don't think public opinion had much to do with it in 2004. The NHL manipulated, and had players, agents, and "the business men"fighting each over for what they want. The NHL stood back, watched them do that, and got the deal they wanted.

Thats what I think the NHLPA are trying to do. Put a wedge in between a few of the owners.

"The regular season is already to long and now you want to make the regular season totally irrelevant?"

Are you high? I say they should play 365 days. Hockey is the greatest sport of all time and you think the season is too long?

Expanding the number of teams in the playoffs is a ridiculous idea. Already over half of the teams make the post-season. Now we want to make that two-thirds? That makes the regular season almost pointless.

The absolute worst result would be a luxury tax system. That gives even more power to the "rich" teams, and would basically mean that no salary cap exists. A team with more money could just offer a player the league max, then pay the tax. How are small market teams supposed to compete with that? The parity that was created by the salary cap is already disappearing, and introducing a luxury tax system would basically destroy it.
- niedermayer27

If the little team can't make a charge after a few years of raking in luxury tax and make a run themselves, maybe they should just fold and go somewhere profitable anyways as they will eventually fold anyways.

Great blog. Issues well identified.

I think one area has not been fully exposed. There is clearly a bias on the part of players to want to ensure competitiveness. They love the idea that Carolina can sign and keep top end talent, that Pittsburg a relatively small market can sustain an elite dominant team and that guys like Doan, Weber, Suter, Parise and Carle are able to get top dollar and are still able to avoid having to play in high pressure markets. Luongo wanting to return to the Panthers appears consistent with that same trend.

It is a very long time since the Leafs have been able to sign a top UFA. It has a lot to do with a lack of competitiveness on the part of the Leafs. It also has something to do with the stress of playing in a tough hockey market. Carolina, Florida, Tampa, Pheonix and a few others are country club atmospheres. Why would a player want to go to Detroit or Philadelphia or Chicago unless there was a certainty of winning. This goes double for Montreal, Toronto and most of the Canadian teams.

Suter enraged the Blackhawks by using them to leverage up their offer before he signed in the gentler Minnesota market. I believe Weber always knew that Nashville would match. Carle fled to the no tax state of Florida and Luongo will follow.

The players are doing fine.
- spatso

Bettman? Is that you?

to figure the cap...

don't use the top 5 teams in revenue or the bottom 5...

just use the revenues of the remaining 20 teams to figure the cap...
- ddmmdd

For 2010-11, that would have shaved roughly $4 million off the cap; however, you still have the 6-10 teams growing faster than the 16-25 teams. The cap is still going to get shoved up faster than small-market teams can keep pace with; it's just going to take longer to realize this.

I'd prefer a long-term solution, not a short-term bandaid.

If the little team can't make a charge after a few years of raking in luxury tax and make a run themselves, maybe they should just fold and go somewhere profitable anyways as they will eventually fold anyways.
- MindFr3eak

If contraction is such a good thing, why haven't any of the major sports leagues contracted a team since 1978 when Cleveland and Minnesota were merged together [and before that, 1955 when the NBA's Baltimore Bullets went under] ?

Illusive Bettman is illusive

Ya... And I can't see the point of having TWO wild card games per conference.
- mlindsay

$$

both for those games, and for the games of teams in the 9-12 spots, or further, in the last 1/4 of the season.