Both you and Prizk just advocated a luxury tax on teams going over the cap or a franchise player on each team that does not count against the cap. How does having a franchise player not counting against the cap not circumvent the CAP system? How does having a Franchise player not counting against the cap help the struggling teams?

If you want to advocate reducing the cap floor, which is a seperate issue than the 2 mentioned above, I'm going to disagree with it but at least your argument makes sense for that. Franchise players would make a mockery of the cap.
- Flyers_01

I am an advocator of a luxury Tax system....there are teams like the Flyers, Rangers, Leafs..etc...who will always go over the cap and pay into the fund to help struggling teams....I am not a huge believe in the franchise player tag...but threw it out there as a possibility.

My only other suggestion is either to fold or relocate teams to help their own situation....but moving teams into lets say canadian markets is only doable while the Canadian dollar is strong, if it drops or if the teams are in small market areas in canada i see the same problems as in the past.

It really does work out for all involved. Players don't want to toil away in the minors for the sake of an inflated paycheck to they? It also gives them the chance to hit FA more often. I've heard someone say that players hitting FA more often will drive up salaries so it's a WIN/WIN. Teams don't have dead cap and the players get to play on teams where they are wanted.
- Flyers_01

I would even say provide a signing bonus structure and replace guaranteed contracts. Right now the players have both...you cannot tell me a player that is in the middle of their 5 years contract doesn't take a game off, here and their...

bryz

Both you and Prizk just advocated a luxury tax on teams going over the cap or a franchise player on each team that does not count against the cap. How does having a franchise player not counting against the cap not circumvent the CAP system? How does having a Franchise player not counting against the cap help the struggling teams?


- Flyers_01

You're incorrect. Where did I just advocate a luxury tax or a franchise player that does not count against the Cap?

If you want to advocate reducing the cap floor, which is a seperate issue than the 2 mentioned above, I'm going to disagree with it but at least your argument makes sense for that. Franchise players would make a mockery of the cap.
- Flyers_01

Why would you disagree on reducing the Cap floor? That's one of the biggest problems in the Cap system.

It really does work out for all involved. Players don't want to toil away in the minors for the sake of an inflated paycheck to they? It also gives them the chance to hit FA more often. I've heard someone say that players hitting FA more often will drive up salaries so it's a WIN/WIN. Teams don't have dead cap and the players get to play on teams where they are wanted.
- Flyers_01

You really think that non guaranteed contracts work out for all involved?

I am an advocator of a luxury Tax system....there are teams like the Flyers, Rangers, Leafs..etc...who will always go over the cap and pay into the fund to help struggling teams....I am not a huge believe in the franchise player tag...but threw it out there as a possibility.

My only other suggestion is either to fold or relocate teams to help their own situation....but moving teams into lets say canadian markets is only doable while the Canadian dollar is strong, if it drops or if the teams are in small market areas in canada i see the same problems as in the past.
- Pyzik

Keep in mind that if that some of the struggling locations need to be maintained to have a national TV contract. That is where the NHL needs to improve and that is where the NFL excels. Merchandise sales and TV contracts.

bryz
- big_dion

leafs

What good would it do for the Flyers to waive him and send him down if he's going to count against the cap anyway?
- MJL

I guess I read what Bill said wrong. I thought he meant the amount over 1 million would count against the cap so in Shelley's case, 100K.

You're incorrect. Where did I just advocate a luxury tax or a franchise player that does not count against the Cap?



Why would you disagree on reducing the Cap floor? That's one of the biggest problems in the Cap system.
- MJL

Pyzik suggested a luxury tax and a franchise player exemption on page 1. You gave him the thumbsup and agreed. Seriously, go look at page 1.

I don't like what the FLA marlins did in baseball. I'm afraid that small market teams, if you give them the chance, will take the revenue sharing they already get from the league and just bank it instead of spending it on the players.

Keep in mind that if that some of the struggling locations need to be maintained to have a national TV contract. That is where the NHL needs to improve and that is where the NFL excels. Merchandise sales and TV contracts.
- Flyers_01

there will always be struggling teams that need to be helped...the NFL is no exception....they have teams that dont make much money, but as a collective the league makes tons.

Pyzik suggested a luxury tax and a franchise player exemption on page 1. You gave him the thumbsup and agreed. Seriously, go look at page 1.

I don't like what the FLA marlins did in baseball. I'm afraid that small market teams, if you give them the chance, will take the revenue sharing they already get from the league and just bank it instead of spending it on the players.
- Flyers_01

so you are for no profit sharing?

I guess I read what Bill said wrong. I thought he meant the amount over 1 million would count against the cap so in Shelley's case, 100K.
- nastyflyergirl

That might be correct, I'm not sure.

You really think that non guaranteed contracts work out for all involved?
- MJL

I do think it will lead to a better product on the ice which is better for the fans. A better product on the ice most likely leads to higher revenues for the owners which in turn is shared with the players. No NHL player likes to toil in the minors when given a choice.

leafs
- Crimsoninja

<3

my only flyers friend haha

so you are for no profit sharing?
- Pyzik

There is already profit sharing and I'm sure there's some wiggle room for tweaking that but tweaking via luxury tax, no.

Pyzik suggested a luxury tax and a franchise player exemption on page 1. You gave him the thumbsup and agreed. Seriously, go look at page 1.

I don't like what the FLA marlins did in baseball. I'm afraid that small market teams, if you give them the chance, will take the revenue sharing they already get from the league and just bank it instead of spending it on the players.
- Flyers_01

I know what I agree to and what I was giving a thumbs up to. Seriously, I don't need to go to page 1. Here is exactly what I agree with in his posts.

"The floor is seriously killing some of those small market teams, where they barely have enough revenue to pay out the floor....The system in terribly flawed and yet we will be back in this same situation when the next CBA expires."

"the system would get a band aid for a few seasons then once the cap goes up and up and up based on revenues like it has in the past, those bottom teams get strangled again."

And I completely agree with his premise of trying to find someway to allow top teams to spend the money that they want to spend, without dragging the struggling teams along.

Not that I advocate a franchise players or a luxury tax system. As there are obvious problems associated with those ideas also.

I do think it will lead to a better product on the ice which is better for the fans. A better product on the ice most likely leads to higher revenues for the owners which in turn is shared with the players. No NHL player likes to toil in the minors when given a choice.
- Flyers_01

I don't beleive that the NHLPA would share your enthusiasm for non guaranteed contracts.

I don't beleive that the NHLPA would share your enthusiasm for non guaranteed contracts.
- MJL

I stated that when I made the suggestion. Feel free to repeat any of my other statements as your own if it helps.

I stated that when I made the suggestion. Feel free to repeat any of my other statements as your own if it helps.
- Flyers_01

I stated that when I made the suggestion. Feel free to repeat any of my other statements as your own if it helps.
- Flyers_01

Is that what I did? LOL

Then you posted a contradiction stating that it was good for everyone involved.

I know what I agree to and what I was giving a thumbs up to. Seriously, I don't need to go to page 1. Here is exactly what I agree with in his posts.

"The floor is seriously killing some of those small market teams, where they barely have enough revenue to pay out the floor....The system in terribly flawed and yet we will be back in this same situation when the next CBA expires."

"the system would get a band aid for a few seasons then once the cap goes up and up and up based on revenues like it has in the past, those bottom teams get strangled again."

And I completely agree with his premise of trying to find someway to allow top teams to spend the money that they want to spend, without dragging the struggling teams along.

Not that I advocate a franchise players or a luxury tax system. As there are obvious problems associated with those ideas also.
- MJL

You are way off your game today. You agreed to the following post in it's entirety :

Honestly, they need to improve their cap system....either do the soft cap/luxury tax system...or include a Franchise System, where one player doesnt count against the CAP. They also need to remove the floor of the CAP or reduce it GREATLY, The floor is seriously killing some of those small market teams, where they barely have enough revenue to pay out the floor....The system in terribly flawed and yet we will be back in this same situation when the next CBA expires.
- Pyzik

The possibilty of a luxury tax, franchise player not counting against the cap, possibility of removing the cap floor, etc.

Your responce was :

No question about it.
- MJL

No wiggle room. Where in your response is there even the possibility that you didn't agree with every word said or that you were responding to only one or two items?

I don't beleive that the NHLPA would share your enthusiasm for non guaranteed contracts.
- MJL

There's also the question of how to handle a cut contract on the cap, assuming the the idea gets past the NHLPA in negotiations. I figure non-guaranteed contracts are a non-starter, though. If the NHL brought those out, the NHLPA might as well put the salary cap back on the table.

You are way off your game today. You agreed to the following post in it's entirety :



The possibilty of a luxury tax, franchise player not counting against the cap, possibility of removing the cap floor, etc.

Your responce was :



No wiggle room. Where in your response is there even the possibility that you didn't agree with every word said or that you were responding to only one or two items?
- Flyers_01

No I did not agree to the post in it's entirety. I understand why you would think that. That's on me. But I just clarified what I was agreeing to. Do you want to keep arguing what I was agreeing to, and keep trying to tell me what I meant?

Is that what I did? LOL

Then you posted a contradiction stating that it was good for everyone involved.
- MJL

It's not a contradiction but I can see where you would be confused. The NHLPA (and owners at times) have chosen battles that are not in their best interests. This is one of them. For example, the NHLPA lost a season fighting over accepting a salary cap. Was that decision in their best interests? No.

Just because something is the best solution, it doesn't mean everyone is going to like it.

There's also the question of how to handle a cut contract on the cap, assuming the the idea gets past the NHLPA in negotiations. I figure non-guaranteed contracts are a non-starter, though. If the NHL brought those out, the NHLPA might as well put the salary cap back on the table.
- BulliesPhan87

That's likely to be the counter that the NHLPA would put on the table. I would assume that a cut player simply coms off the Cap. Unless there was a signing bonus issue involved.