What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

*** 2021/22 Stanley Cup NHL Thread **** Congrats 2022 Avs Cup Champs! (1 Viewer)

Capella said:
Blame the owners with their insane deflating of the salary cap. The NHL is asking for their successful teams to do this and they will oblige. 
Click to expand...
what does this mean? flat cap in a Covid world seems to make sense as this league doesn't make as much money without gate revenue.

 
Aaron Rudnicki said:
what does this mean? flat cap in a Covid world seems to make sense as this league doesn't make as much money without gate revenue.
Click to expand...
Why on earth would you, a reasonable man, be siding with the owners on this. The flat cap is killing player salaries for 4-5 years. It’s insane. 

 
Capella said:
Why on earth would you, a reasonable man, be siding with the owners on this. The flat cap is killing player salaries for 4-5 years. It’s insane. 
Click to expand...
there was a global pandemic and they couldn't sell tickets. it's a gate-driven league.

I'm not siding with anyone. cap is tied to revenues and revenues are not growing so how can the cap be expected to grow?

 
Aaron Rudnicki said:
there was a global pandemic and they couldn't sell tickets. it's a gate-driven league.

I'm not siding with anyone. cap is tied to revenues and revenues are not growing so how can the cap be expected to grow?
Click to expand...
I understand. Things can be changed. They could have very easily instituted a reasonable cap raise and/or a luxury tax for teams willing to pay it rather than the punitive measures they have now. Team values are going up in rapid measure every year, these owners crying poverty are full of ####. 

 
Capella said:
I understand. Things can be changed. They could have very easily instituted a reasonable cap raise and/or a luxury tax for teams willing to pay it rather than the punitive measures they have now. Team values are going up in rapid measure every year, these owners crying poverty are full of ####. 
Click to expand...
They only realize the increase in value when they sell the team.  Consider it "house poor"

 
Capella said:
Sure. Sell then. No shortage of billionaires. 
Click to expand...
So to follow that "logic", let's said owner decides to sell the team today (tax implications be damned).  Then I buy the team in at a fair market price (i.e., there are other potential buyers).  Now I own the team with zero unrealized value (since there was no one willing to pay more than me, the value of the team is what I paid). 

Why would I take any action to decrease the value of my investment?  Short answer: I wouldn't.

Your entire argument seems to rest on ownership that disregards financial considerations.

 
Kal El said:
It’s still baffling how they made the Cup Finals. Price carried that team.
Click to expand...
Price pretty much won that Toronto series for sure.  The 'Peg wasn't really any better than Montrea, beating them wasn't much of a surprise - especially after the Shiefelle incident. l still don't understand how they beat Vegas. They were just on a roll, Price was always there to make a big save and they were opportunistic.  Playoff time allowed for the big slow D to do things that are not going to fly in a regular season game.  I guess.  

Heart had a lot to do with it as well.  Seems pretty clear now that they all knew Weber was not likely ever playing again and they just all bought in 100%.   

it was a fun run.  

 
kupcho1 said:
So to follow that "logic", let's said owner decides to sell the team today (tax implications be damned).  Then I buy the team in at a fair market price (i.e., there are other potential buyers).  Now I own the team with zero unrealized value (since there was no one willing to pay more than me, the value of the team is what I paid). 

Why would I take any action to decrease the value of my investment?  Short answer: I wouldn't.

Your entire argument seems to rest on ownership that disregards financial considerations.
Click to expand...
But there are plenty of owners that would be willing to spend over. Nobody is saying everybody has to do it. Put a luxury tax in for those who want to go over and it’s a win for the players, a win for the owners who want to win games and a win for the other owners who just want to take their fans money and not compete. 

 
Capella said:
But there are plenty of owners that would be willing to spend over. Nobody is saying everybody has to do it. Put a luxury tax in for those who want to go over and it’s a win for the players, a win for the owners who want to win games and a win for the other owners who just want to take their fans money and not compete. 
Click to expand...
So ... baseball.

Yeah, there's a winner.

 
@adater: I'm told that Claude Giroux has made it known to Flyers GM Chuck Fletcher that Colorado is where he wants to go. If somehow that doesn't work out, Minnesota or St. Louis would be acceptable alternatives @ColHockeyNow

 
Capella said:
But there are plenty of owners that would be willing to spend over. Nobody is saying everybody has to do it. Put a luxury tax in for those who want to go over and it’s a win for the players, a win for the owners who want to win games and a win for the other owners who just want to take their fans money and not compete. 
Click to expand...


Take that #### to the baseball forum. 

 
Capella said:
People jumping up and down to support a salary cap, a tool put in by owners to literally suppress player salaries to further enrich billionaires, are psychotic. 
Click to expand...
The salary cap is more about limiting the richest owners from buying championships.  Granted it also has the bonus of limiting salaries, but it's up to the players to make sure they negotiate an equitable share.  I also don't know that there are many people "jumping up and down".

Listen, it would be better for my favorite team if it was the good old free spending days.  The Wings used to spend a ton on salaries and FAs.  I don't know that it was the best thing for the league though.

 
Foosball God said:
The salary cap is more about limiting the richest owners from buying championships.  Granted it also has the bonus of limiting salaries, but it's up to the players to make sure they negotiate an equitable share.  I also don't know that there are many people "jumping up and down".

Listen, it would be better for my favorite team if it was the good old free spending days.  The Wings used to spend a ton on salaries and FAs.  I don't know that it was the best thing for the league though.
Click to expand...
I really don't think it is.

 
Foosball God said:
So you're onboard with it being this being an anti-trust issue?
Click to expand...
I think it's pretty clearly a way to keep salaries down. I don't think there's any question of that. And a positive side effect of that is that high-roller teams can't just go spend a billion dollars if they want. But that was not the reason owners in any sport have ever wanted salary caps.

 
BeTheMatch said:
I think it's pretty clearly a way to keep salaries down. I don't think there's any question of that. And a positive side effect of that is that high-roller teams can't just go spend a billion dollars if they want. But that was not the reason owners in any sport have ever wanted salary caps.
Click to expand...
It's still two sides of the same coin, it's just a matter of how much weight you put on each.  Players still have an opportunity to make sure they are getting an appropriate slice of the pie, they generally haven't had the backbone to make it happen though.

 
Foosball God said:
The salary cap is more about limiting the richest owners from buying championships.  Granted it also has the bonus of limiting salaries, but it's up to the players to make sure they negotiate an equitable share.  I also don't know that there are many people "jumping up and down".

Listen, it would be better for my favorite team if it was the good old free spending days.  The Wings used to spend a ton on salaries and FAs.  I don't know that it was the best thing for the league though.
Click to expand...
It absolutely is not. It is a mechanism to limit salaries and competitive balance is the lie they tell to get people to accept it. 
 

Baseball has no cap and the Dodgers have one title in 35 years. The Mets are a joke. The Yankees haven’t won anything since 2009. The whole thing is a scam. 

 
Capella said:
It absolutely is not. It is a mechanism to limit salaries and competitive balance is the lie they tell to get people to accept it. 
 

Baseball has no cap and the Dodgers have one title in 35 years. The Mets are a joke. The Yankees haven’t won anything since 2009. The whole thing is a scam. 
Click to expand...
Baseball is a different animal than hockey, or basketball, or football.

 
Capella said:
I mean baseball blows but they seem to have an indisputable amount of parity. 
Click to expand...
Good point.  Really enjoyed those Tampa (47th largest city in America) & Pittsburgh (#68) championships.  Two small market teams overcoming the odds to win it all.  Heartwarming.  :thumbup:

:lmao:

The notion that baseball has "an indisputable amount of parity" is just nonsense.  The local TV contract money assures this isn't the case.  

I listed two small market teams that won in the NHL.  You've got to go back to 2015 (Kansas City) to find a World Series winner ranked that low.  Throw in St. Louis and you've got two in the last 10 years.  Of course the Blues won a Cup in that timeframe, yet another small market team succeeding.  

 
kupcho1 said:
Good point.  Really enjoyed those Tampa (47th largest city in America) & Pittsburgh (#68) championships.  Two small market teams overcoming the odds to win it all.  Heartwarming.  :thumbup:

:lmao:

The notion that baseball has "an indisputable amount of parity" is just nonsense.  The local TV contract money assures this isn't the case.  

I listed two small market teams that won in the NHL.  You've got to go back to 2015 (Kansas City) to find a World Series winner ranked that low.  Throw in St. Louis and you've got two in the last 10 years.  Of course the Blues won a Cup in that timeframe, yet another small market team succeeding.  
Click to expand...
I never claimed the NHL doesn’t have parity? I’m not sure why you even assumed that, I was just pointing out a non-cap system works equally as well. 
 

Tampa-StP is the 13th biggest media market in the country too, not sure why you just cherry picked the city of Tampa there when nobody else does. 

 
Question....idk the answer.

I know MLB profit sharing has the richest teams distribute wealth to the poorer teams.

Does that happen in the NHL system?

 
"blame the owners for their insane deflating of the salary cap"

"isn't there a CBA with rules and stuff AND a global pandemic that significantly hurt hockey-related revenue?"

"keep jumping up and down and bootlicking the billionaires"

 
imagine what the WIld could be doing if they didn't give away Alex Tuch. 

Can they retire #89 twice for one team?

pretty fun night tomorrow with Eichel's return vs Colorado and USA vs Canada in Women's hockey.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Capella said:
I never claimed the NHL doesn’t have parity? I’m not sure why you even assumed that, I was just pointing out a non-cap system works equally as well. 
 

Tampa-StP is the 13th biggest media market in the country too, not sure why you just cherry picked the city of Tampa there when nobody else does. 
Click to expand...
Both good points.  Perhaps I misread your "indisputable parity" as implying that the NHL doesn't have parity.  However, that doesn't change my opinion that baseball does not have parity.  

And you're right, I should have combined TSP.  My mistake.

That still doesn't change my mind that a salary cap is a good thing.  The ability of owners in large markets to drive revenue via local cable television contracts (not to mention owning networks (e.g., YES, SNY)) splits the league into have and have nots.  Small market owners operating at a consistent loss (i.e., spending more on salaries than they take in at the gate/local TV, etc.) is not a sustainable business model.  

 
Capella said:
It absolutely is not. It is a mechanism to limit salaries and competitive balance is the lie they tell to get people to accept it. 
Click to expand...
I don't get this take - the owners don't negotiate with "people," they negotiate with the players' union.  The union wouldn't "accept a lie" to their own detriment.  They accept the cap as a way to ensure balance, and they negotiate for a larger percentage of the revenue and other benefits.

 
Thorn said:
I don't get this take - the owners don't negotiate with "people," they negotiate with the players' union.  The union wouldn't "accept a lie" to their own detriment.  They accept the cap as a way to ensure balance, and they negotiate for a larger percentage of the revenue and other benefits.
Click to expand...
The players know what a cap is. They accept the PR lie as long as they get out of it what they want. For now, they have. But that's why there's always negotiating about the cap number.

 
BeTheMatch said:
The players know what a cap is. They accept the PR lie as long as they get out of it what they want. For now, they have. But that's why there's always negotiating about the cap number.
Click to expand...
Of course the cap number is negotiated all the time, it wouldn't make sense not to be.  If the players are getting what they want out of collective bargaining (at least to a certain extent) then what's the issue?  It just sounds like fans of teams that are tight up against it are just complaining that their teams can't spend willy nilly.

 
BeTheMatch said:
The players know what a cap is. They accept the PR lie as long as they get out of it what they want. For now, they have. But that's why there's always negotiating about the cap number.
Click to expand...
So you and @Capellatruly believe that salary caps are a ruse used by ownership to control salaries, and the unions know it's a ruse, but go along with it?  It's not more likely that both sides recognize that it's in both their interests to maintain relevance through parity?  That they understand that true free-market intra-league competition would make their league uninteresting and therefore worthless?  

How do you feel about chemtrails?

 
The luxury tax idea is certainly an option that NHL owners have resisted. I'm not sure anyone is arguing strongly against a cap/floor of some sort, but should it be a hard cap or soft cap is the issue. No?

Players hate escrow but they accepted it as part of the CBA to get other things they wanted.

I don't lose any sleep over the owners and how they are doing, but I'd rather not have teams like Toronto or the Rangers get to spend twice as much as some teams, and then have some weaker teams soak up revenue sharing and never try to compete.

 
Thorn said:
So you and @Capellatruly believe that salary caps are a ruse used by ownership to control salaries, and the unions know it's a ruse, but go along with it?  It's not more likely that both sides recognize that it's in both their interests to maintain relevance through parity?  That they understand that true free-market intra-league competition would make their league uninteresting and therefore worthless?  

How do you feel about chemtrails?
Click to expand...
As I said, the parity is a nice side effect. My point is that is in NO WAY the reason the owners wanted and continue to want a cap. The slight increases to the cap over time are not in step with the massive increases in the values of these franchises. It's the owners' way of controlling costs. Not a conspiracy theory. It's common sense.

 
BeTheMatch said:
As I said, the parity is a nice side effect. My point is that is in NO WAY the reason the owners wanted and continue to want a cap. The slight increases to the cap over time are not in step with the massive increases in the values of these franchises. It's the owners' way of controlling costs. Not a conspiracy theory. It's common sense.
Click to expand...
I disagree.  The owners and players know what I said above - parity is needed to maintain the league's value; the cap is one way to ensure parity.

I don't see a reasonable argument by the players that the cap should be tied to franchises' value.  That's a gain (or loss) that is unrealized.  It's not like the owners get a check every year for the new fair market value of the franchise.  And what would happen to guaranteed contracts if the franchise went down in value?  The whole league could fold.  The thing the NHL and NHLPA have to divvy up is revenue.  Both sides are incentivized to grow that pie so their piece of it goes up accordingly.

 
Thorn said:
So you and @Capellatruly believe that salary caps are a ruse used by ownership to control salaries, and the unions know it's a ruse, but go along with it?  It's not more likely that both sides recognize that it's in both their interests to maintain relevance through parity?  That they understand that true free-market intra-league competition would make their league uninteresting and therefore worthless?  

How do you feel about chemtrails?
Click to expand...
I honestly can’t believe people don’t understand this but the players accept the cap because they can’t afford to have a prolonged lockout where they aren’t getting paid. The owners would break them 20x over. There is no way the players are accepting less money in the name of fairness, that’s like believing in the Easter bunny or something. 
 

You’re asking me about chemtrails and you think the players want a cap on their salary?? I mean come on   :lmao:  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RnR
2016 FFA Fantasy College Football League: Now open for Year 12
Replies
21
Views
1K
Pampernick
P
GregR
Greg's Useless Trivia #50 - 100 questions (75 greatest hits, 25 new)
Replies
19
Views
3K
GregR
GregR
(HULK)
Dave Berry's Year in Review
Replies
2
Views
1K
Joe Summer
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top