Location: Never disagree with the mass p Joined: 06.22.2010
Aug 28 @ 7:53 PM ET
Yes but they have it. Crosby and Malkin get 8. whatever. Franchise contract. OV and Backstrom get their money, Parise, Suter and Koivu get their dough. It just isn't formalized. Every team even the bloody Isles and Yotes have franchise kind of deals. Yandle and Tavares get paid higher than their compatriots. - AdamFrench
Yeah so you get those two players as franchise players and have them for life, build around them the best you can, inside the cap.
I still like the heavy salary tax and soft cap better. This will help the small market teams much more IMO.
Location: Isn't Cooley 5"11? You know who else is 5"11? Sydney Crosby. - Scabeh Joined: 04.06.2011
Aug 28 @ 7:53 PM ET
The Islanders have a tremendous history. Losing a team like that would be a crime. What they need is a new place to play.
Point is though, as long as the cap is tied to the revenue, the top teams are going to continue to drive the cap floor to a level that at least 10 teams can't afford. - Two_For_Truth
True their history is strong, but so is their history as being poop stains on the NHL for years.
I agree the cap will always be in flux with the top spenders always pushing and the bottom feeders always skimping out.
Even though NHL success doesn't seem to involve a high cap.
Why? Every team has one already. Just formalize it. - AdamFrench
Did I misunderstand, or did u say it doesn't count against the cap. Because that is suicide. If your Malkin, argubly the 2nd best player in the league. Pitts can offer you 8 mill. Tor, nyr, van can offer you 25 mill. All the best players would be on the wealthiest franchises
Location: Isn't Cooley 5"11? You know who else is 5"11? Sydney Crosby. - Scabeh Joined: 04.06.2011
Aug 28 @ 7:56 PM ET
Did I misunderstand, or did u say it doesn't count against the cap. Because that is suicide. If your Malkin, argubly the 2nd best player in the league. Pitts can offer you 8 mill. Tor, nyr, van can offer you 25 mill. All the best players would be on the wealthiest franchises - Bieksa#3
So? One guy doesn't win games. You can get Malkin give him 25 mil and build your team cap free around him. If you (frank) up you (frank) up. The Cup hasn't been won with money since Joe Sakic got 24 mil a year and Forsberg got a new foot each year and a mansion in Sweden.
Location: If the NHL wanted to cut ties Joined: 06.27.2012
Aug 28 @ 7:57 PM ET
True their history is strong, but so is their history as being poop stains on the NHL for years.
I agree the cap will always be in flux with the top spenders always pushing and the bottom feeders always skimping out.
Even though NHL success doesn't seem to involve a high cap. - AdamFrench
What has happened with the Islanders is a travesty but most of the blame can be laid at the feet of horrible management. Losing the team would be far worse though.
If the cap is out of control, spending money will begin to equate to success more and more much like it does in baseball.
Location: I'm excited to see that Joined: 08.28.2010
Aug 28 @ 8:00 PM ET
What has happened with the Islanders is a travesty but most of the blame can be laid at the feet of horrible management. Losing the team would be far worse though.
If the cap is out of control, spending money will begin to equate to success more and more much like it does in baseball. - Two_For_Truth
So? One guy doesn't win games. You can get Malkin give him 25 mil and build your team cap free around him. If you (frank) up you (frank) up. The Cup hasn't been won with money since Joe Sakic got 24 mil a year and Forsberg got a new foot each year and a mansion in Sweden. - AdamFrench
what. They would be better to keep the current deal. At least if a team goes over with my original proposal the lower teams deep the rewards of the luxery tax. There would be 10 teams go under in no time.
Location: Isn't Cooley 5"11? You know who else is 5"11? Sydney Crosby. - Scabeh Joined: 04.06.2011
Aug 28 @ 8:07 PM ET
what. They would be better to keep the current deal. At least if a team goes over with my original proposal the lower teams deep the rewards of the luxery tax. There would be 10 teams go under in no time. - Bieksa#3
Location: If the NHL wanted to cut ties Joined: 06.27.2012
Aug 28 @ 8:12 PM ET
Like it or not more teams make money in that league because of the luxery tax. Its about every team making money, not every team winning - Bieksa#3
Really? Like all the teams that reported losing money? Or all the teams that have empty buildings?
What's the point of having all the small market teams being utilized as feeders for the big market teams with the big market teams paying all the bills?
Why even have 30 teams? Just have 8 teams and be done with it.
Really? Like all the teams that reported losing money? Or all the teams that have empty buildings?
What's the point of having all the small market teams being utilized as feeders for the big market teams with the big market teams paying all the bills?
Why even have 30 teams? Just have 8 teams and be done with it. - Two_For_Truth
Their bottom feeders are doing far better then the nhl's. And the reason you have more then 8 teams is to grow the game
Location: If the NHL wanted to cut ties Joined: 06.27.2012
Aug 28 @ 8:22 PM ET
Their bottom feeders are doing far better then the nhl's. And the reason you have more then 8 teams is to grow the game - Bieksa#3
You're missing the point entirely. It's not about the bottom feeders doing better in one league than the other. It's about there not being bottom feeders at all. It's about a niche sport like hockey giving the fans more competitive teams. It's about the league being stronger as a whole instead of there being a select few teams who can win while everybody else watches.
Grow the game? Yeah, growing the game should work great when the best player on your team is gone after five years and the same teams are winning year after year.
If it's about growing the game, create a system where teams aren't simply creating talent for rich teams and getting their ass kicked for their trouble.
You're missing the point entirely. It's not about the bottom feeders doing better in one league than the other. It's about there not being bottom feeders at all. It's about a niche sport like hockey giving the fans more competitive teams. It's about the league being stronger as a whole instead of there being a select few teams who can win while everybody else watches.
Grow the game? Yeah, growing the game should work great when the best player on your team is gone after five years and the same teams are winning year after year.
If it's about growing the game, create a system where teams aren't simply creating talent for rich teams and getting their ass kicked for their trouble. - Two_For_Truth
The only way that happens is if they fold 10 teams and have equal revenue sharing amung the rest. Never gonna happen. Whether you agree with it or not their are bottom feeders in every business.
Location: Never disagree with the mass p Joined: 06.22.2010
Aug 28 @ 8:27 PM ET
You're missing the point entirely. It's not about the bottom feeders doing better in one league than the other. It's about there not being bottom feeders at all. It's about a niche sport like hockey giving the fans more competitive teams. It's about the league being stronger as a whole instead of there being a select few teams who can win while everybody else watches.
Grow the game? Yeah, growing the game should work great when the best player on your team is gone after five years and the same teams are winning year after year.
If it's about growing the game, create a system where teams aren't simply creating talent for rich teams and getting their ass kicked for their trouble. - Two_For_Truth
Done said that could worked out much better at a later date, still believe the soft cap and the heavy luxury tax would work the best, like French's idea about the franchise player clause, but there would have to be 2 and not just one. Draft a superstar and keep him long term and and existing one too, if a said superstar wants out and to be traded then fine, the franchise player clause is null and void and counts against the new teams salary cap, that should curb the wanting out if the other teams cant afford him under the cap, and if they can, then have at it...
Location: Never disagree with the mass p Joined: 06.22.2010
Aug 28 @ 8:32 PM ET
What has happened with the Islanders is a travesty but most of the blame can be laid at the feet of horrible management. Losing the team would be far worse though.
If the cap is out of control, spending money will begin to equate to success more and more much like it does in baseball. - Two_For_Truth
I believe that losing the Isles would be a travesty too, one of the last great dynasties in hockey, and likely we wont see dynasties being made in the NHL any longer...
Location: If the NHL wanted to cut ties Joined: 06.27.2012
Aug 28 @ 8:34 PM ET
The only way that happens is if they fold 10 teams and have equal revenue sharing amung the rest. Never gonna happen. Whether you agree with it or not their are bottom feeders in every business. - Bieksa#3
You don't have to fold 10 teams to make this work. Relocate teams, yes, but fold them, absolutely not.
There should not be bottom feeders to the extent that baseball or basketball has bottom feeders. Charlotte went 7-59. That makes sense to you? There should be a team that loses 59 out of 66 games? That's not how you grow the game.
Location: If the NHL wanted to cut ties Joined: 06.27.2012
Aug 28 @ 8:37 PM ET
Done said that could worked out much better at a later date, still believe the soft cap and the heavy luxury tax would work the best, like French's idea about the franchise player clause, but there would have to be 2 and not just one. Draft a superstar and keep him long term and and existing one too, if a said superstar wants out and to be traded then fine, the franchise player clause is null and void and counts against the new teams salary cap, that should curb the wanting out if the other teams cant afford him under the cap, and if they can, then have at it... - ShootingSemin
A soft cap still needs to be regulated otherwise you get four or five teams that spend far too much and a bunch of teams that can't even compete.
One franchise contract is enough. Two is too many. As I said before, the NFL is the only league that uses it and they have twice as many players as the NHL. Having two franchise tags doesn't make sense.
