Mirtle v. Wyshynski: Should the NHL limit lifetime contracts?
by James Mirtle on Jan 30, 2009 10:00 AM CST
100 comments
After a long absence in the series, Yahoo Sports!'s Greg Wyshynski and I tackle the subject of super-long contracts in the NHL. (Thanks again to Steve Slesinski for the funky logo.)
Please feel free to join our debate in the comments:
WYSHYNSKI: I think we can drag the old logo out for this quote from your blog about the Detroit Red Wings signing Henrik Zetterberg to a 12-year deal:
"My guess is Gary Bettman will want to see the length of these deal limited in the near future, because there are now a ton of players using this loophole to lower their annual salary. Some teams will get burned by having too young of a player on a boat anchor contract."
I'm trying to figure out what you mean here. Are you saying Bettman will close the loophole to protect teams from having to commit to 11-year contracts for young players, or are you saying that Bettman will close the loophole because it's a salary cap cheat?
If it's the former ... well, we've already seen the NHL's power brokers eliminate an entire season for the sake of "protecting" the owners from their own crack-rock addiction to bad contracts. So let's never put anything past them.
If it's the latter ... I think that's a valid, non-destructive cheat around the cap and shouldn't be addressed by the NHL. Teams like the Tampa Bay Lightning are taking a risk in front-loading these deals (usually with NTC provisions as well in the early years) that, to me, counterbalances the creative accounting that brings down the cap hit.
MIRTLE: I just know that Bettman absolutely despises these long-term deals. It's not as big a deal for Zetterberg, who is a star, but for someone like Rick DiPietro, it's really blowing up in the team's face.
The NHL would be a farce if all of a sudden every player had a 10-year contract as a way to bring the cap hit lower.
WYSHYNSKI: I guess I'm just missing how it would be a farce. One, because I don't believe every player would have a 10-year deal, simply because conditions (coaches, GMs, etc.) change so frequently that no one is going to give half the roster that level of job security.
But again: Isn't the DiPietro situation a reason for the League not to step in and end the practice? Wang and the New York Islanders took a gamble, and it was their gamble to take. If it works, then he's locked into a cap hit that's the envy of the League at this point. But it didn't, and the team has to be wary about repeating the mistake, going forward.
I just think it all comes back to risk vs. reward.
MIRTLE: On principle, I agree that some teams will be punished for running out the big contracts. But bear with me here.
Think about it — if every team starts doing these contracts, there's no real skill or debate to it. It just becomes the thing to do in the way that RFA's off their first entry-level deal are now getting big money. And if everyone's giving their "stars" a 12-year deal, some of them are going to go bad — really bad.
The Islanders' gamble doesn't involve any skill or foresight. It's like betting on flipping a coin. Injuries are completely random, and will punish teams making good and bad decisions alike. It introduces an element of the absurd, really. If DiPietro's healthy and Mike Richards blows out both knees in Year 1, the Isles are the geniuses there?
Not really.
WYSHYNSKI: Well, like so many other types of gambling, skill has no home here. So if your argument is that it's a dumbing down of the managerial process, I can see your point. But for the league to step in and close a loophole, to me that's an indication that it's an issue that needs addressing, and I just don't see it that way.
If you're going to have a cap, you have to allow for some creative accounting so teams are able to hold onto the players they draft, nurture and then promote as stars. A front-loaded contract with a reduced cap hit allows a team like, say, Detroit to keep a star player while also hanging on to other talent.
Although I suppose the counter-argument would be that long-term, cap-savvy contracts are not allowing elite players to move from team to team, as they probably should in a capped league, right?
MIRTLE: All I was saying was that Bettman would love to get rid of these long-term deals. He can't stand them. I personally think they're unwise, but I'm not necessarily saying this should be a top priority for the league. There are plenty of worse issues with the CBA.
The more and more of these deals there are, the fewer players will be traded and the more boat anchors there'll be around the league. I'm guessing down the line more and more of the trades we see are one hunk of salary cap junk for another.
WYSHYNSKI: So to wrap this up, James: Is the cap working? Would we have still seen the elephantine 11-13 year contracts if there had been a luxury tax instead?
MIRTLE: In a lot of ways, the cap works well. I like that it limits everyone to a number like $56.7-million, as that's entirely reasonable for a lot of clubs to reach.
What I don't like are the lack of limits on monster deals (it's a matter of time before someone offers a 25-year contract like the one Magic Johnson once got) and the fact the salary floor is so high. Teams should be able to rebuild like the Penguins did with incredibly low salaries and a lot of youth.
If Zetterberg is 28 and gets a 12-year deal, why not give a 20-year deal to Tavares after his entry-level deal? And what if every phenom after that holds out for it?
0 recs |
100 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
I keep going back and forth
Either there should be a limit (8 years is perfect, I could live with 10 though), or more stringent rules on the salary distribution between each year.
For example, a rule I’d put in place is put a cap on the distance (both above and below) from the average (cap hit) salary. We’ve seen with Briere, Vinny, and now Zetterberg, meaningless years tacked onto the end to reduce the cap hit and make it easier to buy out 8 or 10 years in.
Zetterberg’s contract: 12 years, $72 million. That’s a $6 million cap hit. What I propose is NO YEAR of that contract can pay Zetterberg less than 75% of that $6 million ($4.5 million) and 125% of the $6 million ($7.5 million)
I chose 75% as a starting point, obviously it can be changed to even 50% (where lower/upper limits are $3 million and $9 million). IMO, that working in combination with or independent of a term limit may solve the problem.
by Afino on Jan 30, 2009 10:18 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Question regarding buyouts: what determines the value of a buyout? Is it the cap hit of the contract being bought out or the actual due salary for the years remaining? In the Zetterberg case, would buyout value at the 10th year be based on a 6M cap figure or a 1M due salary?
In terms of the long term deals, one part solution would be to modify the rule regarding players 35 and older when they retire. Make the team responsible for the cap hit regardless of age of retirement, IF they signed the player to a long-term deal (let’s say more than 5 years) that would carry the player past his 35th birthday.
by Habs on Jan 30, 2009 10:36 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Do you mean the entire contract or the years past 35?
Because that’s something else I’m all for – making the 35-and-over years guaranteed on a multi-year deal regardless of when the contract was signed.
by Afino on Jan 30, 2009 10:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The buyout would be for 2/3 of the remaining value of the contract, so in this case it would be the $1M. Not too worrisome for Ken Holland.
by PRC on Jan 30, 2009 11:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Thx for the info. That’s something that could be modified as well, right now as you say it’s really a joke for the team as they know in the last 3 years of the deal they can buy him out for nearly nothing.
by Habs on Jan 30, 2009 11:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No limit? Really? That’s what the majority is supporting?
This means no more trades, more buy-out deals like Yashins and more mistakes like Campbell’s.
A 6 year maximum would be perfect.
I might not be a player, but VERY few occupations will sign for longer deals than 5… and most occupations have a longer shelf life than 10 years.
Don't be afraid to take a few steps back, but you better keep moving forward.
by wlittle on Jan 30, 2009 10:44 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
What are you, a socialist? How about we set a limit on long your employer can contract you for.
Teams should be able to do whatever the hell they want within the parameters of the salary cap. Period.
by mclea on Jan 30, 2009 7:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To me, it is simply not an issue. It is simply a case of players signing the deals taking cap space from future players. It is of no concern whatsoever to the owners.
If anyone should be concerned, it should be the NHLPA, but it is going to be hard to make a case to NHLPA members that they should exercise restraint in their demands in favour of future NHLPA members who at this point are still playing peewee hockey.
It also seems misguided to suggest that these deals are “bad” deals – whatever that means. It is only a “bad” deal if the team is paying more than what the market would bear if those players were to go on the market. Does anyone seriously suggest that Zetterberg would not command top-dollar or near top-dollar? If one takes the assumption that Zetterberg would get $9 mil or so a year, say over 7 years, that is $63 million. If one is then committed to having to pay a $63 million package to secure the player, no matter what, it cna make sense to spread the cap hit to the extent possible. In exchange for that spreading, the team endures the cap hit for longer. That is simply a business/hockey decision to make; what is wrong with it?
The notion of this being a salary cap dodge is misguided to me. It is simply a set of payment terms. It is deferred compensation. The fact that it steals cap room from future generations of players is their issue.
by Gerald on Jan 30, 2009 11:30 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
There’s risk here, too, though Gerald. If a player is injured in Year 1 of a 12-year deal, the team’s still on the hook for a lot of that salary.
The teams need to be protected from themselves here. It’s really a matter of time before someone does something crazier than the DiPietro deal.
by James Mirtle on Jan 30, 2009 11:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Aren’t teams insured though? I thought the first 7 years in a player contract were covered by insurance so if a player is injured in Year 1, the insurance would pay and not the team. And they move him to IR, removing his salary off the cap.
I might be wrong about the insurance thing though…
by Habs on Jan 30, 2009 11:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Even then, you’re still on the hook for the last five years of the contract. And if there are 20-year deals, there are 13 years where a team would have to pay out.
by James Mirtle on Jan 30, 2009 11:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Insurance and actual salary aside, you have teams like Philly who put Briere on IR, send him to the minors for “conditioning” and then “extra surgery”, when we know damn well they don’t have the cap room to bring him back up.
Granted, it’s their own fault for putting themselves into this, but it’s not fair to Briere if when he’s healthy, he’s still in the minors “conditioning”. Like any professional, he wants to earn his contract and prove his worth.
I have no idea how that loophole can be closed, but it’s something else that also needs to be looked at.
by Afino on Jan 30, 2009 11:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Quibble, but...
A deal like Zetterberg’s may take cap space from future players, but nobody gets paid in cap space, so nobody cares. Because total player salaries are fixed, it takes actual salary from current players.
To see why this is, imagine a situation where every player in the NHL has a two year contract that pays a total of $10m. Say half the players have that split evenly between the two years, and the other have have $9m in the first year and $1m in the second. If league revenues are the same between the two years, then escrow will make sure that total player salaries are the same, too. And let’s say that revenues are exactly the right amount to allow an average player salary each year of $5m, exactly the average cap hit.
In the first year, half the players have a salary of $9m, and the other half an average of $5m. But for any such pair of players, there’s only $10m to divide between them, and the first player will get 64% of it (9/14), while the second only gets 36% (5/14). The second year, those two players will divide up the same $10m, but this time the first player will only get 17% (1/6), while the second will get 83% (5/6).
Zetterberg’s deal takes a little bit of money from every other player in the league while his salary is above his cap hit, but then gives a lot of money back to every other player when his salary is below his cap hit. Interestingly, if he retires before those last three years, he never has to ‘give back’ any money. That’s why the rules should be changed so that a cap hit stays on the books any time a player over a certain age retires, regardless of when he signed the contract.
by RyanV on Jan 30, 2009 8:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Have to agree with James on this one just for the sake of the league’s future reputation and stability.
I would support a limit only in that I think it’s an instance in which the league needs to protect the owners/GMs from themselves. While I agree that we certainly wont see a large percentage of players getting these contract, it’s clear that they are a trend gaining momentum. A few years ago we all laughed at the absurdity of the DiPietro deal and now we’ve got half a dozen similar contracts that have the potential to be just as silly but are not as abhorred because of the caliber of players that they’ve been given to.
The problem as I think James alludes to is that as the trend continues these deals will no longer be given to the same caliber that are receiving them today, as the standard length continues to rise you’ll find more and more teams offer these deals not because they truly want them to be a lifetime team member, but because the risk of letting someone else make the offer is too great. This is especially true when you factor in the number of GMs who are regularly forced into fighting for their jobs with bold maneuvers. The majority of GMs that make these deals will be long forgotten by their respective clubs when they expire, and despite towing the company line that they’re – “doing what’s best for the organization” – there will always be a selfish interest among these leaders who know that if things go badly, they wont be the ones around to clean up the mess.
Some may say that the responsibility to remain reasonable would then fall to the owners. While I agree with this in principle, not every owner can be a backseat-GM, and the league is better off when an owner is content to let a qualified GM have the appropriate control.
As a compliment to that framework, I think a little league supervision and limitation on contracts like these will help to save the owners from overzealous GMs whose motives can never be unequivocally pure, and also to save GMs from themselves as a group because it is there games with one another are often what drive these escalations.
I have very little problem with any of the creative accounting that is used to play with the cap rules, my concern is that today’s rules are not tomorrow’s rules, and we’ve learned in the recent past that when the rules are no longer beneficial, the owners have no qualms with forcing change at the expense of the league and its fans. It’s just a new escalation of the rising-salary-arms-war that led to the lockout, all we’ve done is trade our ridiculous yearly rates for ridiculous contract lengths.
by ConfidoBoyd on Jan 30, 2009 11:39 AM CST reply actions 5 recs
The failure to protect owners/GM’s from themselves led the NHL to lose a full year.
The consequences may not be that same result next time around, but they’ll still be long-ranging and severe.
You do have a point though when you said:
" the risk of letting someone else make the offer is too great. This is especially true when you factor in the number of GMs who are regularly forced into fighting for their jobs with bold maneuvers"
The Vanek offer sheet was a perfect example. Kevin Lowe saw an opportunity where he could sign Vanek to whatever terms he damn well pleased, since Buffalo had already lost Briere and Drury, and Regier would have been drawn and quartered in front of HSBC if he let Vanek walk away too. It was a desperation move from Lowe, and an acceptance that Regier had to make to save his own job.
I’m just scared of tomorrow.
by Afino on Jan 30, 2009 11:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But how much of that falls right back on the owners?
No owner should be a backseat GM, true – but he should have the brains to realize that the team isn’t going to win every year, and the solution isn’t to automatically fire the GM when the team is injured or inexperienced or just plain bad.
They should know the rules and limitations of the CBA more than anyone – they wanted the dang thing – and should be able to converse with the GM about why a team isn’t playing as well as they would like, and let him know that his job is secure if it isn’t his fault, so he doesn’t feel compelled to do something desperate.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jan 30, 2009 12:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
A lot of it does.
And certainly in the Sabres’ case, Tom Golisano is NOT a hockey man. He’s a businessman first and will always be. So when Darcy Regier goes up and asks “Hey Tom, can we get another $2 million to trade for Player X so we can make the playoffs?”, TG doesn’t understand WHY the Sabres need Player X to make the playoffs.
by Afino on Jan 30, 2009 12:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
In an ideal world I agree that it would work that way. Unfortunately the politics of the ownership/GM relationship can become very convoluted, especially when you factor in that not every team is owned by an autonomously powerful individual and many employ several other layers of bureaucracy among the management ranks.
Owners certainly need to remain responsible for their property, that will never change. It just seems that some league influence in this area is something that will help to shield the greater interest from personnel decisions that are being made by sound mind or of perceived requirements.
by ConfidoBoyd on Jan 30, 2009 12:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder if players take out separate insurance on their contracts so as to avoid a Lemieux type situation where you’re fighting for your salary in bankruptcy court. Do you think TB will be around to pay Vinny’s final paycheck in the Spring of 2013? If a team goes under you’d like to think a new owner will step in and honour the outstanding salary obligations, but with the economy the way it is, finding such a savior may not be so easy in the coming years.
http://puckreport.blogspot.com
MG
by puckreport on Jan 30, 2009 11:56 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I have no problem with the length of the deals. Owners should live with their mistakes.
IMO, the problem is the way you can spread salary. This cap is all about equity; giving every team a chance to be competitive. Cheating the salary cap like TB , Philadelphia or Detroit did is against this idea.
Imagine, say, Scott Niedermayer (or any great player on the verge of retirement) signing a 3 years deal with, says, Philladelphia. They pay him 10 M$ the first year, and 450,000 for the last 2. The cap hit here is 3,633 M$, giving Philly all the money they need to sign more quality players. Niedermayer (hypothetically) doesn’t care about the last 2 years, cause he’s gonna retire anyway. Nor Philly cares about giving him 10M$, because they can afford it.
In this case, the problem is not the length of the deal, it’s the way you can cheat the salary cap. It’s all about rich teams against poor teams. Once again.
by Francksarge on Jan 30, 2009 11:58 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
The CBA doesn’t permit quite such extremes, though – the difference between years can’t be more than the difference between the first two contract years, or some dollar amount, or something, I can’t recall exactly what, but there are rules.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jan 30, 2009 12:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Also
Niedermayer is 35; according to the CBA, if he signs a contract like that Philly is liable for the cap hit whether or not he retires before his contract is up. This kind of cheat really only works on long term deals, where you can gradually scale down the dollars as Baroque noted and the term takes the player from under 35 to retirement age.
I've been looking at the sky
by Back In Black on Jan 30, 2009 1:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Would it make it any better ...
… for any of you if the ultra-long-term contracts were limited to a player drafted by a team, instead of free agents or players traded for? That would enable a team to keep someone they developed for a long time, but they couldn’t give such long contracts to everyone.
Other than that, if the owners want to give out the deals, they should be able to – and if they get burned, tough. They got the CBA they said they needed to survive – make it work or stuff it. Preferably both, actually.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jan 30, 2009 12:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I like the idea that contracts of a certain length are for “franchise” type players, that have not been a part of any other organization.
I also think that such long term contracts should be subjected to the same rules already in place for those signed over 35. Would make teams think twice about the length of contract when it would still count against the team if the player retired.
by lordosis on Jan 30, 2009 12:06 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Only after he hits 35, maybe.
Then if a team wants a long-term deal, they can sign a contract that runs until he is 35 and then sign a new one after that, instead of using very late years purely to lower the cap hit. It would instead reflect the diminishing contributions of an older player.
I think it’s silly to force players to move around, via contract limitations or trade, just to keep fans interested – if they want to stay put, then fine. And if a team can’t get good players to stay, they should look at making it a better team to play for instead of forcing someone to come there.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jan 30, 2009 12:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ya, I meant the rules would only apply after the player hits 35.
by lordosis on Jan 30, 2009 12:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, I misunderstood a little – that makes sense, and it wouldn’t be a major change either but more of a tweak.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jan 30, 2009 12:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It would be a tweak with a lot of impact though. In the Zetterberg situation, he’s under contract for 5 years after 35 – as it is now, if he retires anywhere in there, the Wings can clear his salary off the cap. If this tweak was made, they’d be on the hook for his 6M cap hit until he’s 40, no matter what.
by Habs on Jan 30, 2009 1:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Is there anything keeping clubs from signing players to 30, 40, 50 or 80 year deals?
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Jan 30, 2009 12:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
You’re thinking Tavares for 50 years at a cap hit of only 2.5 million a year, aren’t you?
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jan 30, 2009 12:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wang is just salivating thinking about that possibility.
The population of Pominville keeps rising!
by Blackcapricorn on Jan 30, 2009 12:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But he would be such a bargain in 15 years! :)
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jan 30, 2009 12:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And once his brain was transplanted into a cyborg he would still be playing after 50 years.
Of course we will all be working for the machines by then, too, and taking orders from the coffee makers and electric pencil sharpeners. So it won’t all be happy times.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jan 30, 2009 12:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If he lives up to the hype at all, watch him get an insane contract in terms of length. And the Islanders are just the team to give it to him.
The population of Pominville keeps rising!
by Blackcapricorn on Jan 30, 2009 12:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And then Karma comes over and takes out his knee. {sigh}
*or Darcy Tucker, whoever arrives first
Lighthouse Hockey: an SB Nation New York Islanders blog with hip issues.
by Dominik on Jan 30, 2009 12:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Smart money’s on David Koci, who’ll be with yet another team for no apparent reason at all.
Pittsburgh Black And Gold -- So new, it still smells like paint!
by JustinM on Jan 30, 2009 1:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Darcy Tucker is too slow now. A turtle on speed could outskate him.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jan 30, 2009 1:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Tucker or the turtle on skates? :)
Sorry – I’m prone to really bizarre animal metaphors.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jan 30, 2009 2:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Duh
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
by Chemmy on Jan 30, 2009 12:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I love am scared of where this is headed.
by PRC on Jan 30, 2009 12:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No there isn’t. Why not give a Tavares a 30-year deal? Think of the cap hit!
by James Mirtle on Jan 30, 2009 12:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, give Tavares a deal that pays him league max salary until he’s 40, and after that trails down to $1m a season for 50 more years. He’ll retire, the cap hit disappears, he isn’t owed that salary, everyone wins except for 29 teams.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
by Chemmy on Jan 30, 2009 1:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s about a $250-million, 70-year contract. Cap hit would only be $3.6-million.
If the cap goes up, why not try something like this?
by James Mirtle on Jan 30, 2009 1:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn’t the league still have to approve all signed contracts? Obviously a seventy year contract violates the spirit of the collective bargaining agreement. I would think they could veto that?
I understand the point you’re making James, and agree that someone will do something more ridiculous than the DiPietro deal; but at least that was a legit deal and consistent on the money (i.e. no front-loading/back-loading that I know of.)
by Hooks Orpik on Jan 30, 2009 2:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i personally like the idea of giving a guy a long term contract to start their career. it would stiffle some of the movement that players could have in changing teams, but only if they agree to the contract. I think it would give the teams more of a solid feel, like you know who is going to be on your team for years to come unless you can unload them in a trade). I know this takes some of the power of free agency away from the players, but if they were to sign up for a contract like this, its on them.
by bradboyes26 on Jan 30, 2009 12:41 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I’d say that’s even riskier than the current deals being handed out.
It’s hard on both sides – you’re just going to end up with situations like Dustin Penner’s, where he’s faced heat because he hasn’t performed to the level he did in Anaheim; meanwhile does Edmonton look very intelligent for having written up that offer sheet?
"Without good hard work, it is impossible to reach the pinnacle of success." - Anatoli Tarasov
by PRC on Jan 30, 2009 12:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And with offer sheets, you have the additional factor of the draft choices given up for a contract that needs to be an overpay or it won’t get the player away from his current team.
Maybe only permit long-term deals for players who have played a certain number of games in the league? It would allow the teams to have a better idea of his injury history and performance – and would force all teams to do what I think the smarter teams already do, avoid making an impulsive rash decision.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jan 30, 2009 12:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And with offer sheets, you have the additional factor of the draft choices given up for a contract that needs to be an overpay or it won’t get the player away from his current team.
It doesn’t need to be an overpay anymore, or at least not nearly to the level it did before the lockout. The team may just not be able to fit the player in anymore.
Pittsburgh Black And Gold -- So new, it still smells like paint!
by JustinM on Jan 30, 2009 12:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
“I know this takes some of the power of free agency away from the players”
Which is exactly why the NHLPA would never let this happen.
by Afino on Jan 30, 2009 12:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand this comment from Wysh
If you’re going to have a cap, you have to allow for some creative accounting so teams are able to hold onto the players they draft, nurture and then promote as stars.
Why do you have to allow for creative accounting? Isn’t a cap about controlling year-to-year costs, period? To me, GMs should plan accordingly, build in risk awareness and flexibility, or suffer the consequences. I know it’s never as simple as your garden-variety fantasy league, but you have X talent, at X age, who will become free agents at X year: Now draw up a long-term plan on how to compensate them.
I think extreme long-term deals are ultimately bad for the league (owners come and go, only the fans remain to feel the consequences), but if you weren’t allowed to tack on infinite years at the end of deals to bring down the average cap hit, that would be progress.
Alternatively: Just make the cap hit what you’re actually paying out each year, instead of the average. Then you can creatively frontload and backload as much as you want, according to your assessment of the talent/age/FA status variables of your roster, and you don’t get a benefit to signing some star at $1 mill per through his age Chelios year.
Lighthouse Hockey: an SB Nation New York Islanders blog with hip issues.
by Dominik on Jan 30, 2009 12:56 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Just make the cap hit what you’re actually paying out each year, instead of the average.
The problem with that is, once again, the fans take the fall. This opens up the door to a team signing a few stars to 1M per year for this year but 10M for the following couple of years just to stack the team for a Cup run. Whether that run is successful or not, then this team suddenly has 15M of additional cap hit with no new player, forcing them to gut the roster to fit under the cap. Then you have teams stagnating for years just waiting for the ‘too expensive’ parts of their back loaded contracts to expire.
They are having this problem in the NFL and I don’t think the NHL wants to go that route.
You can argue that only an idiotic GM/owner would build a team like that, however as ConfidoBoyd noted earlier, a lot of GMs pull deals off in desperation, just to save their jobs.
(note: this is funny, having about the same debate here and on Puck Daddy’s.)
by Habs on Jan 30, 2009 1:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You can argue that only an idiotic GM/owner would build a team like that, however as ConfidoBoyd noted earlier, a lot of GMs pull deals off in desperation, just to save their jobs.
Alas, that’s probably the root of it. I was thinking of only balancing your current money makers (who will decline later on but still retain worth) with your future moneymakers (who are good now but are cheap). But of course history shows there are always short-term thinkers who move the needle.
I guess the problem is you have owners, players and fans whose interests only align at one brief moment (when a team wins a Cup), while the rest of the time no one agrees what the common interests of the game are (i.e. “Revenue growth!” “No, affordable tickets!” “No, unlimited salaries!” “No, enough money for third-liners!” etc.)
Lighthouse Hockey: an SB Nation New York Islanders blog with hip issues.
by Dominik on Jan 30, 2009 2:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Simple Solution
All the NHL has to do is add inflation into the average so that teams are not rewarded for this behavior. So for example, a two year 20 million dollar contract would be a 9.5 mill cap-hit in the first year and 10.5 mill cap-hit in the second year.
A more complicated example is a 15 year 150 million.
Would work out as
6.95
7.29
7.65
8.03
8.45
8.85
9.30
9.77
10.25
10.77
11.30
11.87
12.46
13.09
13.74
Sums to about $15 million. (note 5% increase every season)
They can still pay them whatever dollar figures they agree to, but the above list would be their cap hits
by hockeynumbers on Jan 30, 2009 2:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Chris, you’re making too much sense here.
by James Mirtle on Jan 30, 2009 2:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I’d say that’s pretty damn brilliant! Therefore, never gonna happen…
by Habs on Jan 30, 2009 3:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
There’s definitely some merit to this idea.
My only concern at first glance is that it opens up the opportunity for big market clubs to exploit the system to their advantage and will lead to a scenario similar to the NBA where big cap contracts become unique commodities.
For example, the Leafs could load up a bunch of these deals on youngsters in their prime years paying out the majority of real dollars while the salary cap figure is relatively low. As the players twilight they can then be traded to smaller market clubs for top prospects. The small market teams will only have to pay a fraction of the real dollars and will get the benefit of being artificially pushed above the cap floor while having a big name player added to the roster.
by ConfidoBoyd on Jan 30, 2009 3:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So you’re saying the Leafs could exploit that system?
Where do they sign up?
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Jan 30, 2009 6:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Uhh...
That would increase the short-term incentives for teams to give out long-term, front-loaded contracts. Under this system, instead of Zetterberg having a $6m cap hit next season, he’d have a $4.35m cap hit. Then all the Wings would have to do is give a similar deal to Hossa, and they could resign Franzen and Hudler, and trade for Mats Sundin, to boot.
by RyanV on Jan 30, 2009 8:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the problem is that no one really has decided what is the best option for the league – not for stupid GMs, not for small markets, but the sport as a whole. Is it forcing teams to spend more than they can afford on salaries because the cap floor goes up (which the owners agreed to) because the most profitable teams pulled in more dollars, or requiring teams to let go of players they would like to keep and who would like to stay because they don’t have enough cap room (even though they could afford it), or forcing the best players to move to worse teams because they are the only ones who have cap space, or penalizing teams who have several young players improve all at once so the team has to lose some of them because the cap won’t permit keeping them all. Or increasing revenue sharing so a team that has to give away tickets and isn’t showing any need to eliminate giveaways any time soon can still afford to put a team on the ice – thus penalizing the teams that do make the playoffs frequently.
I don’t know what the best answer is, but the owners can’t even agree among themselves on what is best. And no one solution will fit every market because there are such wide disparities in fan interest and potential for revenues.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jan 30, 2009 2:56 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
addendum
I meant to add that the question shouldn’t be whether stupid GMs are better off with long-term contracts limited so they can’t shoot themselves in the foot, but if it is a good thing for the sport that teams have the ability to lock up what they consider key players for a long time at a relatively low price. I like that teams can commit to a player long-term, and however interesting trades and a lot of player movement can be for fans, I prefer stability so I know who the heck is playing on a team from one year to the next instead of having enormous roster turnover. But that’s just my personal preference.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jan 30, 2009 2:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
A nine-year deal is a long term. What’s wrong with limiting contracts to that point?
by James Mirtle on Jan 30, 2009 3:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing, really – except then someone will complain about a nine-year contract that burns a team because a player got hurt, so maybe the limit should be seven.
I just don’t see the point in trying to idiot-proof the CBA because the idiots are so blasted ingenious. No matter what provisions are put in, there will be some way to get around them, and someone will make a bad decision and want the agreement changed to prevent them from being stupid next time, because if they are FORCED to make good decisions they just KNOW the team will be successful and win a lot of games and make tons of money.
It just seems like an exhausting exercise in futility.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jan 30, 2009 3:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What about using a pay system similar to the NFL?
There you have a signing bonus that is prorated over the course of a contract, along with a base salary. The signing bonus can only prorated for 5 years (I think). Therefore the team would have to endure bigger cap hits the first few years before they actually saw the savings of the deal.
by Mandmeisterx on Jan 30, 2009 3:03 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The problem with the NFL system is that it is easily and regularly manipulated by the markets that can afford to spend more. It’s not uncommon for manipulation of the bonus structure to allow teams to spend considerably higher than the cap # in a given years salary and yet technically come in under the cap. This scenario would exacerbate the small market competition problems that the NHL salary cap was intended to correct.
by ConfidoBoyd on Jan 30, 2009 3:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Didn’t the NFL owners just opt out of their CBA, primarily because the larger markets are bringing in new revenue sources that smaller markets don’t have access to, and there is some talk about how fair the revenue sharing is now?
(I’m not sure as I don’t follow football – in fact I actually thought the season was already over and was surprised to hear there is a game this Sunday.) :)
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jan 30, 2009 3:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know all of the details intimately, but I think the major issue was that smaller market teams are having trouble keeping up with the cap floor number. Since the cap floor number is tied to league revenues then yes I suppose it would make sense that the problem would lie in the smaller markets inability to bring in new revenue sources.
by ConfidoBoyd on Jan 30, 2009 3:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
1) Here’s a solution: One that we are sure to hear from by the time the next CBA negotiations (posturing) begins in 2 years. Eliminate guarenteed contracts!
by Fauxrumors on Jan 30, 2009 3:09 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
There’d be a defection of 600 players to the KHL if guaranteed contracts were eliminated.
"Without good hard work, it is impossible to reach the pinnacle of success." - Anatoli Tarasov
by PRC on Feb 2, 2009 9:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Never thought I’d live long enough, but I’m in Gerald’s camp.
The market dictates compensation. The teams are setting payment terms. Nothing more.
Richard Nixon and P.E. Trudeau thank the rest of you for your support on trying to cap the free market. Perhaps Obama will subscribe to your newsletter.
by Dr Van Nostrum on Jan 30, 2009 3:15 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The problem is that any market has corrective forces that rise up to fix inefficiencies, and in the NHLs case the most recent corrective force resulted in a year without hockey.
The salary market is already highly regulated by the CBA so relying on a “free market” argument is a fruitless exercise.
by ConfidoBoyd on Jan 30, 2009 3:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I’d even settle for a cap of 10 or 12 years.
The problem’s going to be with one of those ridiculous 20- or 30-year deals. I see no reason why GMs aren’t capable of such utter lunacy.
by James Mirtle on Jan 30, 2009 4:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What about, since everything else is age-based (draft eligibility, free agency, etc.) not permit any long-term contract to extend past the player’s 40th year. So the only way any player could get a 20-year contract is if he signed it when he was just 20 years old.
It would keep a contract at least within his expected playing career, instead of blatantly extending it far past any time he might be realistically expected to be on the ice. Unless he has the Chelios gene, of course – but he has been on a series of one-year deals for a little while now.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jan 30, 2009 7:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, primarily because the league seems to have set up a de facto limit of age + length of contract = 40 or less (in case no one noticed?).
The earlier comments about Tavares and the 20-30 year contract are not a concern, as rookies cannot sign more than a 3 year deal under the entry level system.
All of this seems to be attempts to fix what is not broken. I have yet to see anyone explain what the problem is. James, I carefully looked over your conversation with Greg, and I didn’t see anything other than:
“someone will get burned”,
… which is of course comprehensively answered by:
“So what? Teams get burned all the time by bad contracts (or rewarded by good ones), since there is inherent uncertainty in the prediction of athletic performance and there always will be.”
Other than that, all there seems to be is some notion that it is ridiculous, which really is not much of an objection. IF I am misreading this, I would love for someone to explain it to me.
As an aside, surely no one out there thinks that, when this CBA was being negotiated, the guys across the table did not identify this as an issue, do they? If anyone thinks that, I would have to say that this “loophole” is pretty obvious – obvious enough that any first-year lawyer would have identified it as a technique that teams could use. As well, it is worth noting that the NBA (which every CBA negotiator at the table undoubtedly knew by heart) has term limits. If I were the NHL negotiator, I would have no trouble giving way on that point, since the only things that REALLY matter are the player share percentage and the payroll spread (and revenue sharing, of course).
by Gerald on Jan 30, 2009 10:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What is “broken” is the potential for how these contracts, as they become more wide spread, will have long term negative effects on a league that is already facing serious economic issues.
The attitude of “So what? Teams get burned all the time…” is short sighted and dangerously blasé considering the recent league history we all endured, and the economic realities of running a sport that will always struggle to remain competitive. As these life-time contracts compound and become more common place we will start to see some teams getting burned, and the more contracts that are signed the higher number that will become millstones for mid and small market teams. As the number of teams suffering from their own mistakes grows, the greater sense of urgency there will be amongst them to fix there own mistakes. The actions taken to correct these mistakes as GMS band together have the potential to greatly hurt the league as a whole, not just teams individually.
The thing to keep in mind is that these lifetime contracts are being given out for terms that would generally include the span of 3-5 different CBAs. As we’ve seen in the past the most effective way for teams to correct their own mistakes and ensure their own viability is by forcing the players’ hand into helping via hard nosed negotiation tactics. This hurts the league. This hurts us. This is why we think the league needs to limit contract, it has the ability to think about the long term ramifications while the teams are only focused on the immediate security of their assets.
by ConfidoBoyd on Jan 31, 2009 3:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not a single thing you said is an actual concrete reason why long-term contracts are a problem. You simply jump from “they will be millstones” to “have the potential to greatly hurt the league”.
With all due respect, this is absolute rubbish. Again, I say (and with feeling this time) – please (you or anyone else) carefully explain step by step what is the problem for long-term contracts for the league – not individual teams who sign them and wind up hamstrung, but the LEAGUE. Individual teams getting screwed with bad decisions (even assuming they are bad decisions, and there is not a whit of evidence to suggest that any of them are actually bad) will not result in the league trying to negotiate anything of the sort.
As more teams get burned, there will be fewer such contracts, not more.
“Have the potential”. How? Exactly how?
by Gerald on Jan 31, 2009 3:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How about
We pay everyone the same and just rotate players randomly between teams every couple of years!
We’ll always have something to complain about
by detroitnick on Jan 30, 2009 3:21 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I like it
~~~aroundthehabs.blogspot.com~~~
by gillis on Jan 30, 2009 3:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The team that “lucks” into eight goaltenders is going to have fun.
Or the trade market will be insane as teams just try to get the right numbers of the right positions.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jan 30, 2009 3:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
1) Go to the Charlie Finley(of baseball lore) idea of having ALL players be unrestricted free agents every year. Thus driving down their value as players flood the market and players are only compensated based upon last year’s stats. ; )
by Fauxrumors on Jan 30, 2009 4:33 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Saying that GMs need to be protected from themselves is a little strange, but at least it’s defensible on the grounds that it’s in the league’s interest to maintain competitive balance, and that having a league full of healthy teams is better for everybody. But comparing these long-term contracts to the pre-lockout salary escalation is completely misguided.
The problem in that case was that one big contract made every contract bigger. Every individual GM benefited from offering a big contract (that’s how you get good players, after all), but it everybody else had to offer bigger contracts, too, and so every team wound up being worse off. That, combined with the huge revenue differences between teams, is what lead to the lockout. In the parlance, big contracts were “negative-sum”. Each big contract made everybody worse off.
That’s not the case now. Zetterberg’s contract, on net, doesn’t hurt any other teams in the league. No matter how big a contract any GM gives out, he can’t change the amount that owners are going to pay to the players. Nor can he affect the overall competitive balance of the league in the long term. It’s a competition, so every good team means there must be a bad team somewhere, too. A situation where most of the teams in the league are held down by such bad contracts is a virtual impossibility. Some will be, of course, but that just means you have a few bad teams—which would have happened anyway.
These long-term front-loaded contracts are just a way for GMs to mortgage their future for a short-term gain, basically the same thing as trading away a bunch of draft picks and prospects at the trade deadline. That’s good for the league, because it means top teams likely won’t stay top teams forever, it means average teams have a way to become top teams, and both of those in turn mean bad teams will have a chance to improve, too.
A player retiring and his cap hit disappearing definitely is a loophole, though, and should be closed. The issues with injury insurance are real, too, but that’s an argument in favour of tweaking injury insurance, not in favour of limiting contract lengths.
by RyanV on Jan 30, 2009 9:09 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think the insurance companies set the injury insurance parameters, not the NHL. No one wants to insure a massive contract beyond the seven years (at a price that’s affordable).
by James Mirtle on Jan 30, 2009 9:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That is absolutely correct, James. Insurers will ultimately insure anything for the right price, but there are limits to affordability.
by Gerald on Jan 30, 2009 10:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We’re starting to see those limits tested, definitely.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Jul 15, 2009 8:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with you 100% on the contention that its a different situation. The problem now, as it was before, is precedent. Zetterberg’s contract does hurt other teams because it sets the precedent for what the other stars around the league should expect with offers. If Marion Hossa decides to abandon his cup hopes after the year and go the complete UFA route, he will now be able to demand a 10 year contract that will take him to his 40th birthday.
You say that these contracts are not problematic because they don’t affect the net salary payable in a single year, but large unmovable contracts have the ability to severely handicap the ability of a team to maneuver. We’ve all seen the arguments and evidence of how huge contracts at the top have negatively affected teams like Tampa, Ottawa, and at the moment potentially Philadelphia. Now imagine how these situations escalate as the contracts that are problematic double in length and in salary commitment. There is massive potential for teams to find themselves completely hand cuffed by the deals they’ve made within the rules they themselves established. What’s the solution at that point? Change the rules again. More hard nosed collective bargaining. More potential work stoppages. More player/owner animosity. More negative press for the league.
Nobody is making there argument with Zetterberg’s contract as a singular example, the fact is that it is another example of a trend that is in its early stages. A trend that has the potential for exceptionally complex ramifications if it continues to grow. As we have seen in the past, it takes drastic measures for growing trends to be curbed by the teams them self, and it would be best if this time the league were to step in with a guiding hand in the early stages.
by ConfidoBoyd on Jan 31, 2009 3:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
As we have seen in the past, it takes drastic measures for growing trends to be curbed by the teams them self, and it would be best if this time the league were to step in with a guiding hand in the early stages.
But why should it be the responsibility of the players to keep the GMs from making stupid deals?
They are expected to play the games, and show up to extra events, and go overseas to sell the sport, and be nice to fans, and show up in commercials – why is it not the responsibilty of the owners to tell their GMs, “this is a bad trend, and I don’t want you to do this as long as you work for me.” The league is theirs as much as it is the players’, and they should accept some responsibility for its future health beyond “we’re losing money because the players cost too much – they’re greedy and need to be stopped because we can’t control ourselves!”
Brian Burke doesn’t believe in any contracts longer than five years, so he doesn’t give them to any of his players. Joe Thornton said that he is more comfortable with a series of three-year deals so he isn’t tied down as much in one situation. I’m sure that there are as many players who prefer shorter term so they have more flexibility as prefer longer term because they don’t want to go through the ordeal of contract negotiations (and the drop in play that some of them have) any more than they have to. If a GM limited the contracts he gave out, it isn’t as though he wouldn’t have any players playing for him – he just wouldn’t have those who badly wanted really long-term deals. And if he started winning with shorter-term contracts because he could adjust his team composition that much more easily, then some other GMs would follow suit.
They can’t possibly ALL be lemmings blindly following the same strategy, can they? There is some independent thought among the front offices, I’m sure.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jan 31, 2009 8:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But why should it be the responsibility of the players to keep the GMs from making stupid deals?
In none of my posts have I stated or implied that this is an issue that the players should be responsible.
I want the league to take responsibility for its own salvation.
Essentially it seems as though you are taking the argument that if every GM were smarter about this (like Burke your example) then this wouldn’t be an issue. I agree. Nonetheless, I am a pragmatist, and every GM is not smarter. Left to their own devices they have proven in the past that they will lead the league to ruin via the path of self-interest. My belief is that these contracts our slowly leading us back to that path and I would like to avoid reaching the frustrating destination that we experienced just a few short years ago.
by ConfidoBoyd on Jan 31, 2009 10:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Every salary cap system in existence has ridiculous workarounds. Perhaps people should realize that the problem is having a cap in the first place, not the specifics of it. I don’t care how complicated you make it, or now many restrictions you put on it, it’s going to have loopholes, and the large market teams are going to be able to afford things that the small market teams can’t.
The only value to a salary cap is to allow owners to keep more of their money. They do not enhance competitive balance, and they do not benefit fans in any meaningful way. Get rid of them.
by J. Michael Neal on Jan 31, 2009 2:09 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
The only value to a salary cap is to allow owners to keep more of their money. They do not enhance competitive balance, and they do not benefit fans in any meaningful way. Get rid of them.
I wonder if that isn’t a function of how interconnected hockey is. If Atlanta didn’t have Ilya Kovalchuck and was a horrible team with no stars to attract fan attention, but a lot of cap space, they could make him a tremendous offer if he were currently playing for a team he liked playing for, with good teammates, and he was winning games – but because of so many good players, they couldn’t afford to pay him as much money. So he goes to another team, plays well and maybe gets them a few more wins – but because he is all they have the team is still pretty bad, and they can’t afford to upgrade around him even if he were to take a less-than-market-value contract.
In baseball you can stock up on pitchers, and in basketball one star is enough to win games on his own many times, but in hockey you need an interaction among several skilled players to win most games. Even a stellar goaltender needs someone to score and someone to clear rebounds from his saves – or at least win faceoffs. In hockey one star can’t do much on a lousy team.
If the assumption of the salary cap by some was that it would spread around the talent and make everyone more competitive without team having to put effort into things like drafting and player development, then I think they were missing this – because I can’t think of anything more dreadful to watch than a bunch of excellent players all with inadequate teammates to really show off their talent. I don’t think it is good for the sport, and it certainly isn’t good for the fans.
A salary cap might be the most effective solution to one team “hoarding” all the talent in a sport where one spectacular player is enough to elevate a team from mediocre to playoffs, but in hockey – I don’t know.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jan 31, 2009 8:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The only value to a salary cap is to allow owners to keep more of their money. They do not enhance competitive balance, and they do not benefit fans in any meaningful way. Get rid of them.
That’s just silly. The cap has many useful functions and many flaws. The one thing that is is not is one-dimensional enough to make any claim that is serves that singular purpose.
by ConfidoBoyd on Jan 31, 2009 8:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Name me these useful functions the cap has. Please demonstrate this by using examples from other sports with salary caps.
You can’t demonstrate that salary caps produce competitive balance, because they don’t. Everyone likes to trot out the example of the NFL, but the problem is that none of the claims stand up to real scrutiny. I took a serious look at it a few years ago, and examined the last ten years the NFL operated without a cap to the first ten years after it was instituted. I tried every measure of competitive balance I could think of.* Out of a couple of dozen, the only measure that showed increased competitive balance was the number of different teams that won the Super Bowl. Every other measure I tried showed either no change, or a slight (and probably insignificant) shift away from what people generally consider to be competitive balance.
The salary cap in the NFL has no effect on competitive balance. People think that it does, because there is a lot of turnover in who wins in the NFL, but it’s not for the reasons they think it does. The real reasons are the extreme variability implied by a mere 16 game regular season, and the fact that chance, in the form of season ending injuries, plays a huge role.
The idea that a salary cap has helped competitive balance in the NBA is laughable. It won’t help in the NHL, either.
*Measures I looked at included:
- of different teams that won the Super Bowl over ten years
- of different teams that made the playoffs over ten years
- of different teams that won divisions over ten years
- of teams that made the playoffs in consecutive years
- of teams that won divisions in consecutive years
Average change in a team’s position in the standings from one year to the next
Average change in a team’s winning percentage from one year to the next
Standard deviation of change position and winning percentage from one year to the next
Average gap between every division winner and the second place team
Average gap between every division winner and the last place team
Average margin of victory in each game
There were others. I had to make some adjustments to account for expansion during the relevant time frames. One could make some quibbles about those adjustments, but I don’t think it changes the basic answer.
by J. Michael Neal on Jan 31, 2009 6:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well that was a nice little diatribe for very little purpose as I didn’t say that a cap would result in competitive balance, I said that it is silly to proclaim that the cap system only serves to allow owners to keep more of their money.
Things that are beneficial include:
The floor that comes with cap.
I like that the entire league spends within an established range that ensures fans in smaller markets or fans with frugal owners aren’t taken for granted. It prevents us from having our own version of the Florida Marlins who spend 1/5th of what the average MLB team spends on payroll, and 1/10th of what the Yankees spend. They are an embarrassment to the league and I’d feel bad for their fans if they hadn’t all walked away after years of being exploited.
Restricting The Hoarding of Talent
New York Yankees. Boston Red Sox.
I’m a Leafs fan and as much as i’d like to win a cup, I wouldn’t get that much satisfaction out of a yearly attempt to buy one by signing all the top UFAs. It hurts the spirit of the game a lot when
I’ll come back to this later on if i have time to think of more, but essentially I don’t understand the rationale behind claiming that the cap will only serve to let owners keep money. As far as I can see there are many teams that would prefer to spend more than what they’re currently allowed hoping to alleviate the cap problems they have and there are there are several teams being forced to spend more than they’d prefer because of the cap floor. The teams that are somewhere in between are usually there because they have budgets that tie there salaries to their revenues and would be generally unaffected by the existence of a floor or a cap.
Comparing competitive systems across sports, and even across different generations of the same sport is fruitless. You can’t point out the reasons why the NFL has a different competitive environment and then turn around and try to claim that a salary cap would have similarly negated effect in the NHL. You manufactured an argument that you can’t lose.
Perhaps its best to look at what the cap is designed to prevent rather than trying to quantify what is causes.
by ConfidoBoyd on Jan 31, 2009 7:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t see any reason that I should care about either of the things that you claim are beneficial in and of themselves. They would only be beneficial if they produced some other positive good. I have no opinion as to how much money teams spend, or what free agents they sign, unless it makes a difference in winning and losing. A cap doesn’t do that, so I really don’t care.
Find me a cap that has produced competitive balance. Maybe I’ll believe it will in the NHL if it has ever done so in any sport. Given that all the evidence to date is that they do no such thing, I’m extremely skeptical about claims that it will.
by J. Michael Neal on Feb 1, 2009 1:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well it may just be that you’ve never had to experience the downside of those results. Try being a baseball fan in the AL East who’s not in New York or Boston for awhile and you’d understand why those issues are problematic.
Baseball in general is a great example of how small markets and their fans suffer in a cap free environment. The difference however is that baseball is a game of greater history and stability in those small markets so they can survive much longer on their laurels than the struggling markets of the NHL can afford.
If you’re in favor of contraction than its a whole separate issue.
by ConfidoBoyd on Feb 1, 2009 9:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Simply reasserting the same thing that I said doesn’t matter is not persuasive. Either explain why I am wrong that a cap doesn’t promote competitive balance, or give me an explanation as to why I should care about these things even though they don’t have anything to do with competitive balance.
You are incorrect in your assumption that I am not a fan of teams that are small market. Despite that, I don’t care. You can tell me how bad you think it is in the AL East as many times as you want, and I’m still not going to care what the relative payrolls are if it doesn’t lead anywhere. The biggest problems in the AL East have nothing to do with payroll disparity. They stem from the fact that, until about three years ago in Tampa, and two in Baltimore, the Yankees and Red Sox were run well, and the rest of the teams in the division were run into the ground.
by J. Michael Neal on Feb 1, 2009 11:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If you are not going to even read my posts i’m going to stop replying. I have never said in any post in any way that a salary cap will lead to competitive balance. My whole argument from the very beginning (feel free to read them) was that your original statement:
The only value to a salary cap is to allow owners to keep more of their money.
was naive and dismissive.
You conveniently didn’t make any comment on this part of my post which directly addresses your statement:
As far as I can see there are many teams that would prefer to spend more than what they’re currently allowed, hoping to alleviate the cap problems they have, and there are several teams being forced to spend more than they’d prefer because of the cap floor. The teams that are somewhere in between are usually there because they have budgets that tie there salaries to their revenues and would be generally unaffected by the existence of a floor or a cap.
I fail to see in the NHLs case how the cap is allowing owners to hoard their money. You consistently use salary caps from other sports in your arguments yet never make any attempt to qualify that every league has unique circumstances.
Whether or not you “care” about them, those issues that I listed in my previous post provide positive results to fans around the league. You clearly only care about yourself, your own team, and your own enjoyment. That’s fine, and thats obviously your right. Some of us would like to care about the sport and the league as a whole since we have the foresight to see how the big picture effects our own environment.
Your assessment of the AL East shows a lack of knowledge of the history of the division. Every team in the division has had management issues, the problem is that the Yankees and to a lesser extent the Red Sox were able to buy their way out of the mistakes. Tampa Bay’s problems didn’t stem from mismanagement any more than their current success stems from a sudden improvement in management. They were a small market team that did not have the money to improve themselves via the free market, so they spent a decade as an embarrassment as they slowly built up an impressive farm system. Small markets shouldn’t have to wade through a decade of crap in hopes that their drafting prowess can grant them a few years of prosperity – until that crop reaches free agency and bolts for the big markets.
by ConfidoBoyd on Feb 1, 2009 1:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Being an Oiler fan in the 90’s i would just cringe every time a player was traded for monetary reasons. I always asked myself – why cant we just sign these players to long term deals so that A) A player has a chance to out perform his contract, B) the team doesnt change every year.
Bad management will bite you in the ass and thats the way it should be. I would rather see my team stay together longer then have them change identities every year.
by boopronger on Jan 31, 2009 3:15 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Are you arguing for or against a cap?
For a cap?
“we can’t keep all these great players because they’re UFAs now and are worth too much money on the free market, we can’t afford a $150 million a season payroll”
Against a cap?
“we can’t keep all these great players because they’re UFAs now and are worth too much money on the free market, we can’t fit $150 million under the cap”
Ultimately everyone wants to keep their stars, I’m not really sold on a cap (with or without) having anything to do with solving that problem.
by detroitnick on Jan 31, 2009 3:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on From The Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Blog extras
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
