Yes, there should only be a cap floor.... The salary cap should be tied to players salaries NOT league revenue...

But none of that will happen because franchises that cant economically compete would fold...

I don't like the reasoning behind the cap hence preventing teams from folding all because the NHL and NHLPA wants their revenue.

So how does the NHL & NHLPA ensure teams wont fold? they implement a salary cap and use teams as puppets.

The people that are being used here are investors and franchise owners....

Someone would have to be out of their mind to want to invest in a hockey team..... Because I would be willing to bet anything that there are some NHL players that have made more than some franchise owners..... Because they're stuck with a team that isn't profitable, that cant fold and who cant get any equity out of it without selling or moving it.... And who has the final say in that? the NHL...

The way the NHL operates is terrible.

@krakowitz

The NBA has a salary cap, just like the NHL does. Players leaving to form "super teams" are because of the way that the salary cap is structured in the NBA (luxury tax, guaranteed contracts, buyouts, etc.) The NBA is also a growing market. The NBA has also less luck involved with the game compared to the NHL (one player cannot take over a hockey game vs. running isolations and post ups).

The Miami Marlines didn't sell their players for less than market value because they couldn't afford them. Mike Stanton said he would go to four teams and the Marlines Ownership took the best deal - it happened to not include elite level prospects. The trade of Christian Yelich was fine, as the Brewers knew that the Marlines wanted to move him, lowering his market value.

In my scenario, there would be a luxury tax in which a team has to pay "x" for every "x" they go over - say teams have to pay a five to one ratio for every dollar spend over the luxury tax (in terms of cap hit). Sure, you may have been able to keep Marcus Johansson, but it would have meant that the team would have had to pay a set ratio in order to keep him under my model.

Owners will not spend whatever money is necessary - it would completely depend on the market. They are all rational economic actors and will not spend an asinine amount of money on players if there is a strong enough economic disincentive.

Again, your taking a model in the MLB or NBA and applying it to the NHL. There would be a minimal lack of parity between the two teams, especially if you combine both of my ideas together.

Every single investor knows that there is risk with this - look no further than Bill Foley. They aren't getting screwed by the NHL - they willingly entered into a market with the hope of leaving said market better off.

Players may make more in the short term compared to their owners, but the owners are the ones that have a higher reward, and in turn, a higher risk.

Sure some owners got themselves into it, but most owners have been franchise owners since before the salary cap.

Heck, I'm a huge hockey fan and I love the sport but I would never invest in a team because I don't agree with slavery... Or maybe comparing some NHL owners to hostages would be more accurate.

I mean the ones making money are the NHLPA, NHL and players..... Sure, some owners are but other owners aren't...

And IMO, objective people should be mad. lol

I mean, the owners voted on the salary cap so I'm not sure how you can consider them operating against their will. This past year, only 8 teams posted loses. https://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/#header:operatingIncome

Again, this is an investment. Your not going to get your money overnight. Your going to get it in ten, twenty, thirty years from now.

Stanton's value was so low because the Marlins cared more about shedding his contract than anything. This was an up-and-coming team (the tragic death of Jose Fernandez threw a wrench in their plans, but still), and they sold top young talent for very little in return, other than financial flexibility. Marcell Ozuna and Dee Gordon were both sold for nothing significant as well. If that organization wasn't so concerned about shedding salary, none of these players would have been traded in the first place. Stanton didn't want to leave until the team was sold to the Jeter group, which he knew meant that a firesale was coming.

So the reason for them selling their assets for less than market value was that ownership didn't want to pay them. Nothing else to it. Yelich wasn't one of the guys that I was talking about. That trade was fine, but the other three big trades were all horrendous for the Marlins. That organization is a disgrace, and taking away the salary cap in hockey leads to something like this.

Hockey should come first. Making these decisions do nothing good for the game.

Of course they voted for the salary cap, I don't think they had much of a choice - and obviously all owners had their own opinions.

But that doesn't mean the cap and the structure of the NHL and the way it's designed doesn't have it's flaws - because it certainly does.

All I'm saying is I'm not too fond of the cap for a reason and that reason is because it's authoritarian in many aspects and different aspects, and not everyone benefits from it..

Hockey should come first??

C'mon dude, yea I like hockey too but I also realize hockey is a business first and foremost and entertainment second...... Trust me, professional hockey players wouldn't be playing hockey for a living if there was no money in it for them, and individuals with lots of money to pay these guys to play hockey wouldn't be in it either if they didn't make return on their investment.

"Hockey should come first" is kinda cute but it's definitely shortsighted.

So yea, there wouldn't be any hockey or NHL if it wasn't for the business aspect... Hockey would be something people played for fun on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon after working 40 hours that week.

Im just evening the odds. A guy like Stamkos would rather stay in Florida and clear 6.5 Million over going to Montreal and making 4.5 Million

I'm not saying that the business aspect of it is bad. I'm saying that these huge, massive decisions that negatively impact the quality of the game shouldn't happen because of business issues.

Then I would suggest that they become more fiscally responsible. Stanton wants to win - MIA wasn't going to do it. Thats why he would only accept a trade to the final four teams in the playoffs.

MIA wanted to enter a rebuild. Them not being able to get deals that make sense for them is not because of "no salary cap."

Or maybe he wants to win. Or maybe he loves the city and his kids just started school. There are too many factors and just making it based on whatever the regulations of a state is, doesn't make any sense.

If the league was meant to be completely fair, than there wouldn't be an NHL Draft Lottery, or they would regulate how many of each player you can have (x amount of 75 point + players).

Can you give an example of what you mean because that is kind of vague.

Are we talking about issues like the cap and salary or ideas like rules and "player safety"?

That might be true if players paid their income as at the personal tax rate, but they don't so the comparison is irrelevant.

How do they do it?

Radulov loved playing with the Habs, and they wanted to bring him back. This shows that the league is too much about money.

Well, i mean, if the NHL just removed the salary cap completely and didn't replace it with anything i don't think it would be smart, because then teams like Florida and Arizona would be terrible every year, teams like Toronto and Montreal would keep winning cups over and over again (like they used to) and also, the players would get WAAAAAAYYYY too much money (they already get way too much, but we'd see absolutely stupid salaries). I think there should maybe be a limit to how much teams can spend in UFAs each year because then we'll see more trades that make sense, like Seabrook could go to a team who he's a good fit with while Chicago gets something good in return, and Marcus Johansson wouldn't have been traded for a 2nd and a 3rd back in July. Though this would not include RFAs or players traded for, it's only about the team who signs them. Sure, it wouldn't be great, but i don't mind trading players as rentals if you're not in the playoffs and can't sign them as much as stuff like the Johansson trade.

I think your being ignorant of the "winnnig aspect" of the game. Last time I checked, Dallas was in a playoff spot and Montreal wasn't.

Every single player is a rational economic actor. Radulov thinks his skills are worth "x" just as an lawyer feels his services are worth "x". Now factor in winning.

Well, if there wasn't a salary cap, I guess there wouldn't a "CapFriendly" website.

Fans (some) are kinda hypocritical . When they attract a UFA to THEIR team, life is good. It's because that player wanted to be with US. But when one of their own UFAs walk.....it's all so unfair, it's the money, it's free agency, its the selfish player, it's the incompetent GM. Get over it and just spend that money you had set aside for one player, and just spend it wisely elsewhere.
Of course Montreal screwed up last summer. First they "lose" Markov and Radulov, then they waste money by spending it on Alzner and Drouin and it cost them Sergachov too.

I agree with @palhal ... i mean, it depends who the player is, but Habs fans may say that losing Markov and getting Alzner was bad, because they should have signed both. But to tell the truth, i still think letting Radulov leave was a mistake. Montreal had made the playoffs in 2017 and Radulov leaving was part of why they aren't this year. I said part of it, not all of it. Dallas actually hadn't made it, but was expected to be better this year, which they are. But he was a great fit in Montreal so he should have signed there, because it seemed like he wanted to stay, but money stopped that.

ya sure, it's done wonders for baseball!!

There were likely other factors besides money. Better players? Dallas. Better weather? Dallas. Easier media? Dallas. Fewer languages to speak? Dallas. Even if you simply looked at the structure and makeup of the two teams, you could clearly tell that Dallas had the better future.

Radulov doesn't love anything. He just plays for the money and disappears when games mean something.