Does the NHL need a Salary Cap

[renuszm]

3 out of 4 of what many sport's people call "the main sports" all have salary cap's. These sports are baseball, basketball, football, and hockey. Hockey is the only one without a salary cap. With the NHL set to lock out (and by saying lockout, I have just been fined by the NHL) in 2003-2004, it's very possible that the owners will want a salary cap.
But I honestly think that the NHL doesen't need one. Only 1 out of the top 3 teams in salary made the playoffs. The Red Wings did win the Cup, but they built they're team through the draft, with Yzerman, fedorov, Lidstrom etc., they have young talents as well with Henrik Zetterberg and Pavel Datsyuk.
The new York Rangers constantly spend money, landing Mike Richter, Darius kasparitus, and Bobby Holik this summer, but they suck.
The Stars also like to spend money, but missed the playoffs. They added Bill Guerin in the off-season, so we'll have to wait what happenes this year.
Unless the Rangers, Wings, and Stars make a huge impact in the playoffs, the salary Cap is unnessary

[Trots]

A good, but difficult question to answer. The NHL has a problem the other three "major" sports leagues do not. They have far more teams based in Canada. This means not only wider problems with the exchange rate, but with the Canadian tax structure and much smaller population/income bases.

Also, because of the overall size of their fan base is smaller, the league has smaller national tv ratings. This leads to a significantly smaller television rights package for both US broadcast and cable tv. These factors really hinder the NHL's ability to compete financially with the other sports.

In light of this, I'm not sure what the NHL can do about it's escalating salaries. I am far from convinced about the long-term success of salary caps nor do I think moving any more franchises out of Canada is a good or profitable idea. Too much of this league is tied directly to Canada and moving more teams into the US runs contrary to the league's history and fan base.

Most will want and, I suspect, demand a salary cap, but we really do not know if they would help the league or not? The NBA's widly regarded cap has given us a string of dynasties dating back to Magic's Lakers and Bird's Celtics through Jordan's Bulls, Olajuwon's Rockets to today's Kobe and Shaq Show. So much for competitive balance. It been nothing but a string of dynasties led by, arguably, three of the leagues four premier franchises-LAL, Boston and Chicago.

And teams that were doormats prior to the cap, most noteably the Clippers, have stayed lousy in spite of the perception of parity. (Note: I do realize the Clips appear to be on the rise, but this has been said before.) At some point, smart management decisions made more impact than the cap. (See baseball's Oakland Athletics.)

The NFL verison has led to more parity, but crushed teams that have won. The Ravens have lost nearly every starter from their championship season two long years ago. The Rams and Patriots have had their share of salary losses as well. NFL teams have difficulty maintaining success under their system, as salary dumps erode teams by costing them valuable veterans each summer.

The NFL styled cap destroys champions quickly, which I believe has led to a decline in the quality of play league-wide. Where before a handful of teams were really bad (and really good), now everyone is kind of mediocre. You can certainly rise more quickly, but the cost seems to be an equally rapid trip back to the cellar. I think this will hurt the league long-term, but helps it in the short-term, as people believe their team is bound to be next to win.

It's too early to figure out what affect, if any, baseball's new cap will bring, but based on the current numbers, I think their cap is just window dressing. The NHL, I'm sure, was hoping Bud and the boys were going to hold out to see what happened. They could have used MLB has a gauge to see how much to ask from the NHLPA. My guess is that like everyone else, they are disappointed with the new baseball CBA.

In the end, the NHL will either need to impose some sort of restriction or set-up a revolutionary style system that I cannot imagine. Either way, the NHLPA is bound to object and a shutdown in '04 is nearly inevitable.

I agree that caps are probably unnecessary, but perception is reality and most fans think caps work, so the NHL will push for a concept it's fans will have no trouble embracing. Unfortunately, it may cost the league far more than a few million dollars in salaries.

[BPBlueSox]

I think the cap would be fine for the NHL due to the higher number of players on the roster. There's not many people on an NBA roster, so I think a cap is less effective somehow.

The NHL will need to do something for sure though because this offseason spending spree by a few clubs with dough sure reminds me of baseball...

[imgreat95]

the only way that I think a salary cap can be effective at all is if you put a cap on the per-player salary.. not the team. This goes for ANY sport.

Did you mean to say that 3 of the 4 major sports have caps?? Last time that I checked, baseball didn't have one.

[renuszm]

Originally posted by imgreat95


Did you mean to say that 3 of the 4 major sports have caps?? Last time that I checked, baseball didn't have one.
Well they arent adding a salary cap, but they will add a luxury tax, it isnt the same thing, but judging by the money the Yankees will have to pay, it counts.

And when I said 3 out 4 major sports, I ment in North America, so I hope I didnt offend anyone in Europe whose a true Soccer fan.