Will new NHL mean new rosters?

[arctic]

badcompany said:

Lets assume a $40 million cap, just for fun. Who here wouldn’t give Jarome Iginla $7 million of that? Koivu and Zednik for Iginla?

Or, how about Chris Pronger? Would you trade Patrice Brisebois ($4.5 million) and Craig Rivet ($3.5 million) for Pronger?

How much would you bid to get 20 year old Rick Nash, ultra-power forward in the making, already with a 40 goal season under his belt, on an expansion team with no supporting cast, in this the watered-down-defense first NHL?

The stars are going to get their money. Don’t you worry about them. The guys who are going to get hammered are the middle-class and lower-class citizens of the NHL.

Just like real life.

arctic said:

A cap isn't necessary if owners and general managers realize it's possible to have a contending team without flinging the balance between profits and losses to the winds. Lou Lamoriello was able to work it out but even he must have felt some pressure. I understand he made at least a token effort to keep Bobby Holik.

They could have realized that 5-10 years ago. Apparently they aren't quite bright enough, and need an idiot-proof system to save them from themselves... [/quote]

You mention a salary cap of $40M, but talk of any cap would be meaningless in an atmosphere of total free agency, in which payrolls would be much lower than they would have been in 2004-05 had there been a season. Self-imposed budgets would serve as de facto salary caps. The owners have looked at the hole cards. They have a much better idea of how much (or how little) revenue their teams can generate from gate, TV, and other sources. In the event of total free agency I would be skeptical of seeing many $40M payrolls in the next few years because that would approximate the current $1.8M average--both too much and unnecessary.

[BadCompany]

arctic said:

You mention a salary cap of $40M, but talk of any cap would be meaningless in an atmosphere of total free agency, in which payrolls would be much lower than they would have been in 2004-05 had there been a season. Self-imposed budgets would serve as de facto salary caps. The owners have looked at the hole cards. They have a much better idea of how much (or how little) revenue their teams can generate from gate, TV, and other sources. In the event of total free agency I would be skeptical of seeing many $40M payrolls in the next few years because that would approximate the current $1.8M average--both too much and unnecessary.

So why the need for a cap then? Why fight this year-long battle, depriving everyone of hockey/revenue/salary?

If the owners are capable of policing themselves, as you say, recognizing the inherent limitations of a tapped-out hockey economy, what the heck was all this for?

Truth is, the owners CAN’T control themselves. They know it, which is why they need some rule that puts limitations on how much they can spend. Mere individual budgets won’t work, they get blown out of the water the first time some player says “Please sir, some more.”

[Doc Holliday]

arctic said:

You mention a salary cap of $40M, but talk of any cap would be meaningless in an atmosphere of total free agency, in which payrolls would be much lower than they would have been in 2004-05 had there been a season. Self-imposed budgets would serve as de facto salary caps. The owners have looked at the hole cards. They have a much better idea of how much (or how little) revenue their teams can generate from gate, TV, and other sources. In the event of total free agency I would be skeptical of seeing many $40M payrolls in the next few years because that would approximate the current $1.8M average--both too much and unnecessary.

..ah but then you have another problem: The Leafs can afford a 65mil payroll while still turning a very good profit while the Penguins can barely afford a 25mil payroll... So even if you can count on all GM/owners spending intelligently (Utopia), you have a situation where 4-5 teams can drive up salaries for everyone and snatch every Stars...

....before you (or BC) say it, I'll admit that the answer to this problem could have been revenue sharing among owners. Given. But once you start sharing YOUR profit, you want to make sure that you're not just financing some other bozo that doesn't run the same type of tight ship that you do: hence the need for an idiot proof system.