Replies

Three major issues are being constantly overlooked in this debate vis-a-vis players salaries:

1. The issue is not the marquee star making 8 million bucks a year, since most teams in the league are lucky to have one or two players of that stature. The issue is the 8-12 guys on the roster making between 2-4 million bucks a year. We live in an era where a mediocre player can command that kind of moeny because of what's known as "comparative production" numbers.

It only requires one mediocre player to push the case that 8 goals last season pales in signifigance when matched against his +30 rating in a defensively-oriented league. One dumb GM will come along who puts a premium on that statistic to give the man his raise and suddenly, all players who fall into that category or close enough, start demanding similar salaries from their teams.

In another scenario, a decent player at the end of a contract and nearing free agency can make a demand on his team. The team is forced into a dilemma: we can keep a player we like (or who is at least a known entity) at an inflated cost, or try to trade him and get nothing for him (even a 1st round draft pick takes several years to develop), or try to go to salary arbitration with him and hope not to get raped too badly. As the Free Agency rules stand now, an unrestricted free agent (10+ years in the league, making less than the league average) has the advantage. His team must pony up to keep a known entity, trade for a player whose team does not want a similar situtaion in two years with another player, or spend the time to develop talent in a sport that demands winning now in order to keep butts in the seats. This is why every GM in the league hopes the NY Rangers will throw ridiculous money at their mediocre veterans and take them off their hands. It also raises the league median salary for the next round of free agents.

This does not excuse teams like the Rangers, who have more money than sense, from doing other stupid things, like signing a meatheaded Eric Lindros to an $8 mil per contract when the next hit he takes could be his last. The larger markets with the cash to spend are artificially inflating salaries. A luxury tax would seem to be in order if the current system is to continue, something the owners will never agree to. The players have to give on this one.

2. The second issue is the comparative value of the Canadian versus the U.S. Dollar, as well as Canadian tax rates and work rules. With a Canadian dollar worth about 25% of a US dollar, and even less after the exhorbitant Canadian taxes, the better players who can command the money naturally migrate south, making Canadian teams less competitive, and consequently, money-losing propositions (unless we're talking the major cities of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, which have a larger fan base and nothing else to offer). The Canadian government has to give on this one.

3. The salary cap offer put on the table by both the players and the league would have been somewhat equitable except for one fact: it was all about the higher end of the salary structure and not the lower end. In fact, there was no "floor" in the salary cap discussions. The reason being that without an agreement on the lower end, the owners would feel free to push "take-it-or-leave-it" contracts on the players. Both sides have to give on this one.

And just for good measure:

4. Gary Bettman can talk about all the new rules changes that will take effect whenever the league deigns to play again, but it's just a different shade of lipstick on the same pig. Taking out red lines and rounding off goalie equipment does not make the sport any better, nor more exciting. In light of the recent rules changes (extra two-feet behind the net, obstruction penalties, faster face-offs, regulating the size of goalie's pads, the instigator rule, etc), fiddling with the structure of the game is not the answer (although I would accept a widening of the ice, say 6', and increasing the size of the net by a couple of inches).The answer is to have more competitive franchises in more places.

What the NHL fails to understand is that many fans will watch a 1-0 defensive battle provided the competitive angle still exists. That competitive angle no longer exists: the game is all about slowing everything down because the talent no longer exists the way it did 10 years ago, in part due to expansion, just to stay competitive standings-wise.

Restructure free agency, put a hard cap (top and bottom) in place, remove some of the more ridiculous rules changes, contract by a minimum of four teams, and let the guys play, and this sport will go back to what it always was: a fast-moving spectacle of skill, toughness and endurance.The fans will come back, the question is whether the people who want them back actually know what the fans want?

Marquee players making 8 million bucks is a definite part of the problem. That's what marquee players in the NFL are just starting to make, and their teams have a solid 3 times the revenue. Even Roenick has admitted that marquee NHL players probable shouldn't be making more than 5 mil. Now the 2nd teir guys don't help matters any, but their salary is "in line" if you assume the marque guys should be making 8 (half the talent, half the pay, that works).

Canada's tax rate certainly doesn't help them. But there's not much the NHL can do about it. I know in 2000 the Canadiens were the lowest taxes team in Canada at $25 mil, which was enough then to get you an all-star 1st line on both offense and defense (now just offense).

Yeah, they need a floor. So does the NFL. IMHO that's the only thing the NBA capdoes right.

In theory caps restore competitive balance, if they're done right. The cap has done wonders for NFL parity, but a bad cap has done nothing for NBA or MLB parity. Only time will tell.