Interesting. The Maple Leafs are increasing their ticket prices.
No question about it. I do get a little snarky every now and then, and I should apologize for it when it happens, but after a re-read I don't actually think my last post was all that bad. Not a great read mind-you but that's par for the course with me so, from where I sit, no harm and no foul.
Now, in a less snarky way, I present to you a simple change to the CBA that, I believe, should have made it into the document from the very start.
Background
Small market (read: small budget) teams are getting hammered because of Cap inflation. As noted before in this blog, once the Cap gets past the $52 million mark the spread between what big budget and small budget teams have to spend reaches, sans significant revenue sharing or an amazing new TV deal, an untenable level.
Right now the Floor ratchets upward in lock-step with the Cap; the maximum spread always being at $16 million:
$b ........ Player %/$b ..... Cap$m .... Flr$m .... %
2.200 ..... 54.0 / 1.19 ..... 39.6 ..... 23.6 ..... 32.2
2.300 ..... 55.5 / 1.28 ..... 42.6 ..... 26.5 ..... 34.6
2.400 ..... 56.0 / 1.34 ..... 44.8 ..... 28.8 ..... 36.0
2.500 ..... 56.3 / 1.41 ..... 46.9 ..... 30.9 ..... 37.1
2.550 ..... 56.5 / 1.44 ..... 48.0 ..... 32.0 ..... 37.6
2.600 ..... 56.7 / 1.47 ..... 49.1 ..... 33.1 ..... 38.2
2.700 ..... 57.0 / 1.54 ..... 51.3 ..... 35.3 ..... 39.2
2.800 ..... 57.0 / 1.60 ..... 53.2 ..... 37.2 ..... 40.0
2.900 ..... 57.0 / 1.65 ..... 55.1 ..... 39.1 ..... 40.4
3.000 ..... 57.0 / 1.71 ..... 57.0 ..... 41.0 ..... 41.0
Notice the inflation effect? (hint: look at the last column) The hard spread of $16 million slightly disconnects Floor from HRR and thus causes Floor Requirement to slowly increase (as a % of the HRR).
By the time we get to $3.0 billion in HRR the % spread between max Players Share and Floor Requirement has shrunk by some 6 percentage points.
i.e. (54.0 - 32.2 = 21.8) - (57.0 - 41.0 = 16.0) = 5.8
That is sizable.
Solution
The easily workable solution is to loosen the strap a tad and tie the Floor Requirement number to Players Share % (not to Cap).
To make it easy on ourselves we will fix the spread at 20 %pts and re-start the CBA at a Floor Requirement of 34% of HRR. If we then increase Floor Requirement in lockstep with Players Share % our chart now changes to look like so:
$b ........ Player %/$b ..... Cap$m .... Flr$m .... %
2.200 ..... 54.0 / 1.19 ..... 39.6 ..... 24.9 ..... 34.0
2.300 ..... 55.5 / 1.28 ..... 42.6 ..... 27.2 ..... 35.5
2.400 ..... 56.0 / 1.34 ..... 44.8 ..... 28.8 ..... 36.0
2.500 ..... 56.3 / 1.41 ..... 46.9 ..... 30.3 ..... 36.3
2.550 ..... 56.5 / 1.44 ..... 48.0 ..... 31.0 ..... 36.5
2.600 ..... 56.7 / 1.47 ..... 49.1 ..... 31.8 ..... 36.7
2.700 ..... 57.0 / 1.54 ..... 51.3 ..... 33.3 ..... 37.0
2.800 ..... 57.0 / 1.60 ..... 53.2 ..... 34.5 ..... 37.0
2.900 ..... 57.0 / 1.65 ..... 55.1 ..... 35.8 ..... 37.0
3.000 ..... 57.0 / 1.71 ..... 57.0 ..... 37.0 ..... 37.0
So now we have a %pt spread that stays constant (at the 20%) and a Salary Budget gap that increases (from $14.7 million at $2.2 billion HRR to $20 million at $3.0 billion HRR).
Who's a Happy Baby?
Small budget teams are happy. As long as most other factors remained unchanged (like revenue sharing) the budget pressure drops by several million dollers.
Large budget teams are happy because no new money is expected of them and they get to increase average player salaries even more (yippee!).
Players are unhappy because they, potentially, leave million of dollars on the table as the small budget teams contract their payrolls.
Except... well... would that actually happen?
No. I don't think it would.
Remember, players get their share regardless so all that would actually happen is that the dollars would be apportioned differently.
Now, given that not all players, and their contracts, are created equally we know some player somewhere would be unhappy - BUT - the veterans have thrown the rooks under the bus before and with early UFA we know there are fewer disadvantaged to complain so it is hard to see where this is a loser.
------
Do I think this suggestion is the solution for the NHL. Of course not. Any hard Cap concept that doesn't have significant revenue sharing involved is one that won't work under anything but the slowest inflation effect.
FTR, back in the day, I supported a soft Cap with a luxury tax component that would increase in effect on a plateau basis. I still think that is the best overall way to do it.
------
By the way, in regards to the Malkin for Sedins comment. I meant it. Yes, Malkin is a phenomenal talent, but if Pittsburgh could get the Sedins to sign long-term deals (5 yrs+) in the $6.00 - 6.25 million range then the math is simple:
2 Sedins at a $12.00 million Cap hit > 1 Malkin at a $8.70 million Cap hit
The odds of finding the right winger for Malkin at $3.30 million are pretty long and, to be blunt, Pittsburgh needs the depth that the two bodies would provide.
------
Have a great evening everyone.
No question about it. I do get a little snarky every now and then, and I should apologize for it when it happens, but after a re-read I don't actually think my last post was all that bad. Not a great read mind-you but that's par for the course with me so, from where I sit, no harm and no foul.
Now, in a less snarky way, I present to you a simple change to the CBA that, I believe, should have made it into the document from the very start.
Background
Small market (read: small budget) teams are getting hammered because of Cap inflation. As noted before in this blog, once the Cap gets past the $52 million mark the spread between what big budget and small budget teams have to spend reaches, sans significant revenue sharing or an amazing new TV deal, an untenable level.
Right now the Floor ratchets upward in lock-step with the Cap; the maximum spread always being at $16 million:
$b ........ Player %/$b ..... Cap$m .... Flr$m .... %
2.200 ..... 54.0 / 1.19 ..... 39.6 ..... 23.6 ..... 32.2
2.300 ..... 55.5 / 1.28 ..... 42.6 ..... 26.5 ..... 34.6
2.400 ..... 56.0 / 1.34 ..... 44.8 ..... 28.8 ..... 36.0
2.500 ..... 56.3 / 1.41 ..... 46.9 ..... 30.9 ..... 37.1
2.550 ..... 56.5 / 1.44 ..... 48.0 ..... 32.0 ..... 37.6
2.600 ..... 56.7 / 1.47 ..... 49.1 ..... 33.1 ..... 38.2
2.700 ..... 57.0 / 1.54 ..... 51.3 ..... 35.3 ..... 39.2
2.800 ..... 57.0 / 1.60 ..... 53.2 ..... 37.2 ..... 40.0
2.900 ..... 57.0 / 1.65 ..... 55.1 ..... 39.1 ..... 40.4
3.000 ..... 57.0 / 1.71 ..... 57.0 ..... 41.0 ..... 41.0
Notice the inflation effect? (hint: look at the last column) The hard spread of $16 million slightly disconnects Floor from HRR and thus causes Floor Requirement to slowly increase (as a % of the HRR).
By the time we get to $3.0 billion in HRR the % spread between max Players Share and Floor Requirement has shrunk by some 6 percentage points.
i.e. (54.0 - 32.2 = 21.8) - (57.0 - 41.0 = 16.0) = 5.8
That is sizable.
Solution
The easily workable solution is to loosen the strap a tad and tie the Floor Requirement number to Players Share % (not to Cap).
To make it easy on ourselves we will fix the spread at 20 %pts and re-start the CBA at a Floor Requirement of 34% of HRR. If we then increase Floor Requirement in lockstep with Players Share % our chart now changes to look like so:
$b ........ Player %/$b ..... Cap$m .... Flr$m .... %
2.200 ..... 54.0 / 1.19 ..... 39.6 ..... 24.9 ..... 34.0
2.300 ..... 55.5 / 1.28 ..... 42.6 ..... 27.2 ..... 35.5
2.400 ..... 56.0 / 1.34 ..... 44.8 ..... 28.8 ..... 36.0
2.500 ..... 56.3 / 1.41 ..... 46.9 ..... 30.3 ..... 36.3
2.550 ..... 56.5 / 1.44 ..... 48.0 ..... 31.0 ..... 36.5
2.600 ..... 56.7 / 1.47 ..... 49.1 ..... 31.8 ..... 36.7
2.700 ..... 57.0 / 1.54 ..... 51.3 ..... 33.3 ..... 37.0
2.800 ..... 57.0 / 1.60 ..... 53.2 ..... 34.5 ..... 37.0
2.900 ..... 57.0 / 1.65 ..... 55.1 ..... 35.8 ..... 37.0
3.000 ..... 57.0 / 1.71 ..... 57.0 ..... 37.0 ..... 37.0
So now we have a %pt spread that stays constant (at the 20%) and a Salary Budget gap that increases (from $14.7 million at $2.2 billion HRR to $20 million at $3.0 billion HRR).
Who's a Happy Baby?
Small budget teams are happy. As long as most other factors remained unchanged (like revenue sharing) the budget pressure drops by several million dollers.
Large budget teams are happy because no new money is expected of them and they get to increase average player salaries even more (yippee!).
Players are unhappy because they, potentially, leave million of dollars on the table as the small budget teams contract their payrolls.
Except... well... would that actually happen?
No. I don't think it would.
Remember, players get their share regardless so all that would actually happen is that the dollars would be apportioned differently.
Now, given that not all players, and their contracts, are created equally we know some player somewhere would be unhappy - BUT - the veterans have thrown the rooks under the bus before and with early UFA we know there are fewer disadvantaged to complain so it is hard to see where this is a loser.
------
Do I think this suggestion is the solution for the NHL. Of course not. Any hard Cap concept that doesn't have significant revenue sharing involved is one that won't work under anything but the slowest inflation effect.
FTR, back in the day, I supported a soft Cap with a luxury tax component that would increase in effect on a plateau basis. I still think that is the best overall way to do it.
------
By the way, in regards to the Malkin for Sedins comment. I meant it. Yes, Malkin is a phenomenal talent, but if Pittsburgh could get the Sedins to sign long-term deals (5 yrs+) in the $6.00 - 6.25 million range then the math is simple:
2 Sedins at a $12.00 million Cap hit > 1 Malkin at a $8.70 million Cap hit
The odds of finding the right winger for Malkin at $3.30 million are pretty long and, to be blunt, Pittsburgh needs the depth that the two bodies would provide.
------
Have a great evening everyone.
