|
Parity
Apr 16, 2023 9:05:04 GMT -7
Post by AlwaysOil on Apr 16, 2023 9:05:04 GMT -7
I just was thinking about how the league could get better parity.
We know that everything else being equal, most players would choose Florida over Edmonton or would take less money to play there. So it got me thinking. Is there a way to even things up a bit?
I believe the league could and should figure out a way to adjust the salary cap for each team based on desireability of the location. For example, Winnipeg would get 1.15x the current salary cap. Edmonton 1.10. Something like that. Or maybe even Florida gets 0.95x.
This would allow these markets to spend more on players which they need to do to attract them. Maybe in the same way a player’s maximum salary could be increased for these teams. Currently it’s $16.3 million, but maybe it could be adjusted up to $18.1 (1.1x) in a less desirable market.
The league should have tons of data to be able to figure this out. How it affects the overall revenues or salary cap would need to be figured out but maybe with future salary cap increases, you don’t raise them at all for all teams, just the less desireable ones until you achieve balance.
And of course you’re going to need to have someone smart to close of the loopholes because you know teams would try to exploit this. And how do you factor in things that are within a teams control (like Sutter or Torts) that might desireability of a location?
I’d be interested in your thoughts or any other suggestions on levelling the playing field.
|
|
|
Parity
Apr 16, 2023 9:36:12 GMT -7
via mobile
Post by toley on Apr 16, 2023 9:36:12 GMT -7
I just was thinking about how the league could get better parity. We know that everything else being equal, most players would choose Florida over Edmonton or would take less money to play there. So it got me thinking. Is there a way to even things up a bit? I believe the league could and should figure out a way to adjust the salary cap for each team based on desireability of the location. For example, Winnipeg would get 1.15x the current salary cap. Edmonton 1.10. Something like that. Or maybe even Florida gets 0.95x. This would allow these markets to spend more on players which they need to do to attract them. Maybe in the same way a player’s maximum salary could be increased for these teams. Currently it’s $16.3 million, but maybe it could be adjusted up to $18.1 (1.1x) in a less desirable market. The league should have tons of data to be able to figure this out. How it affects the overall revenues or salary cap would need to be figured out but maybe with future salary cap increases, you don’t raise them at all for all teams, just the less desireable ones until you achieve balance. And of course you’re going to need to have someone smart to close of the loopholes because you know teams would try to exploit this. And how do you factor in things that are within a teams control (like Sutter or Torts) that might desireability of a location? I’d be interested in your thoughts or any other suggestions on levelling the playing field. There's more to it than just location, there's escrow, state taxation, success. I also don't think the NHL really cares about give a Canadian market the upper hand in anyway, or just evening costs a little. Why it's hard being in a Canadian city, why the only other teams in other major sports are in Toronto, and their both owned by a dual shared conglomerate, as is the Maple Leafs.
|
|
|
Parity
Apr 16, 2023 11:44:20 GMT -7
Post by fogolin2 on Apr 16, 2023 11:44:20 GMT -7
Interesting idea. I don't get the sense that the league wants parity. They know that Canadian and traditional markets will consume the product, and cover the bills for the expansion markets. Also, I don't think the owners of the undesirable locations would like to tell their home fans, that "we're getting aided because we live where we live". It would help from a hockey perspective but would be a tough sell.
|
|
|
Parity
Apr 16, 2023 13:48:10 GMT -7
Post by AlwaysOil on Apr 16, 2023 13:48:10 GMT -7
Interesting idea. I don't get the sense that the league wants parity. They know that Canadian and traditional markets will consume the product, and cover the bills for the expansion markets. Also, I don't think the owners of the undesirable locations would like to tell their home fans, that "we're getting aided because we live where we live". It would help from a hockey perspective but would be a tough sell. I bolded the word “could” because I agree, I don’t think the league wants parity. I’d have no problems with owners telling me that, but you did make me think that I’d hate the Leaf and Panther fans putting exclamation marks around our Stanley Cup “victory”. Still, I could live with it if it helped us.
|
|
|
Parity
Apr 16, 2023 13:51:26 GMT -7
Post by AlwaysOil on Apr 16, 2023 13:51:26 GMT -7
I just was thinking about how the league could get better parity. We know that everything else being equal, most players would choose Florida over Edmonton or would take less money to play there. So it got me thinking. Is there a way to even things up a bit? I believe the league could and should figure out a way to adjust the salary cap for each team based on desireability of the location. For example, Winnipeg would get 1.15x the current salary cap. Edmonton 1.10. Something like that. Or maybe even Florida gets 0.95x. This would allow these markets to spend more on players which they need to do to attract them. Maybe in the same way a player’s maximum salary could be increased for these teams. Currently it’s $16.3 million, but maybe it could be adjusted up to $18.1 (1.1x) in a less desirable market. The league should have tons of data to be able to figure this out. How it affects the overall revenues or salary cap would need to be figured out but maybe with future salary cap increases, you don’t raise them at all for all teams, just the less desireable ones until you achieve balance. And of course you’re going to need to have someone smart to close of the loopholes because you know teams would try to exploit this. And how do you factor in things that are within a teams control (like Sutter or Torts) that might desireability of a location? I’d be interested in your thoughts or any other suggestions on levelling the playing field. There's more to it than just location, there's escrow, state taxation, success. I also don't think the NHL really cares about give a Canadian market the upper hand in anyway, or just evening costs a little. Why it's hard being in a Canadian city, why the only other teams in other major sports are in Toronto, and they’re both owned by a dual shared conglomerate, as is the Maple Leafs. Agree there’s more to it, but the data is there for the league to figure out. Instead of just holding the word “could” I should have probably added “if they wanted to, but they probably don’t”. I agree with you there, for sure.
|
|
|
Parity
Apr 16, 2023 17:41:16 GMT -7
Post by drtaf on Apr 16, 2023 17:41:16 GMT -7
There's more to it than just location, there's escrow, state taxation, success. I also don't think the NHL really cares about give a Canadian market the upper hand in anyway, or just evening costs a little. Why it's hard being in a Canadian city, why the only other teams in other major sports are in Toronto, and they’re both owned by a dual shared conglomerate, as is the Maple Leafs. Agree there’s more to it, but the data is there for the league to figure out. Instead of just holding the word “could” I should have probably added “if they wanted to, but they probably don’t”. I agree with you there, for sure. There's no way in HE double hockey sticks the NHL would help out CDN teams like that, Bettman and owners want to try and keep the USA teams happy in hopes one day hockey grows to be a major sport therefore the subsequent billions that come with that. By far the easiest (and fairest) way would be to simply index each teams salary cap to the average of last years CDN/US $$ exchange rate? This wouldn't help adjust for climate or desirability, but it would have given cdn teams 25-30% more to spend and is fair given that 95% of all expenditure is in USD. if you wanted to go "crazy", you could also adjust for different tax rates of states and provinces (both easily calculated). In the unlikely event that the CDN $ surges and becomes worth as much or more than USD then the US teams get the higher cap! It's simple really and thats why it will never be implemented I'd also implement a "franchise player" salary exemption too, but again it makes too much sense and also most likely benefits cdn teams who are happy to spend to the max the most, So again, it will never happen!
|
|