Do you miss the Pre-Cap Superteams or do you prefer parity?

[The Hanging Jowl]

It's fine as is, but I wish there was some way to allow teams to keep internally drafted and developed players more. Maybe giving each team a max of 2 salaries per year of internally developed players that can't count against the cap more than a fixed amount could help in that regard. Just spitballin'.

I see the NHL as one big organism. Maybe parity is unfair in a sense to the bigger clubs, but it helps the overall organism. Hard to grow the game if only a handful of uber-wealthy teams hoard the elite players. Fan bases of the small fish would decrease in size and teams would fold.

Things are very healthy economically now in the NHL. Players are making good salaries, the league keeps expanding, youth hockey is growing in non-traditional areas in the US, and the on-ice product is exciting enough to keep bringing in fans willing to pay exorbitant prices. Parity has much to do with these things.

"Things are very healthy economically now in the NHL."

Only because of the big market teams and the support from their fans.

 

[Martin Skoula]

Leaf fans parrot the tax disadvantage nonsense but.....they conveniently forget to point out that their players get significant off-ice endorsement money that players in other markets don't receiver.

Similar to how the big Universities in the USA goose player earnings through NIL to their advantage, Leaf players earn $$$$$ that negate the tax advantages that smaller tax free markets have.

As an example, Matthews earns around $5M and I've seen chatter that Leafs will ensure that Knies gets significant off ice $ to ensure that if another team makes an offer it can be negated.

Ovi, Crosby, MacKinnon, Tkachuk, etc don’t seem to have any problem getting endorsements. Toronto has an advantage for the C and D list guys getting pizza and car dealership jobs. We have 4th liners like Tie Domi that could still make money in the city decades after they were briefly relevant, Mikheyev said he liked soup as an no-name Russian UFA and got a brand deal out of it, etc. Matthews is getting 5 mil in sponsors no matter what city he’s in unless it’s truly a bottom of the barrel about to be relocated situation. Guys like Rielly, ok maybe that’s a Toronto advantage that shaved his contract down like 250k a year.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Because Leafs games are, you know, subsidizing a good portion of the league that don't have the same support. Why would I pay $400 for a pair of mid level tickets so Florida can win a Cup?

The top 10 teams put about 6% of their revenue into the profit sharing fund. If all $400 becomes revenue for the Leafs, 24 of your dollars would go into the fund. But, I'm assuming a big portion of that $400 is ticket fees and taxes, plus whatever profit the reseller is making, so it's probably closer to like $10 going to the fund.

 

[Golden_Jet]

The top 10 teams put about 6% of their revenue into the profit sharing fund. If all $400 becomes revenue for the Leafs, 24 of your dollars would go into the fund. But, I'm assuming a big portion of that $400 is ticket fees and taxes, plus whatever profit the reseller is making, so it's probably closer to like $10 going to the fund.

Also 35% of profit sharing comes from playoff tickets. Leafs usually provides 3 games worth,
Not sure if the 6% is on top of the 35% or included.

 

[Garbageyuk]

We still have superteams, it’s just that the NHL’s stars aren’t as big as the NBA’s or MLB’s.

I’d say FLA, TBL, VGK are superteams with the way they’ve operated lately and won because of it.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

"Things are very healthy economically now in the NHL."

Only because of the big market teams and the support from their fans.

According to Forbes in 2023, the 22 teams with the "lowest" revenue generated a combined $3.8 billion in revenue in 2023 (173 million average). The 10 highest revenue teams generated about $253m each (2.53 billion total). Yes, the big market teams generate more revenue, but it's not even half of what the league brings in as a whole.

Also 35% of profit sharing comes from playoff tickets. Leafs usually provides 3 games worth,
Not sure if the 6% is on top of the 35% or included.

As I understand it, 35% is across the board in the playoffs, regardless of how much revenue your team makes. So, if the Leafs and Sens play a 6 game playoff series, they'd both be paying 35% of their home ticket sales.

 

[Golden_Jet]

As I understand it, 35% is across the board in the playoffs, regardless of how much revenue your team makes. So, if the Leafs and Sens play a 6 game playoff series, they'd both be paying 35% of their home ticket sales.

Correct 3 games each, so they aren’t providing much to the 35% was my point, it’s the teams that go far.

 

[RandV]

According to Forbes in 2023, the 22 teams with the "lowest" revenue generated a combined $3.8 billion in revenue in 2023 (173 million average). The 10 highest revenue teams generated about $253m each (2.53 billion total). Yes, the big market teams generate more revenue, but it's not even half of what the league brings in as a whole.

Yes whenever this topic comes up fans from the big market teams like to frame the for/against cap discussion as being around the richest teams vs the poorest teams. Like the top 5 or so propping up the bottom 5 or so, but the real impact on the other hand is keeping 20 or so teams in the middle equally competitive. Which your numbers aren't quite arranged for my example but still show the middle is doing quite well.

I think there's some potential to see some seasons of 'super teams' just around the corner, with a rapidly rising cap and apparently more expansion on the way. Teams that are set well now will have the cap space to maintain their team and even have more, while the rest of the teams behind those ones are going to struggle to find enough legit talent to spend the cap space on.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Correct 3 games each, so they aren’t providing much to the 35% was my point.

I agree, I was just saying it doesn't apply only to the rich teams.

But just to clarify, they are contributing 35% of their home playoff ticket sales to the revenue sharing pool, not contributing to 35% of the pool.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

Abolish the cap, I wanna see Montreal get McDavid for $30M a year

 

[Hobble]

If not for parity, I don’t think you see as much expansion or team values as high as they are now.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Yes whenever this topic comes up fans from the big market teams like to frame the for/against cap discussion as being around the richest teams vs the poorest teams. Like the top 5 or so propping up the bottom 5 or so, but the real impact on the other hand is keeping 20 or so teams in the middle equally competitive. Which your numbers aren't quite arranged for my example but still show the middle is doing quite well.

I think there's some potential to see some seasons of 'super teams' just around the corner, with a rapidly rising cap and apparently more expansion on the way. Teams that are set well now will have the cap space to maintain their team and even have more, while the rest of the teams behind those ones are going to struggle to find enough legit talent to spend the cap space on.

Here's the chart I pulled my numbers from, which supports what you're saying. There are a few outliers at the top and at the bottom, but overall, the middle is doing pretty well for themselves.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

According to Forbes in 2023, the 22 teams with the "lowest" revenue generated a combined $3.8 billion in revenue in 2023 (173 million average). The 10 highest revenue teams generated about $253m each (2.53 billion total). Yes, the big market teams generate more revenue, but it's not even half of what the league brings in as a whole.

If that's the case, why do we need a cap? Let's get rid of it.

 

[cowboy82nd]

I see it as more about the fans. The Leafs have sold out their building for infinity regardless of how badly the team is playing and there's a 30 year wait list to buy season tickets. There should be a reward for that. Instead, they're being punished simply for drafting and trading for 4 of the best forwards in the league. Doesn't seem fair to me.

If the idea is to keep costs down and control salaries, I at least get the argument. If the idea is to subsidize weaker markets then just make it a luxury tax like baseball (I assume they still do that). The best seasons the Leafs had in recent memory were from 1999-2004 and they didn't win jack shit even though they were consistently the second highest spenders in the league so it's not like you can just buy a Cup.

A reward for what? Fan participation? Yes, you get a reward for that, it’s called higher ticket prices because they know that you will pay. As far as the team goes, earn it on the ice.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

A reward for what? Fan participation? Yes, you get a reward for that, it’s called higher ticket prices because they know that you will pay. As far as the team goes, earn it on the ice.

Fan support should have some reward. We watched Arizona with empty stands for 20 years while being paid money from teams with full buildings (i.e., my ticket money). It ain't fair.

 

[cowboy82nd]

If that's the case, why do we need a cap? Let's get rid of it.

The cap is for the owners.

 

[cowboy82nd]

Fan support should have some reward. We watched Arizona with empty stands for 20 years while being paid money from teams with full buildings (i.e., my ticket money). It ain't fair.

Life ain’t fair.

 

[Golden_Jet]

The cap is for the owners.

Weird you had to explain that.
What kind of argument is it, when you say what about the entitled fans.

 

[Fantomas]

The problem with getting superteams back is that they'll all be in places like Florida and Dallas.

What I would love to see again are Superteams like the Montreal Canadiens of old or like the 1980s Islanders. I also have a soft spot for the 1990s Red Wings, even though they were dominant partly because they had money to burn. But they are an original 6 franchise and built their dynasty by drafting and developing better than anyone else.

The NHL will never be that good again. The only choices now is between this boring parity (please stop saying it's exciting; it's not) vs. a league dominated by particular American markets for economic reasons.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Super teams are great, for the fans of super teams.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

If that's the case, why do we need a cap? Let's get rid of it.

We need the cap to help ensure that a couple of stupid GMs don't drive all player salaries up to a point where they are unsustainable for the majority of the league again. Do you really want more lockouts?

 

[Tanknation]

I recall Rangers having so called "super teams" every year. Collecting free agents like Pokémon cards. However they were never very "super" and sucked.

 

[NVious]

Not really but their should be benefits for generating more revenue, you should get an extra 5-10% to spend if you generate a certain amount.

 

[Stephen]

I'd prefer the possibility of having a super team and my team being one of the big spenders. It's selfish no doubt, but I also think pro sports leagues benefit from that level of glamour. Look at the Los Angeles Dodgers. There's just an appeal to that level of starpower.

 

[NYRfan85]

With the current playoff format, give me parity 100%. It's asinine that Colorado and Dallas have to play each other in the first round.

If they ever go back to the 1v8 format, then I'm okay with the super teams existing. That usually meant an all out war in the conference finals.