The larger problem is the people who made the initial mistakes (the owners and Bettman) are still there, so little reason exists to think that group will be any more intelligent this time than last.

Two primary factors in the current CBA have created this problem:  First, the narrow window between the cap ceiling and the cap floor.  This was created by the designers of the CBA stupidly not taking into account a) the difference in revenues between clubs and b) the reality that if the cap increased having the floor increase in dollar for dollar syncronicity essentially decreases the spread of the cap window (that’s a math thing).  Secondly, not allowing teams to keep portions of salaries and their attendant cap figure when making trades forces teams to be stuck with their horrible contracts rather than allowing them a means to correct mistakes.

The obvious fixes are, 1) make the floor a fixed percentage of the ceiling rather than a fixed amount less than the ceiling.  Anyone with a brain should have thought of that to begin with… but we’re talking about NHL owners and Bettman here.  IMO you make the floor 50-60% of the cap and totally get rid of revenue sharing beyond splitting up national contracts.  The point of a cap and floor should be to prevent a situation where one team has a payroll 3, 4, or 7 times greater than another club… not to make sure everyone is spending exactly the same amount.

2), Allow teams to split up the cap values of a traded player only in the year he was traded.  Meaning, if a team moves a guy with three years left on their deal they can only make cap adjustments to the amount remaining in the current year.  In years 2 and 3 the guy reverts back to his full cap cost.  That allows teams to make in-season moves more easily, it gets teams out from under contracts more easily, and it still provides some degree of hesitation on rampant salary or salary cap dumping moves since the ‘discounts’ only hit for one year.

I have no confidence anything approaching these ideas is going to be implemented.  Ever.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 01/12/09 at 12:41 AM ET

The problem is the NHL has a handful of teams in weak hockey markets.  The only solution is to improve or get out of those markets.  The CBA cannot fix that problem because it is not a CBA-related problem.

The new CBA has offered a stay of execution.  Its possible (but not at all clear in Phoenix’s case) that the stay could be a bit longer with a better CBA, but that doesn’t change the underlying issue.  The NHL has teams in some weak hockey markets.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 01/12/09 at 01:09 AM ET

I think you’re probably right that there is no real fix for saving some of the weaker hockey markets.  I think the best of the bad options for the NHL would probably be to contract the Panthers and Coyotes, one from each conference, and hope that’s enough to save the Thrashers, Lightning, and Predators.  The problem with what you suggest HockeyinHD, is that if you removed the revenue sharing that the Yotes get, even if you allow them to spend a few million dollars less on player salaries, is that their losses are including I think around $20 million in revenue sharing as it is.  If you take that away they would probably be forced to cease operations on the spot.  Lowering the salary floor also doesn’t help get fans to shell out money for tickets when they know they are not watching an NHL team, not really.  If you’re having trouble getting someone to spend $40 a ticket on what has turned out to be a very competitive team, what do you think will happen when that team gets rid of its best players and the fans know that no one else is coming in to replace them?  I think if you do that, you get rid of the few fans you have left.  From the perspective of a taxpayer though this is extremely frustrating and yet further proof that the publicly financed stadium concept is generally not in the best interests of taxpayers.  If the team “needs” a new arena to remain competitive then it probably isn’t a very well run team to begin with.  Taxpayers stepped up and put up the money for the new arena they were told they needed and now they could be left without a team to play in said arena.  Not a very good return on the investment (though building the stadium in Glendale, where they get roughly 0 day of game foot traffic and walkups, was a terrible mistake).  With that in mind, it really wouldn’t be fair for the NHL to pick up and move the team even if they could get the lease renegotiated, and I can’t imagine what it would take to get the city to even consider any revisions.

One point you hit on HockeyinHD, that of course several others have hit on, is that the current leadership is wholly responsible for this mess.  Bettman was an NBA man and he felt the NHL could compete with the NBA and use that same model for expansion.  Maybe there was a time that was true, but once the NBA discovered China that ship sailed.  The sooner the NHL recognizes and accepts that fact the sooner they can address their core problems.  These aren’t bumps in the road as Bettman would have us believe, these are serious core problems that threaten the entire league, and none of them can be solved until there are fresh eyes on the case.  The NHL’s outdated and unfortunate business model relies entirely too heavily on ticket sales, so any team that doesn’t get major market TV dollars on their own is going to be hit hard whenever attendance drops.  The NBA can fall back on 300 million Chinese basketball fans when things are tough for them here, but what does the NHL have to fall back on?

Posted by Aaron from Boston on 01/12/09 at 01:41 AM ET

Lower the floor, add a luxury tax or NBA-style “Bird Rule” so teams can develop talent without being punished for it.

Posted by Nathan on 01/12/09 at 08:56 AM ET

I disagree somewhat with the notion that a lower floor wouldn’t help teams remain solvent.  It’s sheer lunacy for the Phoenix Coyotes to spend almost 47 million on salaries.  Florida spending 54 million is stupidity.  And on, and on and on.

25 of 30 NHL teams are spending more than 49 million dollars on salaries this season.  That.  Is.  Madness.

The problem the NHL was struggling with was that in the years prior to the lockout there were 5-8 teams spending between 50-77 million and 5-8 teams spending less than 20 million.  There were differences of 200-500% in team payrolls.  To wit:

In 2001 there were 5 teams with total salaries under 20 million.  The Wild spent $11,737,500.  There were 9 teams spending over 40 mil.  The Rags spent 56,887,037.

In 2002 there were 4 teams with salaries at 20 mil or less.  There were 13 teams spending over 40 mil, 6 spending 50+, and 3 spending 59.5+.

In 2003 there were 5 teams at <~25 million and 7 teams >60 million.

In 2004 it narrowed a little, but there was still an 300ish% difference between the top 4 payrolls and the bottom 4 payrolls.

Let’s be clear about something.  Teams that only spent 11-25 mil were never relevant with regards to the playoffs… but let’s be equally honest, a lot of the teams who are FORCED to spend 45 mil now aren’t going to be either.  At least, not because they spent that 45 mil.

Try as the league might, the NHL isn’t the NFL with it’s easily-forced parity.  There are only 6 players on the ice at once, so individual expertise is a much greater benefit in the NHL than it is in the NHL… ergo, unless a team can identify, acquire and retain good players and establish a sound philosophy it doesn’t matter whether they spend 15 million or 51 million.  That team is going to be a non-factor.

Columbus, for instance, was 4-6-2 and largely cooked barely one month into the season.  They ‘find’ (they knew he was there, but I doubt they knew he was -this- good) Mason, plug him in, and that alone pushes them to a 16-12-2 streak overall and a 15-9-1 record with him starting.

They didn’t need to sign Umberger, Huselius and Commodore to 13+ mil a year in ridiculous contracts, they just had to do a better job acquiring young players and realizing what they had.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 01/12/09 at 01:01 PM ET

I agree that Phoenix is a weak hockey market, but I don’t believe it had to be the unsustainable one that it is today.  The decision that killed the yotes was to build their arena all the way in fricken Glendale…I love the Coyotes and have been a huge fan ever since they moved here, and even though I’m a season ticket holder, it’s tough to justify going to 44 games a year.  It’s 60 miles round trip through heavy traffic on weeknights from the east valley, which is where the vast majority of the Coyotes’ fan base resides (read: white people with money).  The ownership knew this before they moved out there, but chose to overlook this little fact.  Ellman sold this team down the river by moving them to BFE and agreed to ludicrous contactural obligations (ie the Coyotes pay $2.5MM in parking expenses) so he could build his precious Westgate.  I feel bad for Moyes, and hope that by some miracle, they are able to renegotiate with Glendale and remain solvent long enough to recover or, for the good of hockey, move to a town that deserves them.  In the meantime, I’ll enjoy watching these kids outperform everyone’s expectations on the ice and keep my fingers’ crossed for one last whiteout.  LET’S GO YOTES!

Posted by jomama from Chandler, AZ on 01/12/09 at 02:20 PM ET

Location, location, location…

IMO, the team was doomed when they made the decision to relocate to Glendale.  Not like playing at the US Airways arena was good for them, but they were at a more centralized location that the residents of the East Valley could get to, and the East Valley is where the largest interest in ice hockey is.  They didn’t get the deal they wanted, moved quite some distance away (about 30-45 minutes, without traffic), and decided to have games start at 7PM… for the families.  If it were in the East Valley, the college kids in Tempe would be rocking the cheap seats, the families from Mesa, Gilbert, and Chandler would take up the mid-tier seating, and the corporate sponsors from Phoenix, not to mention the wealthy individuals out of of Paradise Valley and Scottsdale, would have their ice level seats and suites.  Unfortunately, that’s not what happened, so what should the team and the league do?

I would guess to be sustainable, the team would have to declare bankruptcy and get out of Moyes’ hands.  Find another group interested in hockey that’s willing to not just market the game, but to really understand it.  The team should try to move either to the US Airways Arena, The Wells Fargo Arena, or the Arizona Veterans Memorial Coliseum until they can get on their feet.  Once the new team becomes sustainable, then they can look to get a new arena in a central location in Phoenix.  I know I was just giving mad love to East Valley, but there are still some good and legit hockey fans from West Valley that deserve a team to root for too so I’ll acknowledge that.  Then move the start times to 7:30 PM.  If they do that and stick to some decent promotions, I think they’d manage to survive.

But yes, and sorry Canada, Phoenix does need a hockey team.  They’ve just wanted one to for, and the city hasn’t felt like that for a while.  If the kids can continue doing their thing and winning and Gretzky can get them to go, then they can make the playoffs which would be bank for the team.  It’s hard to root for a team that doesn’t have an identity which is something the Coytoes lacked before.  But now that the guys they’re drafting are sticking in the NHL and not playing 3rd-tier hockey somewhere in Scandinavia or Ontario, things can change if they can just hold on…

Posted by thebadone from Tempe, AZ on 01/12/09 at 04:55 PM ET