Al Strachan doing his best Larry Brooks imitation

[mudcrutch79]

No they couldn't, that's why they had to trade them.
You know what? You just described "can't afford them", just used different words.
In other words they would have had to trade away other players to afford them. Rangers don't have to do that and that's the problem.

The idea I'm putting forward though is that those guys weren't worth what they were making/commanding in Edmonton. If you want to address that, a cap does nothing. If you want teams to be able to wait until a later point before deciding if a guy can be part of a Stanley Cup winner, you go for revenue sharing, not a salary cap. All a salary cap does is break up winners and expensive losers. If Edmonton had thought that Weight was essential to the future success of the team, they could have made other moves to reduce salary elsewhere in order to pay him what he wanted. Obviously Lowe didn't feel that way. Hence, the decision was not that he couldn't afford him, but that he didn't think Weight was worth it. Same process, different names for Joseph.

Hindsight is 20/20, if Oilers have had a choice they would have kept BOTH Weight and Comrie. They didn't have that choice.

They did have that choice. They could have moved Smyth-that alone would likely have cleared enough money to keep Dougie.

Question: In the past 10 years, how many bottom-15 (budget-wise) teams have won the cup? From the top of my head, there's only one (Tampa) and their budget is going to balloon next year even with the new CBA.

Their revenues should though as well. Ever heard of a Cup winner that doesn't jack up ticket prices? They're still a pretty cheap team. As I said above, I think that the pro-union people go too far in saying that no team has ever been broken up for lack of revenue; we haven't seen a truly small market team win post-1994. Tampa may well be a test. As for it being top-15 budget teams who've won, I wouldn't read too much into that. One, I'm not sure if it's true-I'd be surprised if Colorado was a top 15 budget when they won in 1996, same goes for Jersey in 2005.

So you can be a contender but chances of winning the cup are marginal.

So you say...I don't think you've done anything to show that though.

Very weak argument IMHO. I know that teams with smaller budgets have to be more careful with their spending but they are ALWAYS disadvantaged by the financial limits. Whereas Wings can go for the best talent, Oilers will have to settle for best talent/price ratio so they will ALWAYS be compromising.

The thing is, there isn't very much differentiating hockey players outside the top few, who are pretty rare. The Wings spend 3.5 mil on Draper or whatever it is...I'd be shocked if they're getting much better value from him than the Oilers get from someone like Moreau, at 3/8 the price. And Moreau's overpaid in Edmonton too, relative to what he brings. The Wings elite talent is the difference, but as I said somewhere else, they're paying names and not value there as well. It's tough to know one way or another without knowing the revenue a real contender can generate in a small market-something none of us know. Fact is, a lot of times, teams are just paying for a name.

 

[SENSible1*]

Lowe dropped the ball on that. As soon as he realized that he wasn't going to get anything back to help the team immediately, he should have played hardball. If I was the GM in Edmonton, I'd have just flat out said: "We made an investment in this guy when he used the Van Ryn loophole. You didn't hear me complain then. Trading him for futures is bad for this hockey club. The QO is withdrawn, and he's free to take me up on a 4 year offer for a million per, provided he does it in a summer, as I'm not giving out a year of service time for 10 games at the end of the season. Other than that, he's a free agent in 10 years or so. I'm sure his old man will employ him until then."

I bet you'd find that guys in the future would know that they were bound to the team.

As a Sens fan I'm painfully aware of how well hardball works with athletes. Just take the Yashin example. Bryden makes him sit out the year and they Sens are without a #1 C when they should be competing for the cup. In the end the Sens make a good trade, but Yashin still got his way and forced himself out of Ottawa and into the big contract the Sens couldn't afford.

I think the part about the public thinking hockey players make too much is bang on.

The general public doesn't hate the players for making big money, but they couldn't care less if they make an average of 1.8M or 1.3M. In their minds, both salaries are exorbitant for playing a game.

They also don't care that the owners will make money hand over fist in some markets if they get a salary cap with no revenue sharing.

They just want a league where the owners pocketbooks aren't a determining factor.

 

[mudcrutch79]

As a Sens fan I'm painfully aware of how well hardball works with athletes. Just take the Yashin example. Bryden makes him sit out the year and they Sens are without a #1 C when they should be competing for the cup. In the end the Sens make a good trade, but Yashin still got his way and forced himself out of Ottawa and into the big contract the Sens couldn't afford.

Yeah, but first he had to honour the year remaining on his contract, IIRC. Not to mention that by showing he wasn't going to back down to the guy, Marshall was able to exert more leverage when naming his price with the Islanders. It's not really comparable anyway, due to the financial issues. Nevertheless, I'll bet every agent in the league took notice of the way that teh Sens dealt with it, and decided that this wasn't a team to mess with. I'd say it benefitted the Sens in a big way, and that's without even looking at the fabulous return it netted them. That problem had nothing really to do with finances-he was 26, and under contract when he held out. That was all about one greedy player. The system worked in that he was forced to play out his contract at the value assigned to it.

Milbury signed him to an absolutely awful deal afterwards, but that was his own fault-the guy's an idiot.

 

[txpd]

I think that the union has a much stronger case than people realize. The NHL blames every crappy team on the financial situation, when, as has become evident to me upon reflection, in many cases it's piss poor financial management that's to blame.

The league-wide losses that Bettman keeps pointing to are meaningless. Why does it matter that St. Louis, Washington and whoever are losing a boatload of money? If that's where the vast majority of the losses are, and it certainly appears that that's the case, then who cares? Teams CAN make money under this if they're run properly. I can see where some form of revenue sharing would be nice in a way, to minimize the ability of rich teams to prey on poorer ones, but really, the setup now isn't that bad for small market teams.

There's a fair point to be made that we haven't seen any championship teams broken up yet for financial reasons. I'm not sure that that's always going to be the case, but no one here can say for sure. I think that with a certain percentage of revenue sharing, the NHL could ensure that that doesn't become the case. But Bettman isn't fighting for revenue sharing, he's fighting for cost controls.

The PA supporters here do have a certain degree of arrogance, but the refusal of the vast majority who are pro-owner to acknowledge that the facts are in many overwhelmingly stacked against the owners is baffling.

None of that is to say that BR should take this post as vindication. Being ignorant and correct on something is no great shakes-even a blind dog finds a bone every so often.

You make some good points. Let me take them on one at a time.

1. not every team is run well. not ever team with money to spend is run well and not every team without money to spend is run poorly. the percentages of run well to run poorly run about the same the rangers and blackhawks are teams with money that can't get out of their own way. on the other hand to blame lack of success in Atlanta, Tampa, Pheonix, Washington, Carolina & Nashville on a history of bad management is a mistake.

2. you don't want to use st louis and washington as examples of why the current "setup isn't that bad for small market teams." in the first place neither st louis nor washington are small market teams in the nhl. st louis qualifies as a big market team. both of these teams are examples of taking the team as far as spending within their means can take them. i could be off by a year or two, but combined those two franchises have missed the playoffs 4 times in the last 20 years. both franchises concluded (st louis first) that the only way to compete was to spend at a level equal to who was winning. that was necessary because both teams had spent the value of making the playoffs with their fan bases. the first round of the playoffs in st louis and washington was just regular season extended. they needed to win in order to avoid losing revenue base. neither has won and the gambles taken to get to the next level has hurt both teams. there is no question that had teams ranked between 11th and 20th in payroll been winning any stanley cups over the last 10 or 15 years that these teams would have continued the route they were on rather than spend. but that wasnt happening either. either you were in the top 10 in payroll or you didnt win.

3. its true that championship teams are not being broken up for financial reasons. of course the reason for that is that all of the championship teams in the last 10 plus years have been teams largely in the top 5 in payroll. Detroit, Dallas, NJ, Colorado. when was the last time any of those 4 teams broke up a team for financial reasons? you only make my point for me. any NHL team that would vulnerable to being broken up for financial reasons has not won a stanley cup in the free agent era until tampa bay won the most recent cup. that team is currently facing a swift jump from well outside top 15 in payroll to well inside the top 10 and that is with MVP/Scoring title winner Martin St Louis currently unsigned. Tampa Bay can not afford a $50m plus team payroll, champs or not.

 

[txpd]

The thing is, the Oilers could've afforded to keep those guys. They just made the decision that the cost of keeping of them could no longer be justified in terms of the revenues they generated. If they'd felt otherwise, they would have replaced other players with lower cost players. I'd say that the decisions were correct-Joseph was ably replaced by Salo, and Weight would have been quite nicely replaced by Comrie. Obviously, that threshold is going to be lower in Edmonton than it is in a place like Toronto (where they have all sorts of tax dollars funding the team). That said, is the threshold so low that it deprives the team of the opportunity to develop a Stanley Cup contender? I don't think so. The Oilers didn't have enough talent around either one of those guys to be a legitimate Cup contender. If they don't have the other talent, they're smarter to turn those guys into future players, adding to their talent. In a sense operating under financial constraints makes it easier for a team to win-they have to confront these issues. The Rangers pissed around with Leetch and Co. for how long? And why? Because they can afford to.

this edmonton post is great. I like this line best, "In a sense operating under financial constraints makes it easier for a team to win-they have to confront these issues."
Please, show me again in the free agent era which teams have operated under financial constraints and found it not just easier to win, but just plain possible to win. how many stanley cups for those teams??? i am sure i am just forgetting them, but all i remember is rangers, stars, red wings, avalanche, devils...where are those teams with constraints? help me out.

 

[mudcrutch79]

The point I was making is that a small market team is confronted with the issue of whether or not the team is one that can win the Stanley Cup well before a large market team is. The Rangers are rotten to the core, but because they have buckets of money, they can afford to keep trying to fix it with free agents. If they only had 35 million to spend when they had a bad team, they probably would have blown it up by now, and maybe the fans in New York would have the chance to watch a decent hockey team.

List of drafted players off the top of my head
Stars: Modano,
Devils: Brodeur, Gomez
Red Wings: Yzerman, Fedorov, Konstantinov, Lidstrom
Avs: Sakic, Lindros (turned him into Forsberg), Nolan, Foote
TB: Richards, Lecavalier

Every one of those teams you listed would also be at the top of the list of teams who've drafted well. It so happens that they're big markets, but I think you might be assuming causation where only correlation exists.

 

[SENSible1*]

3. its true that championship teams are not being broken up for financial reasons. of course the reason for that is that all of the championship teams in the last 10 plus years have been teams largely in the top 5 in payroll. Detroit, Dallas, NJ, Colorado. when was the last time any of those 4 teams broke up a team for financial reasons? you only make my point for me. any NHL team that would vulnerable to being broken up for financial reasons has not won a stanley cup in the free agent era until tampa bay won the most recent cup. that team is currently facing a swift jump from well outside top 15 in payroll to well inside the top 10 and that is with MVP/Scoring title winner Martin St Louis currently unsigned. Tampa Bay can not afford a $50m plus team payroll, champs or not.

NJ lost Mogilny and Holik for financial reasons. It appears that Neidermayer will be next.

Tampa will follow suit.

 

[txpd]

The point I was making is that a small market team is confronted with the issue of whether or not the team is one that can win the Stanley Cup well before a large market team is. The Rangers are rotten to the core, but because they have buckets of money, they can afford to keep trying to fix it with free agents. If they only had 35 million to spend when they had a bad team, they probably would have blown it up by now, and maybe the fans in New York would have the chance to watch a decent hockey team.

List of drafted players off the top of my head
Stars: Modano,
Devils: Brodeur, Gomez
Red Wings: Yzerman, Fedorov, Konstantinov, Lidstrom
Avs: Sakic, Lindros (turned him into Forsberg), Nolan, Foote
TB: Richards, Lecavalier

Every one of those teams you listed would also be at the top of the list of teams who've drafted well. It so happens that they're big markets, but I think you might be assuming causation where only correlation exists.

I think for some reason there is this false sense that the Washington Capitals somehow joined the ranks of the big free agent buyer teams and the ranks of the big spender/wheeler-dealers. Nothing could have been further from the truth. The Capitals did trade for and then extent Jagr's contract and did sign one $5m a year free agent player, Robert Lang. But that is it. The last time the Capitals made the playoffs, 2002-03, they had 9 home drafted players, plus Calle Johansson who played 15 of his 16 years for the Capitals. Paying your home grown stars is just as expensive as signing them off of other teams.

 

[Pepper]

The idea I'm putting forward though is that those guys weren't worth what they were making/commanding in Edmonton. If you want to address that, a cap does nothing.

That's only your opinion - Oilers weren't even given the choice to make that call.

They did have that choice. They could have moved Smyth-that alone would likely have cleared enough money to keep Dougie.

No offense but that's just ridiculous. It's the same net effect, they have to give up one of their best players, it doesn't matter whether it's Smyth or Weight, fact is that they still lose.

As for it being top-15 budget teams who've won, I wouldn't read too much into that. One, I'm not sure if it's true-I'd be surprised if Colorado was a top 15 budget when they won in 1996, same goes for Jersey in 2005.

Avs were probably around 15ish, New JErsey was definetly top15.

So you say...I don't think you've done anything to show that though..

I think I just did. Last 10 years (under the last CBA), only one bottom-15 team managed to win the cup. That's marginal enough to me.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I think I just did. Last 10 years (under the last CBA), only one bottom-15 team managed to win the cup. That's marginal enough to me.

well, use some logic man...

bottom payroll teams arent good enough to win the cup for a reason. bottom payroll teams dont have enough good players !!!

so the goods teams win the cups and the good teams have to pay good money to the good players.

why would you expect it to be different ?

dr

 

[mudcrutch79]

That's only your opinion - Oilers weren't even given the choice to make that call.

What do you mean they weren't given the opportunity to make that call? In choosing to trade Doug Weight rather than make other moves, they implicitly made that decision. If that thought wasn't part of their decision making process, then they're one of the worst run clubs in hockey.

No offense but that's just ridiculous. It's the same net effect, they have to give up one of their best players, it doesn't matter whether it's Smyth or Weight, fact is that they still lose.

If the team that they had wasn't good enough to generate enough revenue for a 25-30 million dollar payroll, then what's wrong with that? I disagree that they lose-I'm not going to debate the trade over again, but the fact is, they got some return. Doug Weight was a year away from UFA status anyway-how long do the Oilers get to put the pieces in place around him?

I think I just did. Last 10 years (under the last CBA), only one bottom-15 team managed to win the cup. That's marginal enough to me.

A. That's a small sample size, and dumb way to look at the question. The playoffs are a crapshoot. Can small market teams become good and afford to keep their players? Ottawa has so far, despite several first round flameouts. B. Wouldn't you expect teams with big payrolls to win sometimes? What's so shocking about a period where the big market teams are winning? I notice it was two small market teams in the Cup Final this year.

 

[mudcrutch79]

Let me pose a question. How many Cups would small payroll clubs have to win for you to conclude that the system is fair?

 

[MarkZackKarl]

YOu are eaisly confusing big budget with big market. Colorado is not a big market. New Jersey is not a big market. Dallas and Detroit are medium-to-large markets.

Tampa is not a big market. Ottawa is not a big market.

The whole point is that teams get big budgets by winning, or big budgets by being stupid. A team that is average and has a huge player budget is stupid. A team that has a winning team and a big budget is fine, since they SHOULD be producing winner revenues.

The league allows for equality of opportunity. Partly because it is a gate driven league and also because of the relatively restrictive player movement. This allows teams to focus on their drafting and proper trades. This is also known as good mangement.

The problem with any sort of cap is it either completely punishes well-run teams by it being a hard cap, or partially punishes (rewards) good (bad) teams.

The point is that a team should not be forced to lose its players for "the good of the game" so a fan in San Jose or Edmonton can think they have a better chance at winning by stealing other teams players. This has not really happened in this CBA. The trades were mostly good hockey decisions. If the Sens are forced to lose Spezza unwillingly because of a cap, then that is not fair. but if they believe they can get a good return for an elite level asset (see Yashin) then they should make the trade, if it frees up a roster space for a younger player, helps keep the budget in line while in turn not damaging the quality of the team etc.

The teams that are the best managed and usually most patient win out in the end. Dont you poor souls who need constant instant gratification realize this? I would rather build slowly but surely over 10 years to put my team in a great position to win than to be slightly above or below average every season with a pie in the sky chance at winning.

The cap eliminates great teams. Instead of having GREAT, GOOD, AVERAGE and BAD teams, the league would simply have GOOD, AVERAGe and BAD with more teams in the good and average categories, about the same in the bAD category and 0 in the elite /great category (or at least not for more than a season or two.

Ise it really worth compromising the integrity of the game to satisfy whiny fans in markets who have bad management? Isn'tt that just plain stupid?

 

[Pepper]

well, use some logic man...

bottom payroll teams arent good enough to win the cup for a reason. bottom payroll teams dont have enough good players !!!

so the goods teams win the cups and the good teams have to pay good money to the good players.

why would you expect it to be different ?

dr

Huh? I think you're the one who should be using logic.

Oilers don't have the money to compete with Avs and Wings - their chances of winning the cup are marginal at best despite being well-run. NHL is trying to create a system where teams are both much closer in terms of available resources and allows the teams to be financially healthy.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

How are the Oilers well run?

 

[Pepper]

Let me pose a question. How many Cups would small payroll clubs have to win for you to conclude that the system is fair?

Tough guestion, maybe 1 out of 3 would be fair for the bottom 15 teams.

Hard to say really, I just know that currently it's not fair.

 

[mudcrutch79]

Tough guestion, maybe 1 out of 3 would be fair for the bottom 15 teams.

Hard to say really, I just know that currently it's not fair.

Tough to argue with "I just know that currently it's not fair." What if Anaheim had beat Jersey-they were within one game. I also suspect that the 1994-95 Devils were in the bottom 15. It seems to me that we could be very close to the magic 1/3.

 

[copperandblue]

For what it's worth the '95 Devils and '96 Aves were both at #9 in league payroll for their respective years.

 

[mudcrutch79]

For what it's worth the '95 Devils and '96 Aves were both at #9 in league payroll for their respective years.

Link on the Devils?

 

[copperandblue]

Link on the Devils?

I don't actually - for either of them.

I had them marked down from a while ago but I don't remember the source so take it for what it's worth.

I was just trying to help....

 

[Pepper]

The whole point is that teams get big budgets by winning, or big budgets by being stupid. A team that is average and has a huge player budget is stupid. A team that has a winning team and a big budget is fine, since they SHOULD be producing winner revenues.

A team like Edmonton can't really produce more revenues in the regular season, no matter what.

The league allows for equality of opportunity. Partly because it is a gate driven league and also because of the relatively restrictive player movement. This allows teams to focus on their drafting and proper trades. This is also known as good mangement.

Because it's gate driven league, smaller markets like Edmonton will be disadvantaged. There's no huge TV deal to balance it and that's why NHL needs hard cap more than any other league.

The problem with any sort of cap is it either completely punishes well-run teams by it being a hard cap, or partially punishes (rewards) good (bad) teams.

Wrong. Well-run teams will still be in higher (on average) than badly run teams. Hard cap makes it impossible for big markets like Leafs and Rangers to escape their horrible management/drafting. You can't buy success, you have to make it yourself.

If the Sens are forced to lose Spezza unwillingly because of a cap, then that is not fair. but if they believe they can get a good return for an elite level asset (see Yashin) then they should make the trade, if it frees up a roster space for a younger player, helps keep the budget in line while in turn not damaging the quality of the team etc.

Personally I wouldn't mind a system where you're allowed to sign players you have drafted yourself despite being on the cap. If Sens are forced to trade Spezza, it's because they have either paid too much to other players. It's about choices. But like I said, I don't have a problem which rewards good drafting even under a hard cap system.

Dont you poor souls who need constant instant gratification realize this? I would rather build slowly but surely over 10 years to put my team in a great position to win than to be slightly above or below average every season with a pie in the sky chance at winning.

Sorry, what the hell are you talking about here? Instant gratification? Seriously dude, I hope that wasn't aimed for me because I fully agree with there and frankly that conflicts badly with your other points. No salary cap would mean that Rangers and LEafs can still continue to patch their horrible management & drafting, that's instant gratification for you. They don't have any 10 year plans, hell Leafs probably couldn't do a 10 day plan even if their existence depended on it.

The cap eliminates great teams. Instead of having GREAT, GOOD, AVERAGE and BAD teams, the league would simply have GOOD, AVERAGe and BAD with more teams in the good and average categories, about the same in the bAD category and 0 in the elite /great category (or at least not for more than a season or two.

Yes but the difference is that bad teams would be bad simply because of bad management, not because they don't have the resources. I disagree about not being elite teams but that's something that we can only speculate about.

Ise it really worth compromising the integrity of the game to satisfy whiny fans in markets who have bad management? Isn'tt that just plain stupid?

You're really missing the point BIG TIME and it's very surpising since you're a fan of a team that recently almost went belly up just because of a system you're aiming at. Melnyk didn't buy the team so that he can keep spending millions of dollars of his own money to keep it successfull.

 

[Pepper]

Tough to argue with "I just know that currently it's not fair." What if Anaheim had beat Jersey-they were within one game. I also suspect that the 1994-95 Devils were in the bottom 15. It seems to me that we could be very close to the magic 1/3.

If, if, if...They didn't. What if Anaheim hadn't made it to the finals? FACT is that apart for Bolts win this year, all Cups have been won by big spenders.

 

[Pepper]

Here you go:

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/9-7cba.htm

Payroll Rank of Stanley Cup Winners

Year Team Payroll Rank
2003 New Jersey $52.4 million 8th out of 30
2002 Detroit $64.4 million 1st out of 30
2001 Colorado $50.5 million 3rd out of 30
2000 New Jersey $31.3 million 15th out of 28
1999 Dallas $39.8 million 2nd out of 27
1998 Detroit $28.4 million 9th out of 26
1997 Detroit $28.9 million 4th out of 26
1996 Colorado $20.6 million 11th out of 26
1995 New Jersey $16.5 million 10th out of 26
1994 NY Rangers $17.6 million 2nd out of 26
1993 Montreal $13.2 million 4th out of 24
1992 Pittsburgh $10.4 million 2nd out of 22

That statistic is really mind-blowing and should open a lot of eyes here.

From 92 to 03, *EVERY* Stanley Cup was won by a top15 budget team. SEVEN OF THOSE CUPS, YES, CLOSE TO 60% (for you mathematically challenged) were won by TOP5 budget teams.

So spare me from any ridiculous claims that the current system is fair.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Let me pose a question. How many Cups would small payroll clubs have to win for you to conclude that the system is fair?

Zero. I don't think it is relevant. It should never happen. If we divide the league into thirds in 1970 or 1980 or 1990 or 2000, the reults should always look about the same.

The top third of the league are the genuine contenders (or they should be). Management in all those places expects the team to make the playoffs for sure and they expect the team has a decent shot to make it. If these teams miss the playoffs, it should shock. All of these teams are veteran teams. If they do miss the playoffs, they should be broken up.

The middle third of the league are mediocre teams, usually young ones hoping to move up. They all hope for a playoff spot. They all hope that if they do make the playoffs, they can go on a run. This has happened several times in the past few years. (I do not think this is normal. It has happened because the guard is changing in the NHL with the so called elite coming back to the pack.)

The bottom third are made up of teams where making the playoffs is a longshot. Every year one or two bottom feeders surprise - Nashville, Calgary - but realistically these teams are too young and don't have enough talent to be a real threat.

Should we be surprised that a top ten payroll team makes the playoffs three times as often as a bottom 10 payroll? Not if we assume NHL GMs know anything about hockey. Should we be surprised that a team from the bottom third in the league payroll has never won the Cup? I don't think so.

The most interesting point about the data supplied by Andrew's Stars Page is that before this CBA and before free agency it was top payroll teams that won, too. Top payroll teams will always be more likely to win because they have better players.

Top third teams won six times in the past ten years and teams from the middle third have won four times. Teams from the bottom third haven't won at all. If anything this is skewed towards upsets. Top payroll teams should win more often.

Tom

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Tampa's Payroll last year was 21st in the league... Doesn't that count as a bottom 3rd payroll team?