anybody hear maclean interview bettman @ the allstar game ?

Deleted member 3032

Guest
So what was solved?

By the cap? It helps equalize the playing field, although I don't think that was the main goal of a cap (although many teams I'm sure want that). It does allow smaller market teams to attract big name UFA's, though. It also DOES help them sign their players, but you have to look harder at how it makes it possible. Teams like Ottawa, Edmonton, Pittsburgh, etc don't have to spend as much money to afford their own players. This means that can field a better team for the same money than they otherwise would be able to. Teams like Colorado, Toronto, New York Rangers, Philadelphia, etc can't spend as much money as they could before, preventing them from out bidding other teams constantly for other players, which in turn also raises the prices (by comparability) of players on other teams.

It is a big circular effect that helps teams in different ways. Big market teams can now spend significantly less money without any public backlash, since they literally can't spend more money, and therefore make a larger margin of profit (or not lose as much money). Small market teams gain the ability to put up more competitive teams by making the money they spend buy more and therefore the ability to spend more money then they could before (since a more successful team typically leads to more income).

The biggest thing the cap does is help insure teams of making a profit, and (also very important) increasing the value of their teams. A cap removes a decent amount of risk from every team. Less risk will raise the value of the teams (I hope I don't have to explain why).
 

Sotnos

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
10,885
1
Not here
www.boltprospects.com
Modin? Fine, I'll give that one. They needed cap space, they had to get rid of him.
Moving Modin had less to do with the cap, and more to do with him being a good player with a low contract and therefore an attractive trading piece for a goalie. Cap or no cap, you've gotta give to get. Kubina was more of a cap victim than Modin.
(Of course, they could have tried to resign Richards to a contract worth something less than $38 million over 5 years.)
No offense to you, but god I hate that comment. None of us were there during negoatiations, I don't think, so we don't know what was "tried" or not. :shakehead

Khabibulin? I want to see where the Bolts would have given him $6 million per first.
I think the final offer he got was $5.5/year, but that was of course under a cap. We'll never know what he would've been offered otherwise.
 

Fugu

Guest
Moving Modin had less to do with the cap, and more to do with him being a good player with a low contract and therefore an attractive trading piece for a goalie. Cap or no cap, you've gotta give to get. Kubina was more of a cap victim than Modin.
No offense to you, but god I hate that comment. None of us were there during negoatiations, I don't think, so we don't know what was "tried" or not. :shakehead


I think the final offer he got was $5.5/year, but that was of course under a cap. We'll never know what he would've been offered otherwise.


We may not know what would've happened w/o the cap and Khabi, but... why did TB need to trade a good player with a low contract for a goalie? Second of all, Modin's value was enhanced in a system where there was a cap. Finally, and this isn't proof but it also shows that you can't disprove the effects of the cap either, trading for a top goalie was almost impossible in TB's situation give their cap position. They'd have to have someone take on salary to bring a big contract back.
 

Fugu

Guest
By the cap? It helps equalize the playing field, although I don't think that was the main goal of a cap (although many teams I'm sure want that). It does allow smaller market teams to attract big name UFA's, though. It also DOES help them sign their players, but you have to look harder at how it makes it possible. Teams like Ottawa, Edmonton, Pittsburgh, etc don't have to spend as much money to afford their own players. This means that can field a better team for the same money than they otherwise would be able to. Teams like Colorado, Toronto, New York Rangers, Philadelphia, etc can't spend as much money as they could before, preventing them from out bidding other teams constantly for other players, which in turn also raises the prices (by comparability) of players on other teams.

It is a big circular effect that helps teams in different ways. Big market teams can now spend significantly less money without any public backlash, since they literally can't spend more money, and therefore make a larger margin of profit (or not lose as much money). Small market teams gain the ability to put up more competitive teams by making the money they spend buy more and therefore the ability to spend more money then they could before (since a more successful team typically leads to more income).

The biggest thing the cap does is help insure teams of making a profit, and (also very important) increasing the value of their teams. A cap removes a decent amount of risk from every team. Less risk will raise the value of the teams (I hope I don't have to explain why).

Most of this is correct, but I have to elaborate on a couple of the conclusions. Whatever the effects of the cap are, they are equally applicable to big market teams. Everyone can sign UFA's and everyone has to choose amongst their better players. Ottawa lost Chara to Boston. How does this system "favor" Ottawa then? One area where I think Bettman was correct was in saying that the cap would become a magnet for salaries. Who would've predicted that Buffalo would be $90K away from the ceiling this year? And next year they will more than likely have to be at the maximum again in order to hang on to their first choices. I don't think they will be able to retain everyone that they'd like to keep.

On the comment about profit, I think the word you wanted was cost certainty, not profit. There are several teams who will have cost certainty under this system, but still may not turn a profit. Of course, the big market teams will have huge windfalls if their revenues stay high as well. Yes, risk is minimized, cost/profit can be better planned for, and it does increase the franchise values-- for now. If the revenue sharing plan's payouts to some teams decreases, then that certainly will get factored into the big picture.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
I'll post a comment and link here as well, but of course making the excuse that only a selfish fan or team would demand otherwise is not only the easy way out, but it ignores the facts. Certainly expanding the problem is not an ideal way to solve it, but perhaps any solution should be a shared one and not always come at the expense of the same team or teams. It is a league after all. If we can share revenue to help out those that need it, and if we can share a lockout to help those that need it, why can't we share the other problems? Referencing 'time zones' is such a cop out, expected from some corners, but the knee-jerk acceptance of a such a simplistic solution (if I can call it a solution to anything) from some here is a bit surprising.

Link:





And before history is distorted further by the usual contingent here, please note that in 1994, Ilitch was in favor of a cap then as well. I think the Wings were in the minority then in backing a cap in 1994-- I mean it is obvious that they were seeing how it transpired.


I meant to comment on this excahnge between Fugu and KevinForbes earlier, but I forgot to get around to it. Still, better late than never.

This exchange went on back and forth for several posts, and the two posters were not able to obtain closure on an acceptable solution for the scheduling issues.

They were not able to do so, despite not having dime one worth of equity invested in the game, and not depending on the success of their team for their livelihood ... just a rooting interest, really ...

and yet people who post on this board would expect - nay, demand (quite shrilly, I might add) - that the NHL, and specifically Gary Bettman, should somehow magically be able to convince people whose livelihoods DO depend on their team's success (GM's and teams presidents) and people who have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in their teams (the owners themselves) to do what Bettman may feel to be in the best interests of the game (while he is knowing full well that there is no absolutely correct, risk-free answer).

I guess they expect that 'cause they're hockey fans, darn it, and they want what they want when they want it, and if they don't get it, well it's the short NY lawyer's fault.

Note to the two posters debating: this is not directed at you. I use your exchange purely as an illustration to demonstrate that what a number of clueless posters think is "obvious" is not so obvious, and it is preposterous to suggest that all this stuff is easy and the NHL are idiots for not figuring it out.
 

Sotnos

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
10,885
1
Not here
www.boltprospects.com
We may not know what would've happened w/o the cap and Khabi, but... why did TB need to trade a good player with a low contract for a goalie?
Um, because there weren't any attractive UFA goalies available, Dudley didn't draft any decent goalies so the ones in the system are a few years away, and you have to give to get? :dunno: Cap or no Cap, a trading partner would prefer a lower salaried player if skills are equal.
Second of all, Modin's value was enhanced in a system where there was a cap.
Probably. A 30 goal scorer on a contract that was affected by the salary rollback is a good deal.

Finally, and this isn't proof but it also shows that you can't disprove the effects of the cap either, trading for a top goalie was almost impossible in TB's situation give their cap position. They'd have to have someone take on salary to bring a big contract back.
Not sure what you're attempting to get at here, but the 2 biggest things that affected Tampa far more than the Cap itself were 1-declaring all 04-05 contracts void and 2-early free agency. Those things led to whatever problems came afterwards (or what some people perceive as problems).
 

Fugu

Guest
Um, because there weren't any attractive UFA goalies available, Dudley didn't draft any decent goalies so the ones in the system are a few years away, and you have to give to get? :dunno: Cap or no Cap, a trading partner would prefer a lower salaried player if skills are equal.

Um no, I have to disagree. Had they kept Khabi, would this point not be moot? We're going to end up in one of those infinite loops if we keep going here....

Probably. A 30 goal scorer on a contract that was affected by the salary rollback is a good deal.

Not sure what you're attempting to get at here, but the 2 biggest things that affected Tampa far more than the Cap itself were 1-declaring all 04-05 contracts void and 2-early free agency. Those things led to whatever problems came afterwards (or what some people perceive as problems).

I think you're oversimplifying. The cap - and where it was set - came at the worst time possible for TB. Free agency was accelerated due to both the new CBA and the fact that the year off counted. If you compare TB directly to Ottawa (who faced similar free agency issues in a capped environment), Ottawa had $6 million more to work with but the same acceleration in free agency 1year later. Tampa could have (maybe would have) tried to work with a payroll approaching the mid $40 million range had there been no cap. Given their economic situation and desire to get to at least the second round of the playoffs, they might have decided this was an acceptable cost : revenue scenario. Even if they had passed on Khabi, the realization that they were weak in goal might have prompted a deal for someone else. With a $39 million cap, this was not an option unless they gave up Vinny or Richards.
 

Fugu

Guest
I meant to comment on this excahnge between Fugu and KevinForbes earlier, but I forgot to get around to it. Still, better late than never.

This exchange went on back and forth for several posts, and the two posters were not able to obtain closure on an acceptable solution for the scheduling issues.

They were not able to do so, despite not having dime one worth of equity invested in the game, and not depending on the success of their team for their livelihood ... just a rooting interest, really ...

and yet people who post on this board would expect - nay, demand (quite shrilly, I might add) - that the NHL, and specifically Gary Bettman, should somehow magically be able to convince people whose livelihoods DO depend on their team's success (GM's and teams presidents) and people who have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in their teams (the owners themselves) to do what Bettman may feel to be in the best interests of the game (while he is knowing full well that there is no absolutely correct, risk-free answer).

I guess they expect that 'cause they're hockey fans, darn it, and they want what they want when they want it, and if they don't get it, well it's the short NY lawyer's fault.

Note to the two posters debating: this is not directed at you. I use your exchange purely as an illustration to demonstrate that what a number of clueless posters think is "obvious" is not so obvious, and it is preposterous to suggest that all this stuff is easy and the NHL are idiots for not figuring it out.


Sheesh, GC. You really are defensive of the boys in Manhattan - some of whom are in TO I guess. The best answer would've have been: We have to wait to see what happens to the Pens and then we can figure out when to make changes. My pet peeve with this is the acceptance of the premise that in-division play builds rivalries. As a Wings fan, I have a hard time accepting this argument if one considers the Wings' history and rivalries. Could I be wrong??? Stranger things have happened (;) ) but... I remain dubious. If teams just want to play in their own divisions, how is this not headed towards two leagues, similar to the old MLB and NFL leagues?


I understand the time zone issues, and where and how the TV ratings stack up. I was pointing out how unfair the current set up is to a team the NHL itself has said is important to the financial success of several other teams in the West. Those are Daly's words, not mine. One team cannot be expected to shoulder the weight of the needs of the NHL in the US (without ever getting something that helps it back). Some of the Wings fans had fun with this by suggesting we swap Columbus for Toronto. Western Canada gets what it wants, Toronto and Detroit get their rivalry back, and the Western Conference is bolstered by the presence of 3 O-6 teams, two of whom can afford the extra cost of existing in the West.
 

J-Zilla

Registered User
Jan 19, 2007
36
0
Bettmans trying his hardest to break the american market which really should be commended as hockey should be a top 4 sport again. It should also be noted that none of the plans he's put forth are quick 1 year or 2 year plans, lets just sit back and see what comes of it.


Bewttman has had 14 years to make hockey marketable in the US. He has failed.
 

Meichel Kane

My Name Is
Jun 6, 2006
11,027
342
30 years from now, I'll remember Bettman for bringing the salary cap into the NHL more than anything else he has done. A lot of the "problems" (including the overblown jersey issue, schedule, and expansion) of his tenure weren't entirely his idea or fault.

Also as a Sabres fan he was committed to Buffalo during the Rigas scandal.
 

JACKETfan

Real Blue Jacketfan
Mar 18, 2006
9,242
3
Tampa
Sad but true...

If Bettman were five inches taller and didn't look like a weasel, he'd have gotten more respect over the years.

If the NHL weren't so damn Grandpa Simpson about "the game" and actually marketed itself better (like the NFL started to do a while back) it might have gotten a better tv contract.

The game HAS grown...look at many of the expansion teams. Some of them have done QUITE well. And even here in Columbus, our attendance is better than many of the older teams.

Complaints about scheduling/travel parity could largely be eliminated by getting rid of back to back road games for teams coming West and contracting the schedule so we weren't playing hockey in freakin JUNE.

Halifax deserves a team but probably won't get one.

The Salary Cap is a necessary evil and hasn't hurt the ACTUALLY GOOD teams at all.
 

ShooterMcGavin*

Guest
Bettman has done great for the NHL, but why bother getting into it? This forums ignorant and stubborn posters will never accept facts.
 

BigE

Registered User
Mar 12, 2004
4,476
0
New York, NY
Please explain your interpretation of how time zones factor into the way divisions are set up. Who gets the shaft here, and why is that okay?

It's not feasible from an entire league standpoint. You're going to have teams crossing as many as 5 time zones to play 6-8 times a year: It's nuts. Not to mention the pure flying time from Montreal to Vancouver: Jet lag.

I was a little surprised that Ron came up with that idea because generally I think he's far more intelligent than that. He usually makes Bettman look like an ass (although Bettman is quite capable of doing that on his own).

Unfortunately, I missed a great deal of the rest of the interview. It's too bad.
 

BigE

Registered User
Mar 12, 2004
4,476
0
New York, NY
Also as a Sabres fan he was committed to Buffalo during the Rigas scandal.

Although you're going to have fans in Winnipeg complaining that he **** on them (and still does). Personally, I think he could have done more, but the same can be said for the city and surrounding area.
 

Fugu

Guest
OK

Still don't know what you were getting at, or where anything I said was incorrect. I think I understand the situation with the team I follow (religiously) more than you do. Let's just drop it I guess. :)



There are plenty of people who follow their teams religiously. How this translates into expertise on the cap and the financial aspects of running those teams isn't a connection I would assume exists. If all it took was hanging out on HF and arguing (or not arguing) with fellow posters, the we could all send our favorite teams our resumes. Ending a discussion with: "...or where anything I said was incorrect..." is a heck of a way to tell the world you've got it all figured out. I guess I just have to take your word for it seeing that we're ending the conversation.
 

Fugu

Guest
It's not feasible from an entire league standpoint. You're going to have teams crossing as many as 5 time zones to play 6-8 times a year: It's nuts. Not to mention the pure flying time from Montreal to Vancouver: Jet lag.

I was a little surprised that Ron came up with that idea because generally I think he's far more intelligent than that. He usually makes Bettman look like an ass (although Bettman is quite capable of doing that on his own).

Unfortunately, I missed a great deal of the rest of the interview. It's too bad.


I may agree with you in the current situation where the league is already spread out over 4 time zones (Eastern, Central, Mountain, & Pacific), so adding another one in the other direction just makes a bad situation worse.

However....The Western teams cross all of the existing time zones now just to play within their Conference. Two of these are in the Eastern time zone and the only time they ever play a Conference or divisional rival in their own time zone is... when they play each other. If we want a league based on parity, isn't this a reasonable issue to bring up in determining if parity exists?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->