Bettman's 1PM pressconference live on net somewhere?

[Slewfoot]

Fly

Your position is well known and you're more than entitled to it. I just have to ask, based on what you've written above, what's wrong with an even playing field? If I'm a fan in a small market I'd like to think that my favorite team has a chance in a couple of years. Otherwise, why am I buying tickets, merchandise and beer? What are they rebuilding for? To help develop the top picks they get and then move them off to the 4 or 5 big clubs?

I don't believe the NHL's reason for insisting on a hard cap has much to do with competitive balance in the league. It has to do with money. There is little relation between the high payroll teams and successful teams in the last number of years. As a Ranger fan , I can be the first to tell you that throwing all the money at the over priced FA's the last 7 years has produced ZERO !!

Fly
I think the players should be able to earn as much as possible, but that's a two sided coin - the owners should be allowed to as well. I do agree with parts of your overall position (that it isn't entirely up to the players to be responsible for the owners inability to control themselves) but at some point the players do also have to recognize that there are financial problems and that ultimately, continuing down the current path will inevitably mean teams folding and lost jobs. I have no doubt that the league has been living off the spoils of expansion through the 90s - and so did the players.

You don't think that offering to rollback salraies 24% is recocognizing that there are financial problems?

 

[HF2002]

Dont get me wrong..just because im a Ranger fan dont think my viewpoint is, "NO! I dont want to loose my teams advantage because we got the money!"(Not like we even gained one from it) It is not that..I am just not in favor of a hard cap because it will make the playing field way to even...like the NFL....if the cap was softer at lets say 40-45 million then I would be for it because then we can still have dynastys in the NHL, powerhouse teams, etc...with an extreme level playing field there will be new teams in the finals every season...teams will bounce from playoffs to no postseason every year. I just dont want to see the NHL turn into the NFL...but some people will argue they love the system the NFL has...but obviously I dont.

The opposite is being an Expos fan - you go into a season knowing they won't even come close to contending. What's the point in watching while knowing they won't come close to .500 even once in the next 5-7 years, never mind making the playoffs? Or that it would take a fluke cinderella situation to get them into the playoffs, and then have any success (ie the Flames). And once all your young players begin to mature on the field/ice they get grabbed by a team who's willing to outspend everyone just because they can, and because they want to try to buy a championship. Often, they'll pick up players just to prevent another team from getting the player and they don't care about the cost. True, it's not the players fault, but this system would continue to spin out of control to the point of franchises folding because they'll never be able to compete and the fans stop watching. The players are the tool that would allow small to middle tier market teams to have a chance - and the players still get paid handsomely for it.

Why would anyone want to own a small market team like that? Yes, buying a championship doesn't seem to work, but teams have hardly abandoned the idea that it can be done.

 

[Charge_Seven]

It would be nice to believe that an even playing field could ever exist. I do not. As soon as Toronto, New York, Colorado and Detroit can't pay their players more, they will likely pay their scouts more, and other hockey related areas that would not go into a cap, giving them a distinct advantage at the draft, or just higher the best lawyers in the world and find minor loopholes.

I'm all for heavy luxury taxes. Heck, make it 5 dollars per dollar over $60,000,000, and 1 dollar for every dollar over $40,000,000. Nobody would cross the $60,000,000 mark ever again. Also put in a league low salary of sorts, that if you don't pay a certain amount it costs you draft picks (clearly we can't take away cash from the low paying teams).

 

[swflyers8*]

What's wrong with an even playing field? I think it makes the games more entertaining...and makes it more about the players and the coaches. The better players and better coaching will win more games.

For example in the NFL the playing field isn't so even this year is it?

12-1 Phili
12-1 Pitt
12-1 New England
10-3 Atlanta

That's not their fault that some teams have imploded or had unforseen injuries. A lot of teams started out good and stumbled. Also, the Colts should be on that list as well.

 

[waffledave]

Dont get me wrong..just because im a Ranger fan dont think my viewpoint is, "NO! I dont want to loose my teams advantage because we got the money!"(Not like we even gained one from it) It is not that..I am just not in favor of a hard cap because it will make the playing field way to even...like the NFL....if the cap was softer at lets say 40-45 million then I would be for it because then we can still have dynastys in the NHL, powerhouse teams, etc...with an extreme level playing field there will be new teams in the finals every season...teams will bounce from playoffs to no postseason every year. I just dont want to see the NHL turn into the NFL...but some people will argue they love the system the NFL has...but obviously I dont.

The NFL has dynasties...Look at New England. They have been dominating in the past and are continuing to dominate.

Money has nothing to do with building a dynasty. It has to do with the players. Simply building a powerhouse team with expensive superstars works sometimes, but for the most part this will do nothing. Teams need chemistry. The true dynasties are made up from a core of players that mesh well together, would do anything for each other, and who have chemistry together. Look at the dynasties of the past. The same players each year.

You can have a team of $800k players and have a dynasty. If they play well together and mesh, they will win. A cap will limit the amount of superstars each team can have, but a team just just goes out and signs free agents every year is not going to win. The teams that win are those that keep the same players year in year out, and for the most part a cap will do nothing to prevent this.

An even playing field is what the NHL needs. Why would fans go out to watch their team if they know they have no chance of winning? Ultimately if the same 5 teams win year in year out, the other 25 teams will lose fan interest. Why do you think attendance is so low for those teams that are consistently at the bottom of the rankings? Why do you think in other leagues, attendance is high pretty much everywhere? It's because the fans know that their teams have a decent shot each year. Obviously some teams have bad seasons that are expected, but each season is like a fresh start.

 

[waffledave]

The opposite is being an Expos fan - you go into a season knowing they won't even come close to contending. What's the point in watching while knowing they won't come close to .500 even once in the next 5-7 years, never mind making the playoffs? Or that it would take a fluke cinderella situation to get them into the playoffs, and then have any success (ie the Flames). And once all your young players begin to mature on the field/ice they get grabbed by a team who's willing to outspend everyone just because they can, and because they want to try to buy a championship. Often, they'll pick up players just to prevent another team from getting the player and they don't care about the cost. True, it's not the players fault, but this system would continue to spin out of control to the point of franchises folding because they'll never be able to compete and the fans stop watching. The players are the tool that would allow small to middle tier market teams to have a chance - and the players still get paid handsomely for it.

Why would anyone want to own a small market team like that? Yes, buying a championship doesn't seem to work, but teams have hardly abandoned the idea that it can be done.

What I was trying to say, except I think you said it better.

 

[FLYLine27*]

The opposite is being an Expos fan - you go into a season knowing they won't even come close to contending. What's the point in watching while knowing they won't come close to .500 even once in the next 5-7 years, never mind making the playoffs?

Well thats what the Rangers will be going through in the next few years and im looking foward toward it...I cant wait to watch my team finally develop players...we migh not make the playoffs for another 5 years but once the players have developed into good players then getting into the playoffs will be that much sweeter. Thrashers are a nice example of that....they will finally make the playoffs in a year or 2.

 

[J17 Vs Proclamation]

An even playing field is what the NHL needs. Why would fans go out to watch their team if they know they have no chance of winning? Ultimately if the same 5 teams win year in year out, the other 25 teams will lose fan interest. Why do you think attendance is so low for those teams that are consistently at the bottom of the rankings? Why do you think in other leagues, attendance is high pretty much everywhere? It's because the fans know that their teams have a decent shot each year. Obviously some teams have bad seasons that are expected, but each season is like a fresh start.

A level playing field will never happen and it shouldn't. It takes away dynastys and powerhouses and makes it so unpredictiable. People only want a level playing field cause their team sucks and they want to win. I support a bad team and wan't my team to earn the right to be a regular play off team by beating the powerhouses not by leveling it all out. Teams who are at the bottom start rebuilding and start working their way back up the ladder. Its not fair teams like New Jersey or Detroit to level out just cause their winning all the time. A example of a team who has worked their way up the ladder is Tampa. Do they win year in year out? They rebuiled and our now reiping the rewards.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

A level playing field will never happen and it shouldn't. It takes away dynastys and powerhouses and makes it so unpredictiable. People only want a level playing field cause their team sucks and they want to win. I support a bad team and wan't my team to earn the right to be a regular play off team by beating the powerhouses not by leveling it all out. Teams who are at the bottom start rebuilding and start working their way back up the ladder. Its not fair teams like New Jersey or Detroit to level out just cause their winning all the time. A example of a team who has worked their way up the ladder is Tampa. Do they win year in year out? They rebuiled and our now reiping the rewards.

The New England Patriots just happened to win 2 out of 3 superbowls right?

 

[Kid Canada]

A higher cap. Something more resonable. Not a 30 million dollar one.

A cap can work for both sides, just not at 30 million.

Here's my solution:

Owners get

1. 41 million dollar hard cap:

This is more of a reasonable number to work with, gives teams lots of flexibility, and still provides the players with some sort of a 'market'. Combine a hard cap at 41 million with my next point, and it'll provide more flexibility for the owners and for the players.

2. Basement cap at 36 million (meaning teams have to spend a minimum of 36 million):

Teams are forced to spend the money, rather than keep it. Which is the players biggest problem when even talking about a cap (next to a 'market'). This will keep salaries at a reasonable level, yet let players still make very fair coin, as quite a few teams had around or under the 36 million dollar figure.

3. Rookie salary cap at $850,000:

Fairly simple, rather than it at 1.3 million, it comes down to $850,000.

Players get:

1. Salary Arbitration:

The players are still eligable for salary arbitration. Only change in the system is that the GM's get to take the players once in their career to arbitration.

2. No contraction for the length of the CBA

The NHLPA keeps more jobs, by a guarentee by the NHL that there will be no contraction for the length of the CBA.

3. 1 player exemption outisde of the salary cap.

One 4 million dollar exemption, that doesn't go against the cap.

Throw revenue sharing in there. Try and get a TV deal in the US that actually means something. And you've got a healthy league.

However, I doubt it'd be good enough for the NHL and the NHLPA, stubborn bastards.

 

[J17 Vs Proclamation]

The New England Patriots just happened to win 2 out of 3 superbowls right?

Hate NFL, and i know nothing about it than other its Rugby with a twist. So what, anyway they earned it Fair and square. Real Madrid win the champions league a lot, the lakers were dominant, Australia are the best at cricket etc. It is unfair to punish the best teams because they win. I agree that the NHL needs to change but leveling the field so that teams like Washington or Pittsburgh had a shot at the playoffs? If the so called crappy teasm wanna win, make them rebuild and earn it.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Finally, some sanity. Good points, Florida fan.

 

[waffledave]

A level playing field will never happen and it shouldn't. It takes away dynastys and powerhouses and makes it so unpredictiable. People only want a level playing field cause their team sucks and they want to win. I support a bad team and wan't my team to earn the right to be a regular play off team by beating the powerhouses not by leveling it all out. Teams who are at the bottom start rebuilding and start working their way back up the ladder. Its not fair teams like New Jersey or Detroit to level out just cause their winning all the time. A example of a team who has worked their way up the ladder is Tampa. Do they win year in year out? They rebuiled and our now reiping the rewards.

In the meantime the teams make no money and never get a chance to rebuild because they go bankrupt.

 

[J17 Vs Proclamation]

In the meantime the teams make no money and never get a chance to rebuild because they go bankrupt.

Not what i'm saying. I'm saying don't make it a level playing field. Any sport which has a level playing field is in trouble. I agree that the small market teams need help but ristricting the top marjet teams is plain wrong. As i support Florida who are rebuilding (succesfully) but are not in exactly the soundest financial state i'm not being homerish. Can you name me three popular sports ( and i mean popular not like some stupid sport) that all the teams are on a level playing field.

 

[HF2002]

I don't believe the NHL's reason for insisting on a hard cap has much to do with competitive balance in the league. It has to do with money. There is little relation between the high payroll teams and successful teams in the last number of years. As a Ranger fan , I can be the first to tell you that throwing all the money at the over priced FA's the last 7 years has produced ZERO !!

You don't think that offering to rollback salraies 24% is recocognizing that there are financial problems?

Oh, there's no doubt in my mind that the owners are NOT trying to level the playing field for other teams as far as on ice product goes - although some of the small-mid market teams probably are. It's just a convenient excuse they can use when pressured to explain their side of the issue.

 

[crossxcheck]

Not what i'm saying. I'm saying don't make it a level playing field. Any sport which has a level playing field is in trouble. I agree that the small market teams need help but ristricting the top marjet teams is plain wrong. As i support Florida who are rebuilding (succesfully) but are not in exactly the soundest financial state i'm not being homerish. Can you name me three popular sports ( and i mean popular not like some stupid sport) that all the teams are on a level playing field.

I think what people want is the scenario for a level playing field. That doesn't mean that GM's won't poorly manage their teams or so forth, but when small market teams don't generate enough revenue to keep up with the big spenders, then they don't even have a fair chance. I am all about rebuilding through the draft and whatnot, but right now small market teams home grow talent and the big spenders end up snagging them when they're too expensive for the small market teams. In all honesty, who wants to watch the same 5-10 teams compete for the cup every year?? Isn't it ridiculous to you that a team can only afford a $25m payroll plays one with a $70m payroll???

 

[waffledave]

Not what i'm saying. I'm saying don't make it a level playing field. Any sport which has a level playing field is in trouble. I agree that the small market teams need help but ristricting the top marjet teams is plain wrong. As i support Florida who are rebuilding (succesfully) but are not in exactly the soundest financial state i'm not being homerish. Can you name me three popular sports ( and i mean popular not like some stupid sport) that all the teams are on a level playing field.

I can't name 3 sports because outside hockey and football, I know pretty much nothing about other leagues. But the NFL is on a level playing field. Yes, it's not completely level but that's good enough. It's still enough so that each team has a chance. Nobody wants predictability.

 

[waffledave]

I think what people want is the scenario for a level playing field. That doesn't mean that GM's won't poorly manage their teams or so forth, but when small market teams don't generate enough revenue to keep up with the big spenders, then they don't even have a fair chance. I am all about rebuilding through the draft and whatnot, but right now small market teams home grow talent and the big spenders end up snagging them when they're too expensive for the small market teams. In all honesty, who wants to watch the same 5-10 teams compete for the cup every year?? Isn't it ridiculous to you that a team can only afford a $25m payroll plays one with a $70m payroll???

Again, what I was trying to say but said better.

 

[Kaiped Krusader]

I don't think the cap issue is about leveling the playing field at all, it's about stopping the financial losses from mounting. We've seen that teams can win on modest budgets and teams with big budgets fall on their face. If the league was all about 'leveling the playing field', they'd probably control player movement centrally like the WUSA did for women's soccer. That would never happen.

 

[Sanderson]

Hate NFL, and i know nothing about it than other its Rugby with a twist. So what, anyway they earned it Fair and square. Real Madrid win the champions league a lot, the lakers were dominant, Australia are the best at cricket etc. It is unfair to punish the best teams because they win. I agree that the NHL needs to change but leveling the field so that teams like Washington or Pittsburgh had a shot at the playoffs? If the so called crappy teasm wanna win, make them rebuild and earn it.

Real Madrid is a really bad example, they are like the Yankees, only worse. And they don't win anymore.

They bought players for money they never had, having a minus of nearly half a billion euros, before they sold their training site to the city for way more than it was worth.

The problem is, most teams that spend a large amount of money don't win anything, they just ruin the market, because they are able to.

 

[crossxcheck]

Real Madrid is a really bad example, they are like the Yankees, only worse. And they don't win anymore.

They bought players for money they never had, having a minus of nearly half a billion euros, before they sold their training site to the city for way more than it was worth.

The problem is, most teams that spend a large amount of money don't win anything, they just ruin the market, because they are able to.

good post.

 

[J17 Vs Proclamation]

I can't name 3 sports because outside hockey and football, I know pretty much nothing about other leagues. But the NFL is on a level playing field. Yes, it's not completely level but that's good enough. It's still enough so that each team has a chance. Nobody wants predictability.

Well i have a pretty good knowledge of other sports. The NBA, Football, Cricket, Tennis, Rugby, Badminton, table tennis etc. None of them are on a level playing field and the list could go on and on.
Granted that predictabilty is boring. Just look at Michael Schumacer. But it isn't like the NHL is predictible. Examples: Tampa Bay won the cup, Calgary wen to the finals, Anahiem went to the finals, Minnesota had a run, Carolina went to the finals and San Jose missed the Playoffs in 2003. Even Florida got to the finals once. The way i see it for the small market teams is to rebuild (like Florida, Washington, Pittsburgh, Atlanta etc) and Be smart with their money. Look at Calgary and Tampa. Both small market teams who managed to topple the big boys.

 

[SENSible1*]

The NFL has both a level playing field and teams that excel through good management.

The Patriots, the Eagles and the Colts are all teams that have shown the ability to consistently suceed in a capped league.

The big advantage of the NFL is that the relatively level starting point makes the teams job of selling hope each off season much easier.

 

[J17 Vs Proclamation]

Real Madrid is a really bad example, they are like the Yankees, only worse. And they don't win anymore.

They bought players for money they never had, having a minus of nearly half a billion euros, before they sold their training site to the city for way more than it was worth.

The problem is, most teams that spend a large amount of money don't win anything, they just ruin the market, because they are able to.

Real Madrid isn't a great example, just came of the top of my head but rich teams don't ruin the market. But every sport and every league has a richer teams than another and changing that isn't going to work. The NHL has got to except that the Rangers are always going to have more money than say Edmonton. They need to find a way to cut costs and possibly yes put a cap in place but not a hard cap restricting rich teams to what other teams can afford.

 

[missK]

I thought Bettman was officially going to reject PA's proposal and publish their own counter-proposal at 1PM???

No, the meeting between the two groups was to begin at 1pm today.

If the NHL is smart, they will counter offer instead of just shooting the NHLPA down. The counter offer presentation would take time, so I wouldn't expect to hear anything for awhile. Maybe even hours.