Can someone explain this to me please?

Status
Not open for further replies.

quat

Faking Life
Apr 4, 2003
14,966
2,059
Duncan
hockeytown9321 said:
Whenever you disagree with him you're misinterpreting his statement, however wrong, baffling or devoid of evidence it is.

Actually, since you seem to put all your effort into ignoring what people are actually talking about to further your own tired position, you shouln't really be handing out suggestions on how to discuss anything.

Tottier's insistance that a capped system would destroy any and all competition in the league is weak, and he has offered extremely little as way of proof. Maybe that worry isn't totally unfounded, but I've yet to hear him explain anything, other than mocking poster who are discussing something different.
 

txpd

Registered User
Jan 25, 2003
69,649
14,131
New Bern, NC
hockeyfan33 said:
because it bridges the cap between poorly managed teams and contenders, a management team can build and do good for 7-8 years, but a poorly managed team could creep up from behind and win the cup because of the new "level playing field where every team has the chance to win the cup every year"


Every team isn't suppose to be a damn contender every year, that's the whole point of dynasties and building from teh draft so you can be a contender for many years. Parity completely takes away the rewards of having many years of strong drafts (I mean who cares how you draft right, any team can win any year, with a cap players will be waived and signed more than we've ever seen, younger UFA age meaning players will spend less time with one team, etc...)


Parity just isn't good for the support. There needs to be other ways of controlling costs while letting dynasty franchises still exist and giving good drafting a developement the maximum rewards.

I'm the Kings, I've been drafting great for the last 4+ years, I'm hoping in 1-2 years when most of these guys are close to their prime, it's my first year of maybe 5-6-7 years of contention.....ohhh but wait, with the cap and PARITY, I could win the cup next year and then miss teh playoffs the year after, what a reward for drafting so great huh? Thanks parity, thanks salary cap, thanks Gary Bettman and Bob Goodenow (neither of whom has the best interest of THE GAME in their minds)

i am not sure why you are so sure that "Limited Budget"=Poorly Managed and "Big Budget"="well managed". there are 10-15 small markets that managed very well would would never come close to having the spending money that Detroit, Toronto and Philly have. Why would you then compare top dollar teams with those better small market teams.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
hockeytown9321 said:
I think you're misrepresenting his statement. It happens alot. Best if you add him to your ignore list to avoid it in the future.

Nope, he understood my statement perfectly.

He is quite capable of representing his POV in a more effective manner. That post was a peice of crap, hence my description as such. Trottier has my apologies if he feels personally insulted by my evaluation of his post.

You, on the other hand, are encouraged to ignore all my posts.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
hockeyfan33 said:
but how did Detroit get to the top?

Irrelevant to the question--"Which teams have bought themselves out of mistakes in the NHL?"
 

Hockey_Nut99

Guest
I respect Markus Naslund. If more hockey players were like him interms of money, then the NHL would not need a radical change in the cba. He is on a competitive team, he likes where he lives, and he would probably stay there without whining too much about his contract. Too many players are in good situations and just take off becasue they get more money.

Kudos to you Naslund :handclap:
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
Hockey_Nut99 said:
Scaredsensfan seems to be thinking more about the "NOW" rather than the future. His/her teams doing so well that he/she would rather them just keep the old CBA, play now, and then have Ottawa be dismantled in a few years. You got to think of the bigger picture here.

Vancouver is maxed out now. Under the current system, Markus Naslund is a unrestricted free agent. He doesn't even have to sign with Vancouver. By giving Bertuzzi so much money, the Canucks would have to pay Naslund more than Bertuzzi. Jovo is overpayed. Don't you think Ohlund is going to want more money than him when he is a free agent? Under the current system Vancouver will lose people too.

Vancouver made a profit of $20-25 million last year, among the best in the NHL. If they were truly comitted to winning spend another $10-20 million and instead of losing players, they'll be able to keep what they and add a key free agent or two.
 

YellHockey*

Guest
John Flyers Fan said:
Vancouver made a profit of $20-25 million last year, among the best in the NHL. If they were truly comitted to winning spend another $10-20 million and instead of losing players, they'll be able to keep what they and add a key free agent or two.


And they'd also make another $5-15M if they could get further then the second round.
 

iagreewithidiots

Registered User
Mar 2, 2002
1,524
0
Visit site
scaredsensfan said:
Why is it in the best interest of fans everywhere to go from a system that punishes bad management to a system that punishes good management? This idiotic belief among pro-owners still does not make sense to me.
If you want logic, it doesnt make sense to say something is idiotic simply because it doesnt make sense to you.

The truth is it isnt in the best interest of fans everywhere. Thats why nobody agrees. Nothing is in everyones best interest.

Im behind the owners because its in the NHLs best interest to have a cap. I believe a capped NHL will appeal to a larger fan base. It will sell to a larger audience. In the long run it will make more money for everyone involved.

scaredsensfan said:
The old system (94-04) basically rewarded well managed teams and punished poorly managed ones. The way that the poorly managed teams (or poor teams because of lots of young players) improved was by improving their coaching, players, maangement drafting and the like.
Seeing as many salary dumps as Ive seen I dont know that you can logically say they were all due to poor management.

It would be nice to say it was this cut and dry but it just isnt.

scaredsensfan said:
Under a hard cap system the NHL seems to think it will get, its plan is to punish the teams that excel in these domains and reward the poorly managed ones with subsidized players coming from the cities that produce them.
Is it logical to say it is the NHLs plan is to punish teams that excel in these domains? Is that their true intention?

One could argue that if the current CBA is kept, with the current inflation in salaries continuing, there will be well managed teams that trade players they have drafted and developed to poorly managed teams that have the money to pay them.

You can argue forced mediocrity on both sides. Either with a cap or the current CBA in which some teams will be forced into a constant loop of rebuilding.
 
Last edited:

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
Thunderstruck said:
Trottier has my apologies if he feels personally insulted by my evaluation of his post.

Likewise if my original "crap" ;) post came across as condescending. In hindsight, I could see how it did. We are all pretty well entrenched with our feelings on this CBA matter, and my first post was reflective of my admitted bias against some people who, based on their posts, express an undeniable petty jealousy toward franchises (and players) who possess financial advantage.

Fans who want greater economic parity for this league, IMO, are seeking a noble a goal, though I respectfully disagree with the idea that a hardcap is the only/best way to achieve that objective. I (and others) have legitimate concerns about how a hardcap will negatively affect quality of play leaguewide. I will try to express them (and seek informed feedback) post-Holiday.

Till then, Seasons Greetings to all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->