Vlad The Impaler said:
I don't believe that. Not at all. I believe you can manage to win in some situations despite being behind in ressources. But it's not an equal playing field. I am a damn good swimmer and I can probably give most guys a head start and still finish before most of them but it is still not an equal playing field. An equal playing field is when everybody has equal basic chances and then use their abilities to win.
Who doesn't have a chance? The team that seems to be most disadvantaged under the current CBA is the Rangers. They're the team, with the exception of the recent expansion teams, that's gone the longest without making the playoffs. Do we need to take drastic measures to help out the Rangers who are the worst team on the ice over the course of the CBA and, from published reports, off the ice financially?
Name the teams that are have an unfair playing field. The western Canadian teams have a case because of their travel schedule but a CBA isn't going to change that. Other than that, who is at a disadvantage? Any team can rebuild to turn a bad team into a top team, just like the Devils, Avalanche, Red Wings, Senators and Lightning all did.
All of them, because they get a NHL team. Your statement is terribly shortsighted. A non-profitable company has to find ways to stay in business. If it can't under a certain climate, they pack their bags. It's a s simple as that.
No, it isn't as simple as that.
What kind of company shuts down if it isn't profitable without first trying to sell it off?
Case in point, a junior hockey team had been going through a rough spell. The team, while not in danger of folding, wasn't exactly a financial powerhouse. Attendance, although not bad, wasn't great. Ownership decided to get out of the hockey business and sold the team. New ownership came in and promoted the heck out of the team and the Ottawa 67's became the model franchise in junior hockey, setting attendance records and winning championships.
I have a favorite restaurant about 5 minutes walk from here. I live in a (mainly) residential area pretty far from downtown, where all the action and most of the good places are. I don't give a rat's ass about the owner of the small restaurant but it is in my interest that he makes enough money to keep the place open, offer me quality food and a good ambiance. When things become too difficult he could have to lower the quality of his product or worse, close shop. Then I'm ****ed and have to go downtown to eat non-crap.
Bad example.
Suppose your restaurant is doing a good business but that he's hired his former chef to run the place. The guy was terrific in the kitchen but he's never run a business before. He's hired some bad employees which have made business suffer and he's overpaid some employees because he's not used to negotiating.
Do you shut the business down or do you fire the over-his-head manager?
The Devils' salary mass has continued to grow alarmingly the last few years, despite letting go of guys like that bloodsucking Holik. The salary mass is through the roof and their franchise is in peril.
The Devils have two problems.
One, they're in an outdated rink. It has few suites, is in a brutal location and the place just doesn't cut it in today's NHL.
Two, ownership bought the team at the peak of its value. Imagine its 2000 and you make an average salary but you want to make more money. You decide to take out a big loan and buy a bunch of tech stocks since everyone is making tons of money off of them. A couple of years later and you'd be in financial trouble, not because of your income, but because you're paying off your loan for a bunch of stocks that are worth a small percentage of the value you purchased them for. Devils ownership paid a pretty penny for the team because they thought revenues would continue to increase dramatically (they've stabilized instead) and thought they could profit from synergy's with the Yankees and Nets (didn't happen because their competitor owns the Devils' tv contract and wouldn't let them out of it).
Sens have also been used as an example. This is, again, a franchise that has had HUGE financial concern, is on shaky ground and each year doesn't stand a SINGLE chance to win the cup because they can't add the missing pieces they need.
Garbage.
The biggest problem with the Sens was the debt accumulated because Bryden never invested any capital in the club. He had a complicated shell game going and couldn't get the breaks he needed to keep control of the franchise even though overall operations with the team and rink were profitable. When he lost control of the club, he was pushed out of control of the rink. The new owner wiped the debt clean and the whole operation makes plenty of money. If Vancouver can make $25M last year, the Senators can make at least half of that.
As for adding the missing pieces, what the Sens needed last year wasn't available for any amount of money. There were no goalies available.
Money is not a problem for the Sens.
You can twist things and say the Avs have been dumping player but the reality is, their payroll is immensely flexible and they have ADDED payroll and talent almost continually. They're not dumping, they're acquiring.
They've given up Fleury, Klemm, DeVries, Ricci, Ozolnish, Reinprecht, Keith Jones, Nolan, Deadmarsh, Norstrom, Denis, Keane, Simon, Claude Lemieux, Krupp, Yelle, Young, Drury, Miller, Morris, etc
How many teams have given up that much talent?
How much better would the Avalanche have been if they could have kept most of those players?
How do we know they can't win with them? We can't, because they have to dump before they are finished building. How do you know what the Oilers would look like right now? Or any team that has dumped players.
It is simple. When the Oilers dump a player he is usually in decline. Did the Blues get better when they got Weight or the Islanders when they got Niiniimaa?
I dunno, I think the Sabres would have had a better track record with Hasek and Peca, for instance. This frenzy of dumping players the minute you don't win has to stop. It's AWFUL for the sport and the #1 reason pro sports have become less enjoyable. Too many trades, not enough staying power. Fans can't grow to like athletes anymore and it has become an era where we all freak out when a loser like Daneyko ends his career with the same team that drafted him. When this should be COMMON PLACE.
Why did they trade Peca? Because he and the team disagreed on his worth. If Connolly or Pyatt had panned out this wouldn't have been a big deal
As for Hasek, they have three goalies looking for ice team on a team that appeared to have peaked. They weren't a legitimate contender anymore and that's why Hasek wanted out.
Do you think a cap, which is what the owners want, will improve player stability? It won't. It'll make players move around even more. A team gets too good and it can't have players become lifetime employees because they have to make decisions in order to stay under the cap. Detroit doesn't get to see Yzerman and Lidstrom be lifetime wings. Nor does Colorado get to see Sakic, Foote and Forsberg become lifetime Avalanche/Nordiques.
