For the Pro-Goodenow's

[WC Handy*]

Can you provide a quote where Goodenow states competative balance is a bad thing?

In fact, if I can remember, there are probably numerous quotes out there where he or Saskin has said competative balance is a good thing. So that part of your question doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

What's wrong with a salary cap in Goodenow's eyes? His job is to get as much money as possible for the players, pretty simple. A salary cap denies him the ability to do that in certain markets. Althought a cap could be good for hockey, Goodenow also has a job to do. He has to worry about the state of the game, but he also has to worry about how much money he's putting into his players pockets because otherwise he's out of a job. It would be nice to have a union that will do anything and take any amount of money as long as it's good for hockey...unfortunetly that's not how this country works.

That's funny... I didn't see anything about Goodenow in the poster's question you answered. He asked why it is bad for HOCKEY. We all understand why Goodenow is against a cap. Now please tell us why it's bad for hockey.

BTW... this exact thread was on this board months ago and not a single person gave a legit answer.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Nope.
But they shouldn't be the reason to turn this league upside down. This is just my personal opinion on these things. I just prefer to let the good teams win and have the crappy teams lose without having things to be evened out. Owners that are willing to spend, and that have money shouldn't be penalized because other teams can't afford to do something.

Clearly you don't understand the concept of a league with such a line of thoughts.

 

[WC Handy*]

Clearly you don't understand the concept of a league with such a line of thoughts.

What's sad is that his line of 'thinking' is accepted by numerous posters on this message board.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

I thought the reason for this CBA is so that the owners don't lose money, not competitive balance. Im not sure any one actually gives a darn tootin about competitive balance as long as the owners make money. If there was ZERO competitive balance, but all the owners made money, would they actually try to change things like a CBA?

 

[WC Handy*]

I thought the reason for this CBA is so that the owners don't lose money, not competitive balance. Im not sure any one actually gives a darn tootin about competitive balance as long as the owners make money. If there was ZERO competitive balance, but all the owners made money, would they actually try to change things like a CBA?

There have been quotes as far back as 1999 from Bettman stating that the league needed comptetitive balance and less payroll disparity. It just isn't brought up as much by the NHL side because, as you've seen on this board, it's harder to prove that the league lacks competitive balance than it is to prove the league is in financial trouble.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

That's funny... I didn't see anything about Goodenow in the poster's question you answered. He asked why it is bad for HOCKEY. We all understand why Goodenow is against a cap. Now please tell us why it's bad for hockey.

BTW... this exact thread was on this board months ago and not a single person gave a legit answer.

The title of the thread is "for the pro-Goodenows", and that was the first post. That would make me believe that he is asking why Goodenow is against a cap and competative balance(which I don't think he's against anyway).

And again, please give me some quotes where Goodenow has stated a cap or competative balance are bad for HOCKEY. I can't believe anyone on either side has said competative balance is a bad thing for hockey. And about a cap, his job during CBA negotiations and for most of the time when one exists, is to get as much money for the players, that's why they pay him millions per year. A cap isn't bad for hockey if it's done in the right way, but his job doesn't focus on what's good for hockey as much as what's good for his union...that's Bettman's job. It's bad for Goodenow and the amount of money he can get for his players. Pretty simple. If there are problems that need to be fixed, the PA will fix them...but they have to do it in a way that they get the most they can get.

Are you seriously blaming Goodenow for doing his job? It seems like you expect to have a union that will take any deal as long as it's good for hockey but that's not the way it works. If it did owners would have players working on an hourly wage and the owners would be making $50M in a year easily. I mean, I guess slave labor is the "best" thing for any owner of a company right? But thankfully we live in America and we have strong unions.

 

[WC Handy*]

In case you missed it, here is his question again....

What's wrong with a salary cap and competitive balance. Why is that bad for hockey?

 

[nyr7andcounting]

In case you missed it, here is his question again....

What's wrong with a salary cap and competitive balance. Why is that bad for hockey?

Read the damn post.

No one is saying competative balance and a reasonable salary cap are bad for hockey. And if someone has, please find me a quote...which you haven't done yet.

But AGAIN, Goodenow's job is to take care of his union more than it is to worry about what's good for anything else. And I have already explained what is wrong with a salary cap for him and his union. And as I said, if you expect anything else from a union than you aren't being realistic. Unions don't exist to roll over and take whatever the owners want to give them. They exist so that doesn't happen, they exist to get as much as they can.

Maybe that's the reason you say no one had an answer to your question. Because the question doesn't make much sense. I guess in a perfect world the owners could do whatever they want, pay their employees whatever they want, make as much money as they want and do whatever they feel is good for the game. In America the owners have to deal with unions before anything.

 

[WC Handy*]

If you don't think that a salary cap and competitive balance are bad for the league, then why are you responding to his question? He obviously wasn't referring to you.

Oh, and you're way off base if you don't think anyone here thinks a cap is bad for hockey. Plenty of posters here have been arguing just that for the past two years.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Not to say this will happen in the NHL, but I do have a big beef with the NFL competitive balance. I think there is way too much. I actually prefer older NFL games and enjoyed watching Cowboys and 49ers dynasties even though i wasnt a fan of those teams. In the NFL today you have a couple top teams, a couple crappy teams, then everyone in the middle who is an exact carbon copy of eachother. The "upset" factor in the sport is gone. There really is no such thing as a TRUE upset. There are upsets in the sense a team predicted to win loses but the teams are so equal its not really an upset at all.

Im thinking with too much competitive balance, we won't get to see amazing upsets anymore like a Minnesota Wild upsetting Colorado, which was a true upset.

 

[Flyguy_1ca]

Not to say this will happen in the NHL, but I do have a big beef with the NFL competitive balance. I think there is way too much. I actually prefer older NFL games and enjoyed watching Cowboys and 49ers dynasties even though i wasnt a fan of those teams. In the NFL today you have a couple top teams, a couple crappy teams, then everyone in the middle who is an exact carbon copy of eachother. The "upset" factor in the sport is gone. There really is no such thing as a TRUE upset. There are upsets in the sense a team predicted to win loses but the teams are so equal its not really an upset at all.

Im thinking with too much competitive balance, we won't get to see amazing upsets anymore like a Minnesota Wild upsetting Colorado, which was a true upset.

See I think that sounds great. A day where anyone could realistically beat anyone. What a dream!

 

[nyr7andcounting]

If you don't think that a salary cap and competitive balance are bad for the league, then why are you responding to his question? He obviously wasn't referring to you.

Because he obviously asked it from a pro-owner standpoint, and asked why the PA is against a cap and competative balance if it's good for the league. He obviously doesn't realize that what's good for the league sometimes isn't good for the union, and unfortunetly they have to take care of themselves before they take care of the game. Plus I hate when people start threads like that, so I felt I had to respond.

Oh, and you're way off base if you don't think anyone here thinks a cap is bad for hockey. Plenty of posters here have been arguing just that for the past two years.

If it's too low it doesn't really make any sense. But the idea of a cap isn't a bad thing for hockey...actually it has no affect on "hockey" as far as the game, just the business side of it.

So I have a question. How IS a cap good for hockey? If it doesn't really have an affect on who or how they play the game, it doesn't really affect "hockey". A cap is purely business. All it affects is the owners pockets and the players pockets. So why is he asking 'what's wrong with a cap, how's it bad for hockey'? It really has no affect on hockey...his question should be 'what's wrong with a cap, how's it bad for the owners'? I guess that's why I felt I had to respond...because he's not really asking about the game, he's asking if something is good for the owners, why is the PA against it? I think it's a pretty stupid question to be asking.

 

[likea]

I'll give you detroit, they have had very good management, but they can afford to keep the players they get...

Colorado has been good but not great, its not that far of a leap to aquire Roy, Blake, Selanne, Boughner, Fleury and others

you don't think the 20 teams that could not afford these guys would not loved to have had these players.....

Toronto, for having so much money...has been terrible

 

[WC Handy*]

Because he obviously asked it from a pro-owner standpoint, and asked why the PA is against a cap and competative balance if it's good for the league. He obviously doesn't realize that what's good for the league sometimes isn't good for the union, and unfortunetly they have to take care of themselves before they take care of the game. Plus I hate when people start threads like that, so I felt I had to respond.


If it's too low it doesn't really make any sense. But the idea of a cap isn't a bad thing for hockey...actually it has no affect on "hockey" as far as the game, just the business side of it.

So I have a question. How IS a cap good for hockey? If it doesn't really have an affect on who or how they play the game, it doesn't really affect "hockey". A cap is purely business. All it affects is the owners pockets and the players pockets. So why is he asking 'what's wrong with a cap, how's it bad for hockey'? It really has no affect on hockey...his question should be 'what's wrong with a cap, how's it bad for the owners'? I guess that's why I felt I had to respond...because he's not really asking about the game, he's asking if something is good for the owners, why is the PA against it? I think it's a pretty stupid question to be asking.

Why are you having such a difficult time comprehending that the poster didn't ask why the PA is against it?

 

[Kritter471]

IMO, "competitive balance" in and of itself is not bad for hockey,

The problem is the league is proposing a cap which makes talent-equality more of a factor than competitive balance, which I can tell you, from working in the NFL, is not as fun as its proposed to be. Each team of 53 guys gets 6-7 "superstar" players and has to build with mediocre talent around that. I'd much rather have teams with 10 "superstars" and 5 "superstars," so long as those functioned in a cycle rather than being stagnant (i.e., limit the trading of high salary players to avoid one team continously having 10 and one team continously selling off).

Competitive balance should not mean you can keep all your drafted players or have exactly as many "superstar" players as another team. Competitive balance should mean your team is able to compete on a regular basis. So yes, this eliminates the huge spenders AND the meager spenders (if the NHL was serious about competitive balance rather than guaranteeing profit, it would have offered a salary floor from the beginning), but it does not eliminate the middle teams.Take the top five in salary, the top five in lowest salary, take the rollback, make those your cap limits.

From my point of view, I have no problem with competitive balance. I do have a problem with making the "haves" and the "have nots" the exact same rather than affording them similar opportunities.

 

[WC Handy*]

The NHL did offer a floor from the beginning.

 

[Kritter471]

The NHL did offer a floor from the beginning.

How fun not responding to the rest of my post.

They've not consistantly offered a floor then - witness the infamous $42.5 million offer in February.

 

[Hasbro]

I'll give you detroit, they have had very good management, but they can afford to keep the players they get...

Colorado has been good but not great, its not that far of a leap to aquire Roy, Blake, Selanne, Boughner, Fleury and others

you don't think the 20 teams that could not afford these guys would not loved to have had these players.....

Toronto, for having so much money...has been terrible

We didn't keep Selanne or Fleury. And Selanne is the only UFA acquisition of the bunch.

Fleury went strait to the Rag$. Like DeVries, Lefevre, Kamensky, Keane and Coach Torttier. And the Sakic offersheet.

 

[WC Handy*]

They've not consistantly offered a floor then - witness the infamous $42.5 million offer in February.

No, that one offer didn't include a floor because, as Bettman said at the time, since the league wasn't getting their linkage and they were raising the cap, they were removing the floor which guarantees the players money.

 

[Kritter471]

No, that one offer didn't include a floor because, as Bettman said at the time, since the league wasn't getting their linkage and they were raising the cap, they were removing the floor which guarantees the players money.

And to me, that indicates they're more concerned with the financial aspect as related to owner profitability rather than competitive balance.

To be fair, the NHLPA isn't necessarily interested in competitive balance either. It's a lovely catchphrase for both sides that hasn't been truly addressed by either.

I guess my point was, for people to say "oh, such and such cap/luxury tax/financial system gives competitive balance" is ludicrous. This is not about competitive balance - it's about idiot proof financial systems, players who don't want to see their market recede and public relations catchphrases.

 

[Epsilon]

"Competitive balance" is something that Bettman has used to sell the lockout to some of the more naive fans out there. The truth is this lockout is all about profits and money. Which is just fine by me, I have no problem with two groups fighting it out over the greenbacks. But call a spade a spade and don't pretend that Bettman 's goal is to provide some sort of social service.

 

[WC Handy*]

And to me, that indicates they're more concerned with the financial aspect as related to owner profitability rather than competitive balance.

To be fair, the NHLPA isn't necessarily interested in competitive balance either. It's a lovely catchphrase for both sides that hasn't been truly addressed by either.

I guess my point was, for people to say "oh, such and such cap/luxury tax/financial system gives competitive balance" is ludicrous. This is not about competitive balance - it's about idiot proof financial systems, players who don't want to see their market recede and public relations catchphrases.

I get what you're saying... we should ignore every quote from Bettman and Co. over the last 5 years saying we need better competitive balance and less payroll disparity. We should ignore every offer from the NHL except one that suggest that payroll disparity is a huge issue. And instead we should focus on the meaning of one offer that was a bone thrown to the players to save the season. Glad we got that all cleared up.

 

[WC Handy*]

"Competitive balance" is something that Bettman has used to sell the lockout to some of the more naive fans out there. The truth is this lockout is all about profits and money. Which is just fine by me, I have no problem with two groups fighting it out over the greenbacks. But call a spade a spade and don't pretend that Bettman 's goal is to provide some sort of social service.

Or maybe Bettman and those fans understand that competitive balance is going to help out the small market teams?

 

[Kritter471]

I get what you're saying... we should ignore every quote from Bettman and Co. over the last 5 years saying we need better competitive balance and less payroll disparity.

Nope, not what I said. I said the systems they have offered don't address the competitive balance issue and only address the payroll disparity issue.

We should ignore every offer from the NHL except one that suggest that payroll disparity is a huge issue.

Kinda what I said. You don't ignore the offers, but if this truly is about "competitive balance" (which many people claim it is) then addressing payroll disparity in a reasonable manner, which includes a salary floor and a ceiling, should be the number one priority rather than simply lowering player costs.

And instead we should focus on the meaning of one offer that was a bone thrown to the players to save the season. Glad we got that all cleared up.

Not what I said. I was using it as an example.

 

[norrisnick]

Or maybe Bettman and those fans understand that competitive balance is going to help out the small market teams?

It's a chicken and egg concept. The primary motivation on the part of the owners is to not lose money. Anything else is a secondary motivator and in some cases just added bonuses/side effects of controlling costs.