Epsilon
#basta
WC Handy said:
Or maybe Bettman and those fans understand that competitive balance is going to help out the small market teams?
Thank you for totally missing the point.
WC Handy said:
Or maybe Bettman and those fans understand that competitive balance is going to help out the small market teams?
Why don't you reply to what people say? I guess you have nothing to say, so you you just bring up some random point?WC Handy said:Why are you having such a difficult time comprehending that the poster didn't ask why the PA is against it?
nyr7andcounting said:I already said a couple of posts ago...look at the title of the damn thread. It has Goodenow's name in it. If he is asking the "pro-goodenow's" what is wrong with a cap and competative balance, than that's the same question as asking why the PA is against it. The question is clearly directed at pro-pa people.
If you don't think he is asking why the PA is against it, than what is he asking? Please, gimme your point of view on what the guy is asking, because I don't think it can mean anything other than 'hey pro-pa, whats wrong with a cap, why's it bad for hockey'.
And I'm still interested in see any quotes where anyone has said that a cap or competative balance is bad for "hockey". Because if you or the other guy can't find any than I don't even know why he would ever be asking this question.
And again, how IS a cap good for hockey? 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 pro-pa people '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 if it's good for the owners'? I think it's a completely ridiculous question asked from a completely ridiculous point of view. If your not going to respond to anything I'm saying than please don't bother responding again.
Exactly, as you say he thinks that pro-owner posters don't think it's bad for hockey...so he's asking pro-pa posters why they think the opposite. Which is a stupid question, because the cap has no affect on "hockey"WC Handy said:Wow.
You are the only person here that hasn't yet figured out that he's asking posters why they think a cap is bad. NOT why the PA thinks it's bad. You don't think that he included Goodenow's name in the thread because pro-owner posters don't think a cap is bad for hockey?
No I don't care what some guy on these boards says. I'm talking about a quote from someone in the PA. When has Goodenow or Saskin ever said that a cap or competative balance is bad for hockey? They haven't, because it's not, but it is bad for the employees they represent and that's why they are against it. It's not their job to put as much money in the owners pockets as possible, actually it's exactly the opposite.WC Handy said:Do a search for posts by DR or DementedReality. That'll get you started.
????????????????????????? Read that paragraph again and you'll realize I completely grasped that and it's been my point this whole time that's it's a ridiculous question.WC Handy said:The poster wants to know how it's bad for the NHL. Did you not grasp that either?
Hasbro said: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.
nyr7andcounting said:But your saying he's asking me personally why I think a cap is bad? What the **** do I care, I'm not an NHL player. Then it's an even more ridiculous post than I thought. I think a cap is bad because it's the hardest thing to get a union to agree to, and personally I like watching hockey not watching a lockout. So I guess that's why I think a cap is bad, does that answer his question?[/quote
No hockey because tickets HAVE TO BE $75 in the nosebleeds is bad. If you're travelling on the wrong road, you don't wish for the best, you turn around and get on the right one. TOO MUCH money is being spent and it either will get corrected or you'll have hockey next year, maybe the year after, and then collapse and disaster.
The cap sounds bad. But it sure looks good for players when compared to the monies they made a decade ago.
So you agree, that his question makes no sense because a cap doesn't affect hockey. What the poster is really asking is what's wrong with a cap if it's good for the NHL, as you said. Anyone on here would say it's not bad for the NHL(that's why they want it)...that's why it's a stupid question.
Keep watching what affect it'll have on the game and the talent in the coming years. Lots more better matchups and better games and a much more sellable product.
Not to mention this could be the last straw of Bettman's quest to turn the NHL into the NBA. Now if he could only get the pros ou of the olympics so we can watch hungry young talent we'll relish once they turn pro, like the 1980/84 and '88 olympians......
Well if it's reasonable I don't think it's bad for anybody but the players and the PA, which is why I don't blame them for fighting against it. I don't care what other people think but that sure isn't my view of a cap, so maybe you'll understand my previous posts a litte more. I just thought it was a stupid question, like the guy was blaming the PA for not taking a cap since a cap could be good for the NHL. Well no ****, it's about money and it always is about money.WC Handy said:LOL. There are people on this very board that think a cap is bad for the NHL.. for the LEAGUE, not for the owners.
Ticket prices have nothing to do with player salaries or the PA. They are dependent on the market for tickets in that city, nothing more. Wether or not there is a cap has minimal affect on the fans, especially in large markets who are going to watch either way, and it definetly has no affect on "hockey". The on ice product is the same with or without a cap, and so are ticket prices.Exisled said:No hockey because tickets HAVE TO BE $75 in the nosebleeds is bad. If you're travelling on the wrong road, you don't wish for the best, you turn around and get on the right one. TOO MUCH money is being spent and it either will get corrected or you'll have hockey next year, maybe the year after, and then collapse and disaster.
The cap sounds bad. But it sure looks good for players when compared to the monies they made a decade ago.
It has no affect on the talent and no affect on the way the game is played. What makes you think that there will be better matchups and more exciting games just because there is a cap? There is still the same amount of good teams and same amount of bad teams and the same game being played.Exisled said:Keep watching what affect it'll have on the game and the talent in the coming years. Lots more better matchups and better games and a much more sellable product.
The Avs deffinately wanted to keep Keane and DeVries, and were either interested in keeping Fluery or going through the motions, but the Rags paid way more than their worth. the team had a tough hoe trying to skrimp together the $15 million signing bonus to match Sakic's offer sheet.likea said:but they were hockey choices based on who they want...not based on money
MHA said:What's wrong with a salary cap and competitive balance. Why is that bad for hockey?
Epsilon said:"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.
Epsilon said:"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 said:LOL. There are people on this very board that think a cap is bad for the NHL.. for the LEAGUE, not for the owners.
Kritter471 said: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.
nyr7andcounting said:If he is asking the "pro-goodenow's" what is wrong with a cap and competative balance, than that's the same question as asking why the PA is against it.
Seems to me the Rangers have had their share of superstars and yet have failed to win.likea said:first- Colorado, Detroit and Toronto (used these three teams because you used them later in the thread) do not really have strong management. Is it hard to sign their star/good players and then add players like Hasek or trade for a Rob Blake.
anyone can do that
19nazzy said: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.
Name me a league where there isn't a notable crappy team.bcrt2000 said:Yeah, the problem though is whatever hurts the 30th team in the standings, hurts all of the other 29 teams in one way or another. You have to protect ALL 30 teams so that they can be profitable AND each team has a chance to compete (so that people will actually *want* to watch the team)
MHA said:What's wrong with a salary cap and competitive balance. Why is that bad for hockey?
That's the thing that's missed alot in this discussion of competative balance. Some Teams find ways to win and some teams find a way to suck. The Clippers have had a cap for near 20years and they haven't done anything, meanwhile the Bulls won 6 under a cap.19nazzy said:Name me a league where there isn't a notable crappy team.
The Clippers are intentionally bad. The team is owned by a guy who wants to maximize profits rather than be competitive. And the Bulls were only able to do what they did because it was a soft cap. That team would've never achieved what it did if the cap were a firm or hard one.Hasbro said:That's the thing that's missed alot in this discussion of competative balance. Some Teams find ways to win and some teams find a way to suck. The Clippers have had a cap for near 20years and they haven't done anything, meanwhile the Bulls won 6 under a cap.
The Nuggets sucked and not on purpose. Throw in the Warriors. Yeah Sterling is a horrible owner, so's Bidwell and Brown.Weary said:The Clippers are intentionally bad. The team is owned by a guy who wants to maximize profits rather than be competitive. And the Bulls were only able to do what they did because it was a soft cap. That team would've never achieved what it did if the cap were a firm or hard one.