Gary Bettman-No team by team caps

[Mess]

ALEXANDER MOGILNY has let it be known that he would accept more than a $3-million US pay cut to play next season for the Maple Leafs.


While Mogilny remains a locked out player -- and the Leafs are not allowed to communicate with him until a collective bargaining agreement is done -- his willingness to take a giant financial step backwards is quite telling in these troubled times for National Hockey League players.


Mogilny's situation, in some ways, speaks volumes about the unsettled yet optimistic state of negotiations between NHL owners and players. He may be a free agent in the brave new world but just in case, he's looking out for himself.

Something to consider .. Mogilny has season ending surgery last season and would have missed the year .. However as an injured player he recieved his full 5.5 mil through the Leafs and Insurance last year ..

So the lockout didn't hurt him at all financially at all so his position is a little different them most players ..

 

[Spungo*]

Of course better teams, on average, will have higher payrolls. Thats obvious. What is important is how these teams become 'good'. the obvious answer is through several years of development, good trades, some luck and lots of young players maturing at or around the same time in their prime.

Its difficult to make an argument if your premise is faulty, which it obviously is.

Yup, your premise is extremely faulty. I agree with you there. Edmonton did all the things you think successful teams should do, yet their locker room got raided year after year. There is no point in even trying when you have no hope of keeping any of your own players. The Oilers were a farm team for big spenders. Iginla was as good as gone at age 31 unmder the old system too.

 

[HSHS]

And an example of this would be?

Sergei Gonchar

 

[HSHS]

The difference being if you make a trade you can command something very nice in return. If St. Louis is a UFA, and someone like say the Bruins have a ton a cap room available, they can make an offer you can't match .. and you get zilch.

In order for Tampa to be near the Cap they will have signed 2-3 of the 4. The point is that under the old system they probably would have lost all 4 verses losing 1 or 2.

Tampa will just have to make choices... just like the NFL.

Example for sens: Casey Hampton will be an UFA next year from the Steelers. The market for NT has been set this year by both Pat Williams and the stud from SD (Justin Williams I think). So what did Pitt do??? The resigned Chris Hoke for 3 yr / 2.7M. Hoke played well in Caseys absense so Omar Kahn & Cowbert made a business decision based on overall team needs.

 

[HSHS]

Some have suggested on this thread that payroll size doesn't matter if you develop good talent, I suggest looking at the Oilers as an eye opener.

Niinimaa - lousey d-man before he came to edm, and pretty inconsistant for his first few years. Edm developed him into an all-star d. Then they traded him to alleiviate salary.

Weight - developed into all-star #1 center by Edm, then traded because they couldn't afford him

Guerin - wasn't bad when he came to Edm, but he was the top goal scorer in the league and top 3 in points (if my memory is correct) when he was traded because they could no longer afford him.

Hamrlik - looked like a washed out #1 pick when Edm traded for him, but they revived his career and he was very good which made him unaffordable.

Richardson - Tor gave up on him, but Edm developed him into a reliable stay at home d. Then Phi decided to give him what allstars at the time were making.

These are just a few examples off the top of my head, using one team which isn't the worst off financially. Sure teams like Cal, Tam, Ana, Car etc can become one year wonders, but it doesn't validate the arguement that higher payrolls doesn't create better teams.

he he he

 

[Ismellofhockey]

What's also being forgotten in this "which CBA allows you to keep your core" debate is that players decide where to go based on more than just money. A home, a family, involvement in the community, friends in the lockerroom and a chance to win the Cup all weigh into a player's decision to leave or stay.
So having extra cap room doesn't guarantee you'll sign just any UFA, there are plenty of example even under the old CBA of players staying put for less money.
I think this will be even more frequent under the new CBA because of the levelling of contracts: are you really going to uproot your family and change your life for an extra $500K?
If you're Cory Sarich and this is your only shot at a bountiful contract, probably.
If you're Wade Redden and have been making $4M for the past 3 years, probably not.

Teams who win the Cup will lose secondary players but retain the St-Louis and Khabibulin's that allowed them to win.

 

[AM]

why bother?

UFA is not the only way to lose players...

Maybe it is for larger market teams like Philly, but smaller teams also trade players prior to UFA if their projected arbitration awards are too large.

Philly has never lost a player because of money, so it never happens....

dont you know.

 

[HockeyCritter]

What's also being forgotten in this "which CBA allows you to keep your core" debate is that players decide where to go based on more than just money. A home, a family, involvement in the community, friends in the lockerroom and a chance to win the Cup all weigh into a player's decision to leave or stay.
So having extra cap room doesn't guarantee you'll sign just any UFA, there are plenty of example even under the old CBA of players staying put for less money.
I think this will be even more frequent under the new CBA because of the levelling of contracts: are you really going to uproot your family and change your life for an extra $500K?
If you're Cory Sarich and this is your only shot at a bountiful contract, probably.
If you're Wade Redden and have been making $4M for the past 3 years, probably not.

Teams who win the Cup will lose secondary players but retain the St-Louis and Khabibulin's that allowed them to win.

And this is key - - - not only will it allow teams that win keep key players, but it will allow most teams to retain the players the organization feels most important to the team.

And isn't that what most fans want? To keep our key players and have a realistic shot to win the Final once in a while.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

And an example of this would be?

Steve Sullivan last year from the Blackhawks.

 

[I in the Eye]

What's also being forgotten in this "which CBA allows you to keep your core" debate is that players decide where to go based on more than just money. A home, a family, involvement in the community, friends in the lockerroom and a chance to win the Cup all weigh into a player's decision to leave or stay.

Not to mention, some players leave 'just for a change in scenery' - perhaps to work a few years in New York as an experience... Not to mention, for the opportunity for advancement... If a 2nd line RW on the Canucks feels he can be a 1st line RW on another team, and is given the opportunity on another team, he just may take it...

There are many other factors than just money that determines where a free agent wants to play...

and I've got research somewhere that analyzes free agents across professional sports... According to this study (off the top of my head), if given a choice of where to play through free agency, players in smaller markets are much more likely to migrate to larger markets then visa versa - in both capped and uncapped worlds, for both monetary and non-monetary reasons...

 

[John Flyers Fan]

In order for Tampa to be near the Cap they will have signed 2-3 of the 4. The point is that under the old system they probably would have lost all 4 verses losing 1 or 2.

Under the old system there is absolutely no reason why they would have lost all 4.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Some have suggested on this thread that payroll size doesn't matter if you develop good talent, I suggest looking at the Oilers as an eye opener.

Niinimaa - lousey d-man before he came to edm, and pretty inconsistant for his first few years. Edm developed him into an all-star d. Then they traded him to alleiviate salary.

Niinimaa was a lousy defenseman in Philly ??? .. I don't think so.

 

[vadardog]

Niinimaa was a lousy defenseman in Philly ??? .. I don't think so.

Are you going to deny that he improved and developed in Edm. From what I saw he was vastly different (we started out calling him Spaz) from day 1 in Edm until he was the oilers best and most reliable dman before being traded.

 

[Marconius]

And an example of this would be?

Edmonton Oilers - Weight

EDIT: Wow looks like Scared Sens Fan's argument was thoroughly ripped apart before I had a chance to post, good work all.

 

[Brewleaguer]

Huh? This argument makes no sense. Both the PA and Bettman said this CBA is for the health of the entire league. First of all, Bettman dosen't want some teams to fold because he expanded to most of those cities.

Second the PA will NEVER let teams fold, because that will cost them jobs, and they have said as much.

So before you go throw out one sided blame...get the facts

No sheeeet Sherlock
First off the PA didn't over expand the league, Buttman did. And so to cover his ars he is trying to keep it ALL viable. Well guess, whenever this gets resolved some team in the weaker market is going to fail or move with in the next two-three years.
Second the PA has got little clout on who falters or not.
So before you diss my "one sided" finger pointing, try and get some sense of how business economics will play out in this whole mess.

 

[Brewleaguer]

I probably shouldn't ask this but I want to entertain myself so I'll ask it anyway:

What the hell has Bettman alledgly not having balls to do something to do with this issue??

He doesn't have the balls to contract smaller teams? He doesn't have the balls to give big teams bigger salary caps? What?

You want to entertain yourself.... then make sure no one is watching.

With him shelving this reported break-thru (which I do believe the story to be viable) he didn't like what they had worked out because it's not a league wide revenue pool but a team by team revenue plan. Making HIS weaker market teams not able to play catch up.

 

[Colorado Avalanche]

****

 

[Tekneek]

You don't know what you're talking about!!! Everyone who is connected to the world of hockey says a deal will get done by early July at the latest. You don't meet 30 hours / week for the past 5 weeks and don't make progress.

NO DOUBT A DEAL WILL GET DONE BY JULY.

Right, I don't know, and you do. The "hockey world" has not been wrong about CBA issues during this lockout, have they? I'm sure progress has been made, but I'm not sure just how meaningful the progress has been. For the record, I never said it wouldn't be resolved by early July. It's June 10th and I said they probably have not made a lot of meaningful progress to this point.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Under the old system there is absolutely no reason why they would have lost all 4.

They might not have "lost" them, but could they have afforded to keep them? I think it unlikely.

 

[MHA]

somewhere Messenger is crying again

 

[Mess]

somewhere Messenger is crying again

Pardon ??

 

[gary69]

FACT:

From 92 to 03, *EVERY* Stanley Cup was won by a top15 budget team. SEVEN OF THOSE CUPS, YES, CLOSE TO 60% (for you mathematically challenged) were won by TOP5 budget teams.

So no matter what you did during the last CBA, you were not going to win unless you had a top15 budget and your chances of winning were SERIOUSLY limited if you didn't have a top5 budget.

So in your "fairer" dream league, the teams that didn't win should have been paid more. And worse players should have been paid more than those players who actually won and achieved something.

IMO, it seems pretty ok that mostly those teams and players who were succesful were rewarded for it, also financially. But you seem to be more comfortable paying for losers and bad players.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

No sheeeet Sherlock
First off the PA didn't over expand the league, Buttman did. And so to cover his ars he is trying to keep it ALL viable. Well guess, whenever this gets resolved some team in the weaker market is going to fail or move with in the next two-three years.
Second the PA has got little clout on who falters or not.
So before you diss my "one sided" finger pointing, try and get some sense of how business economics will play out in this whole mess.

Bettman was not responsible for the majority of expansion, he inheritted it. He expanded to Minnesota, Columbus, Atlanta and Nashville. Yeah, all of those are dumb looking choices! Minnesota is the bread basket of hockey in America. NOT having a team there was just plain stupid. Columbus has proven to be an excellent expansion city as they out draw many of the traditional markets. Atlanta is a no brainer as well. Its the major media city outside of New York and is the home to everything Turner. Always a stupid idea to place a team in a city like that. The only city I really didn't agree with was Nashville. I still don't like it, but it does serve a purpose as a geographic stop-over and potential rival to the south eastern teams. From a business sense, it was a good decision IMO. Time will tell if it is a hockey market. As for business economics, it is NOT the job of the league to make all teams profitable, that is the job of the teams themselves. But it IS the job of the league to create a business environment that gives all its member teams a chance at being viable and competing on a level playing field. They have done that, the rest will be up to the individual teams now.

 

[Brewleaguer]

Bettman was not responsible for the majority of expansion, he inheritted it. He expanded to Minnesota, Columbus, Atlanta and Nashville. Yeah, all of those are dumb looking choices! Minnesota is the bread basket of hockey in America. NOT having a team there was just plain stupid. Columbus has proven to be an excellent expansion city as they out draw many of the traditional markets. Atlanta is a no brainer as well. Its the major media city outside of New York and is the home to everything Turner. Always a stupid idea to place a team in a city like that. The only city I really didn't agree with was Nashville. I still don't like it, but it does serve a purpose as a geographic stop-over and potential rival to the south eastern teams. From a business sense, it was a good decision IMO. Time will tell if it is a hockey market. As for business economics, it is NOT the job of the league to make all teams profitable, that is the job of the teams themselves. But it IS the job of the league to create a business environment that gives all its member teams a chance at being viable and competing on a level playing field. They have done that, the rest will be up to the individual teams now.

I will grant you that Minnesota has to have an NHL team, and Columbus has really yet to prove itself as a viable market. Atlanta, forget it. You don't choose to put a team in a market based on them being a media hub, you based it on whether it can support the sport, and so far it's not doing very well, IMO. And yes Nashville... not really sure it can survive in that region. Moving Hartford to Carolina was not smart.
But like you said, it is the job of the teams to keep themselves profitable. With that thought in mind, why then is Bettman insistent in "league wide" revenues instead of team by team. That there tells me he wants people like you and me to spend our $75US/seat with a portion to go to other teams. IMO if I pay to see my team play, it goes to the team, to keep it economically strong and hockey competitive.

 

[Pepper]

So in your "fairer" dream league, the teams that didn't win should have been paid more. And worse players should have been paid more than those players who actually won and achieved something.

IMO, it seems pretty ok that mostly those teams and players who were succesful were rewarded for it, also financially. But you seem to be more comfortable paying for losers and bad players.

You're so totally & completely lost here that I'm not gonna bother to explain it anymore.

Let's just say that you might want to think your theory again using the old 'chicken & egg' -dilemma as a starting point.