Goodbye Alberta????

[Pepper]

The problem I have with the salary cap is that it punishes teams like Toronto, Philadelphia, Detroit, New York, Dallas, etc.....for creating their market and working their hardest to generate as much revenue as possible for their product.

It doesn't punish them!

1) It allows them to make huge profits
2) It allows them to put lots of resources to other areas such as scouting & conditioning
3) It allows them to reduce ticket prices (which they won't do)
4) It allows them to play on an even playing field. No more "they bought their Stanley Cup" allegations.

The league will never address the issue of those who are cutting payroll to maximize profits. And that's wrong. If you're going to have a salary cap, then the salary minimum better be between $500,000 to $1,000,000 below the actual cap. If it isn't, you can bet that Wirtz and Jacobs and other owners will try to have a 15 to 20 million dollar team just so that they can maximize profits.

Not true. Just like NFL, NHL is most likely going to install a mininum that every team has to spend, probably something like $10-15M under the max cap.

 

[PecaFan]

NO THEY SHOULDN'T. They should expecct to be able to make a profit if they run their team successfully, market their product well to their fans, and maximize their revenue potential. If they run their team like the Rangers, they should be punished for it by losing money.

Of course they should when they pull in 2+ billion dollars in revenue a year.

This isn't some mom and pop small business with an uncertain bottom line because they're just starting out. This is a huge multi-national where employee costs have spiralled so far out of reality that it eats up most of that 2 billion revenue.

And what did the FLAMES prove to you...?? That you DONT need to spend foolishly to win a cup (came very close).

If you flip a coin, every once in a while it will come up Heads 37 times in a row.

You don't design a business around that, expecting it to happen.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

For those who are ha-ha'ing the thought of Calgary being in financial danger simply because they made money last year...

...look over the 10 years prior to that. A trip to the finals will make ANY team a profit..and one profitable year does not make up for millions and millions lost in previous years. Calgary and Edmonton need a favorable CBA just as much as Carolina and Florida, like it or not.

for much of those 10 years they were terribly managed. terrible drafting, terrible player evaluation, stupid contracts and the such.

they deserved to lose money and games, whats the problem with that ?

- who asked them to sign Vernon and Fuhr to over 5m per in combined contracts.
- who asked them to not draft any good players for 7 years ?
- who asked them to not qualify Martin St Louis ?
- who asked them to sign Werenka to a 4 year 10m deal and then not insure it ?

again, why does CGY deserve a profit or a winning team when they ran a crap team ?

dr

 

[nomorekids]

for much of those 10 years they were terribly managed. terrible drafting, terrible player evaluation, stupid contracts and the such.

they deserved to lose money and games, whats the problem with that ?

- who asked them to sign Vernon and Fuhr to over 5m per in combined contracts.
- who asked them to not draft any good players for 7 years ?
- who asked them to not qualify Martin St Louis ?
- who asked them to sign Werenka to a 4 year 10m deal and then not insure it ?

again, why does CGY deserve a profit or a winning team when they ran a crap team ?

dr

but that's a fact of life, in sports. you're going to go through spells where management makes bad decisions and you field a bad team. it shouldn't drive you to the brink of oblivion, though. the fans don't deserve that. you're talking to a lifelong mets fan, and a victim of horrific management. excusing the fact that the mets are a NY team, fans SHOULD have abandoned this team long ago, and attendance could certainly be better...but it shouldn't vanquish the team. the way you're saying it, the fans should suffer for the mistakes of the owners.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

It doesn't punish them!

1) It allows them to make huge profits
2) It allows them to put lots of resources to other areas such as scouting & conditioning
3) It allows them to reduce ticket prices (which they won't do)
4) It allows them to play on an even playing field. No more "they bought their Stanley Cup" allegations.



Not true. Just like NFL, NHL is most likely going to install a mininum that every team has to spend, probably something like $10-15M under the max cap.

No, the cap does punish those teams. Why should those teams not be able to put the best product out on the ice? Why should those teams who have worked to build their market to the point where it is a huge success have to be restrained because some owners don't spend their money wisely? With regards to profits, etc....you can bet that with the new agreement, those profits will probably go back into some kind of coffer where a few more years down the road, teams will say that they can't afford the current salary cap and it needs to be lower. As for the level playing field, I have trouble with that. Why should Philadelphia or Toronto have to have a level playing field with teams like Chicago and Boston. Once again, the teams in Philadelphia and Toronto have shown that they are wanting to win while teams like Chicago and Boston have shown that their only concern is the owner's bottom line and a screw the fans mentality. I'm sorry, but hockey is for the fans. And to be perfectly honest, I don't mind paying that extra for a quality product. What irks me about the salary cap is that if the salary cap floor is 10 to 15 million below the expected cap level, that gives even more incentive to teams like Chicago and Boston to keep a minimal payroll to maximize profits. And if you think that's good for hockey, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Mountain Dude]

And what did the FLAMES prove to you...?? That you DONT need to spend foolishly to win a cup (came very close).

See, this is the problem with the average fan and the NHLPA, yeah, we managed to make the playoffs ONCE in SEVEN years, what a great franchise! And now what happens, because our players played well, all of their salaries will increase by at least 30%, so we can't even keep them, which is why we can only have a playoff team once every 7 years.

Use your head, think it all through, don't have such tunnel vision.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

See, this is the problem with the average fan and the NHLPA, yeah, we managed to make the playoffs ONCE in SEVEN years, what a great franchise! And now what happens, because our players played well, all of their salaries will increase by at least 30%, so we can't even keep them, which is why we can only have a playoff team once every 7 years.

Use your head, think it all through, don't have such tunnel vision.

You know what though, this is the first time in seven years in which the Flames finally got it right. They got a true hockey guy in there to run the operation. I'm sorry, but the Al Coates, Pierre Page, Craig Buttons eras of the Flames proved one thing....incompetence. So, while the Flames prosperred under Sutter, let's not forget that Sutter brought with him extensive hockey knowledge and he brought with him one thing the other candidates didn't bring....success.

True, you can't consistently have players ask for 30% in raises. However, if they're restricted, they've got no place to go. They can hold out all they want, but in this day and age, nobody really goes after restricted players anymore. The cost is too high. That is the leverage the teams have.

Finally, the last issue, and I'll address it once again, is what happens if a salary cap comes into effect. Do you think the oil barrons who run the Flames are going to want a team with a 31 million payroll or do you think they'll want a team with a payroll less than 31 million to maximize profits? That is something the league needs to address. So far, there has been nothing but speculation as to what the league will do, but until they say what they'll do, then there's no sense in even talking about salary minimum.

Oh, and one last issue. What about revenue sharing? Why are owners so vehemently opposed to revenue sharing? Everyone talks about how the cap works in the NFL, but one thing people fail to talk about is the importance of revenue sharing amongst teams. That is the real reason in itself that teams like Green Bay and Buffalo can continue to thrive. Funny that there's no talk about revenue sharing either amongst the owners.

Face it, a salary cap is just a form of restraint to protect owners from themselves. And for that very reason, if I'm a player, then I oppose such things. It isn't the players responsibility to protect owners from themselves.

 

[Digger12]

Oh, and one last issue. What about revenue sharing? Why are owners so vehemently opposed to revenue sharing? Everyone talks about how the cap works in the NFL, but one thing people fail to talk about is the importance of revenue sharing amongst teams. That is the real reason in itself that teams like Green Bay and Buffalo can continue to thrive. Funny that there's no talk about revenue sharing either amongst the owners.

Maybe I heard wrong, but I could swear on multiple occasions I've heard Bettman and Daly both say that enhanced revenue sharing will be part of any future CBA.

Face it, a salary cap is just a form of restraint to protect owners from themselves. And for that very reason, if I'm a player, then I oppose such things. It isn't the players responsibility to protect owners from themselves.

That's like saying if a person's living in the guest room of someone else's rich mansion, and the owner (through accident or neglect) starts a fire in the house. The person sees it, and instead of helping to put it out simply shrugs his shoulders, walks out the door and says "It's not my responsibility". And the house burns to the ground.

Sure the person can go live in somebody else's house, but it won't be nearly as nice, nor will the owner be anywhere near as accomodating.

As long as the players are OK with absolving themselves of any responsibility to the current mess this sport is in and letting it crash and burn for future generations, I guess there's not much more to say. Have fun spending the rest of your career in Europe and Russia.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

Maybe I heard wrong, but I could swear on multiple occasions I've heard Bettman and Daly both say that enhanced revenue sharing will be part of any future CBA.



That's like saying if a person's living in the guest room of someone else's rich mansion, and the owner (through accident or neglect) starts a fire in the house. The person sees it, and instead of helping to put it out simply shrugs his shoulders, walks out the door and says "It's not my responsibility". And the house burns to the ground.

Sure the person can go live in somebody else's house, but it won't be nearly as nice, nor will the owner be anywhere near as accomodating.

As long as the players are OK with absolving themselves of any responsibility to the current mess this sport is in and letting it crash and burn for future generations, I guess there's not much more to say. Have fun spending the rest of your career in Europe and Russia.

A little draconian don't you think? Besides, why is it that the players should be held accountable for the owner's mistakes? That is essentially what the salary cap does. It punishes the players because a few owners got too greedy and ended up ruining it for everyone else. How about that some degree of ownership be addressed by the owners for letting things get this bad? Or how about Bettman in all of his infinite wisdom continually extending the current agreement? Nope, instead Gary chooses to talk about the status quo and how the NHLPA has its head stuck in the sand. Funny, Gary had no troubles extending the agreement for years now, did he?

I think an agreement will be reached where there won't be a hard cap, but there will be strict luxury tax and extensive revenue sharing. In exchange, I think you'll probably see franchises relocate and unrestricted free agency be reduced to like 25 to 26 years of age.

 

[garry1221]

i don't think anyone here anymore completely pro PA or completely pro NHL. I believe we've all seen the light and while still staying in our previous positions, have moved closer to mid ground and just want something done.

the players shouldn't be held accountable for the owners mistakes no, but if the players themselves are forcing the owners hand by holding out for an extra half million ( just an example ) is just one part of what's making the system break down. It isn't JUST the owner and it isn't JUST the players. it's BOTH. the system IS broken, regardless of who's fault it originally was, the fact that only one side wants to fix it now is the killer. If these players gave a damn about the sport then i'd think they'd want to help it out. With their statements of 'we don't want artifical boundaries put on what we can make' is just showing where their interest really lies IMO.

If the players want all the revenue, then let em have it. Just make them put their own money into it. let each player put in 2 - 3 million of his own money into a huge pot and let the nhlpa divy it up. the owners will still pay the expenses for the arena, travel and all that. But the players would pay themselves. Some players would see their money increase, maybe even double or triple. Others would see their money disappear like dust in the wind. See how long it would take before the players would admit that there's something that needs to be fixed

 

[tantalum]

Why is this always about who's fault it is for some people? That is quite frankly irrelevant at this time. It's broken and it needs to be fixed. It's all fine and dandy to say the owners just need to stop giving out the big contracts etc. but it isn't that easy. There are inherent inflationary issues that need to be dealt with and future inflationary items that are unforseen at this time need to be protected against. Owners can't just get together and decide that player x isn't worth as much as equivalent player y and try to give that player x who's up for contract less than player y because of the way contracts are determined in the current system. Let alone the cries of collusion you'd here from the NHLPA if no one was to offer let's say a Jarome Iginla more than what he currently makes. The past inflationary ways continue to affect the current situation. It needs to be stopped dead in it's tracks and the system compeltely revamped.

What I wonder is this: the players have proposed a luxury tax system with certain threshholds. Let's forget the tax levels for a minute and assume in the coming proposal the threshold will atleast be reasonable. How did they come up with their thresholds? Could the same threshold not just be calculated as a percentage of revenues and allow it to float based on league health? There is one difference between the two defintions of that threshold: In one the threshold floats with the health of the league (i.e. the evil cap) while in the other the threshold by necessity must stay the same (if it isn't tied to revenues there is no mechanism to change the level). Given that over the long run revenues tend to increase in a stabilized business why not tie the threshold to revenues? Sure the threshold may go down but over the long run the revenue trend is most likely upwards and therefore there is a mechanism in place for the salaries to also increase (growth of the industry higher than inflation rates will result in player salaries outpacing inflation rates).

Do that and the NHL is back at the table. Without it the threshold is essentially just an arbitrary and meaningless number that becomes more and more meaningless as the years progress. Imagine a new CBA with abitrary threshold coming up for renewal...how does the NHLPA argue to increase the threshold without that mechanism in place? They are unwilling to talk revenue and expenses so they can't make any sort of argument to increase it...why not build that mechanism into the CBA? It makes very little sense not to do so IMO.

 

[hockeytown9321]

See, this is the problem with the average fan and the NHLPA, yeah, we managed to make the playoffs ONCE in SEVEN years, what a great franchise! And now what happens, because our players played well, all of their salaries will increase by at least 30%, so we can't even keep them, which is why we can only have a playoff team once every 7 years.

Use your head, think it all through, don't have such tunnel vision.

You're right. So how does Calary keep all those guys who get 30% raises under a cap?

 

[hockeytown9321]

It doesn't punish them!

1) It allows them to make huge profits
2) It allows them to put lots of resources to other areas such as scouting & conditioning
3) It allows them to reduce ticket prices (which they won't do)
4) It allows them to play on an even playing field. No more "they bought their Stanley Cup" allegations.



Not true. Just like NFL, NHL is most likely going to install a mininum that every team has to spend, probably something like $10-15M under the max cap.

As a Red Wing fan, I love the "Red Wings bought their Cup" allegations. It reaffims my beleif that most people have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

Why should Philly, Detroit, Toronto et al pay for the problems of the Calgary's, Florida's and Edmonton's? For the same reason that a player isn't ectatic when he scores a hat trick in a LOSING cause.

The Wings, Flyers and Leafs managed to build an incredible revenue base over the course of the existing CBA. Fantabulous. Should they be smoking cigars and sipping champagne about it? No, because the majority of the teams haven't come close to their revenue expectations, AND since all 30 teams are in the SAME league they are all in it TOGETHER.

Same thing applies to the so-called 'negligent' teams such as Boston and Chicago (I'm really not sure we can place L.A. in this category, I'm sorry). They love making profits without putting out a better product. Well, tough luck buddy. The league as a whole wants cost certainty so that a CERTAIN amount of spending on salaries will be EXPECTED. One for all, and all for one. It's a concept that seems so far-fetched to some, but in its essence is what sports should be all about. It's about making an entire league better, not just a handful of teams.

Last thing, regarding the question about the Flames mis-managing their operation pre-2003-04. I think everybody is in agreement with that statement. However, how many BAD moves have the Flyers done over the same period of time? How many Brad Werenka signings (not to the same degree perhaps) have they had? The difference is that while it cripples one team (Calgary), it only glances off the other franchise (Philly). The Flyers can get away with making way more mistakes, and that doesn't necessarily make them smarter--or more worthy. They're just luckier, I guess. They're blessed.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

You're right. So how does Calary keep all those guys who get 30% raises under a cap?

They make the smart decisions that every team in the league would have to make at that time. Not everybody would have the room for the players Calgary won't be able to afford, so the transactions game could at that point be played by ALL markets, at least in theory, not just the haves.

Under the current system, 1 team alone can greatly enhance its roster just by being able to afford what Calgary cannot...and that's not right.

 

[hockeytown9321]

They make the smart decisions that every team in the league would have to make at that time. Not everybody would have the room for the players Calgary won't be able to afford, so the transactions game could at that point be played by ALL markets, at least in theory, not just the haves.

Under the current system, 1 team alone can greatly enhance its roster just by being able to afford what Calgary cannot...and that's not right.

But they don't make the same decisions. Calgary could have $5 million in cap space and Detroit could have $10 million.

 

[Digger12]

A little draconian don't you think? Besides, why is it that the players should be held accountable for the owner's mistakes? That is essentially what the salary cap does. It punishes the players because a few owners got too greedy and ended up ruining it for everyone else. How about that some degree of ownership be addressed by the owners for letting things get this bad? Or how about Bettman in all of his infinite wisdom continually extending the current agreement? Nope, instead Gary chooses to talk about the status quo and how the NHLPA has its head stuck in the sand. Funny, Gary had no troubles extending the agreement for years now, did he?

I think an agreement will be reached where there won't be a hard cap, but there will be strict luxury tax and extensive revenue sharing. In exchange, I think you'll probably see franchises relocate and unrestricted free agency be reduced to like 25 to 26 years of age.

Draconian to you, reality to me.

Actually, I think you're misreading my intentions a bit here. I have no problem with admitting that the owners, for the most part, put themselves in this mess with their incompetence and short sighted greed.

However...It really rots me when I see an NHLPA rep throws his arms in the air and bleat "It's not our responsibility, why should we pay?". To me, that attitude is totally selfish and no less short sighted than the owners have been. The NHLPA has been clinically efficient in exploiting the system and shaking down the owners for every last cent possible, from players holding out while still under contract to deciding which players go to arbitration and which ones hold out, to coming down on players who have the audacity of not signing for one dime less than what 'the market' says they should get.

It's all above board (except for holding out while under contract) and more power to them, but don't dare insult my intelligence and tell me that the players are poor innocent lambs who simply sit idly by and let money be thrown at them.

If they don't want to help, fine. Just don't act all shocked and horrified if the owners decide to take things into their own hands and try to fix their business by any means necessary.

And BTW, I also agree that a hard cap isn't necessary...but I also think that the luxury tax the owners would ask for would be so punitive that the players' hair would turn white with terror. So here we are.

 

[YellHockey*]

The NHLPA has been clinically efficient in exploiting the system

Maybe that's because the NHLPA hires the best people to work for them while the owners hire guys because they used to play for the team.

Maybe the solution to the NHL's "woes" is to hire better people. If everyone running an NHL team was as intelligent and qualified as Lou Lamerillo then the NHL wouldn't be crying about the CBA.

 

[looooob]

Maybe that's because the NHLPA hires the best people to work for them while the owners hire guys because they used to play for the team.

Maybe the solution to the NHL's "woes" is to hire better people. If everyone running an NHL team was as intelligent and qualified as Lou Lamerillo then the NHL wouldn't be crying about the CBA.

you raise an interesting scenario. what if Lamouriello was cloned, and all of a sudden each team was managed by someone as shrewd as him

what would happen?? now he's no smarter than the other guy

and you've still got only 16/30 teams that are going to make the playoffs(which appears in many markets to be a profitability threshold).

under the current CBA what would happen to player costs under that scenario?

would Lamouriello or one of his clones start making unusual (for him) financial decisions in order to improve his playoff chances??would that affect other teams?

in other words, is it simple enough to say that if every team had a smart GM there would be no problems? I honestly don' t know the answer to this one

 

[jcorb58]

but that's a fact of life, in sports. you're going to go through spells where management makes bad decisions and you field a bad team. it shouldn't drive you to the brink of oblivion, though. the fans don't deserve that. you're talking to a lifelong mets fan, and a victim of horrific management. excusing the fact that the mets are a NY team, fans SHOULD have abandoned this team long ago, and attendance could certainly be better...but it shouldn't vanquish the team. the way you're saying it, the fans should suffer for the mistakes of the owners.

I dont believe the demize of the 80-90 Oilers and Flames of today had as much to do with poor management as it did to not being able to pay the players. The big market clubs have the luxury of makeing hockey based decisions on the movement of their players. The small market clubs got to get what they can for their players or lose them. If money wasnt a factor the Oilers could of kept their nucleus of HOFs until they got market value in a trade or the player retired. There is a huge diferance when every deal you do is out of weakness. Im in a keeper pool that ive been involved in for 10 yrs. We have annual drafts. We also have a salary cap, we make trades to reduce are payroll when ever needed. Our salaries or based directly on the players production the previous season. We dont adjust them downward if they dont met their production they only go up if they get better. Its fun because you make trades out of nessecity not out of want.

 

[gr8haluschak]

This is to all of you that think that Oilers and Flames making money this year proves there is no problems - How about you address the fact that Calgary has amassed a HUGE amount of debt over the last 10 years, (since the CBA) and what about the fact that the Oilers, until this year, have made NO MONEY. Where would the Oiler have been if they could keep at least Joseph, Weight, and Guerin - pretty close to the Stanley Cup ,how about the Flames with say Big Al and Theo, well as much as I have to say it they sure would not have missed the playoffs for how many years. One other point - This was the FIRST cup Champion out of the last 10 who had a bottom half payroll, the last one was the Devils in 95 (and contrary to what a poster about 4 pages ago things 46 million in not thrifty spending).

 

[YellHockey*]

This is to all of you that think that Oilers and Flames making money this year proves there is no problems - How about you address the fact that Calgary has amassed a HUGE amount of debt over the last 10 years, (since the CBA)

Maybe they shouldn't have been doing things like spending millions on Roman Turek and Igor Kravchuk while drafting Dan Tkachuk, Rico Fata, and Chris Dingman in the first round.

and what about the fact that the Oilers, until this year, have made NO MONEY. Where would the Oiler have been if they could keep at least Joseph, Weight, and Guerin - pretty close to the Stanley Cup ,

You'd have to be a pretty big Oilers homer to think that even with those players that the Oilers would be even close to the Cup.

Besides, the Devils have had to give up on Mogilny, Nieuwendyk, and Holik.

how about the Flames with say Big Al and Theo, well as much as I have to say it they sure would not have missed the playoffs for how many years.

Well, they did miss the playoffs one year with them and for the other four years in their last five years together, they got beaten out in the first round.

 

[gr8haluschak]

Maybe they shouldn't have been doing things like spending millions on Roman Turek and Igor Kravchuk while drafting Dan Tkachuk, Rico Fata, and Chris Dingman in the first round.



You'd have to be a pretty big Oilers homer to think that even with those players that the Oilers would be even close to the Cup.

Besides, the Devils have had to give up on Mogilny, Nieuwendyk, and Holik.



Well, they did miss the playoffs one year with them and for the other four years in their last five years together, they got beaten out in the first round.

This make me laugh:

Point 1 - the Flames have been LOOSING MONEY FOR ATLEAST 10 YEARS, what does Turek and Kravchuk have to do with that

Point 2 - Joseph took a worse leafs team to the conference finals so imagine what he could have done with Weight and Guerin with Smyth.In 2001 we would have beat Dallas in round one, they would have beat San Jose in round two which makes them pretty close to the cup. In 2003 we would have not lost to Dallas, and if everything else panned out the only team that could match against the trap would be the Oilers speed, so realistically the could have made it to the Cup finals.

Point 3 - If you can sit there and honestly say a guy like MacInnis would not have been the differnce maker in this years Flames run I question your hockey sense.

 

[YellHockey*]

This make me laugh:

Point 1 - the Flames have been LOOSING MONEY FOR ATLEAST 10 YEARS, what does Turek and Kravchuk have to do with that

Because the Flames wasted money on bad decision making. If they make bad decisions, do they not deserve to lose money?

Point 2 - Joseph took a worse leafs team to the conference finals so imagine what he could have done with Weight and Guerin with Smyth.In 2001 we would have beat Dallas in round one, they would have beat San Jose in round two which makes them pretty close to the cup. In 2003 we would have not lost to Dallas, and if everything else panned out the only team that could match against the trap would be the Oilers speed, so realistically the could have made it to the Cup finals.

And if my aunt was my uncle she'd have a package....

A worse Leafs team? The Oilers were an 80 point team with Joseph. The Leafs were a 100 point team with him. How can you say that the Leafs were a worse team?

Point 3 - If you can sit there and honestly say a guy like MacInnis would not have been the differnce maker in this years Flames run I question your hockey sense.

He sure made a big difference in the Blues playoff run, didn't he?

 

[gr8haluschak]

Because the Flames wasted money on bad decision making. If they make bad decisions, do they not deserve to lose money?



And if my aunt was my uncle she'd have a package....

A worse Leafs team? The Oilers were an 80 point team with Joseph. The Leafs were a 100 point team with him. How can you say that the Leafs were a worse team?



He sure made a big difference in the Blues playoff run, didn't he?

It is pointless to argue with you because you don't have a clue,

Point 1 - you have not addressed the fact that they were a good team at one point and they still lost money hand over fist

Point 2 - What were the leafs before Joesph - thank you

Point 3 - You talk about MacInnis making a difference, hmm seems when he got injured in game 2 last year they were hurting pretty bad

Don't waste your time responding until you actually address the facts and not throw out something like if my mother blah blah blah.... who cares