Jackets' Players Rep Bails On Russia

[neelynugs]

If Marchant gives his poster a kiss every night, just imagine what Bobby Holik does....

bobby bypassed the poster and went to the life sized doll (i hear it needed to be inflated )

 

[mudcrutch79]

What?

For your statement, you will be wearing the dunce cap for the day


Aside, I dont even blame Doug so much for making such blasphemous offer to Toddy, I blame the current CBA situation in allowing mediocre players to get outlandish contracts and underperforming while under them. Did we forget that Chris Gratton set this bar?

Are you kidding? They willingly signed a third liner to a $15-20 MM contract, and that's the CBA's fault? Unbelievable. I'm absolutely amazed that some of you are able to in any way function in a market driven society.

 

[Ar-too]

Are you kidding? They willingly signed a third liner to a $15-20 MM contract, and that's the CBA's fault? Unbelievable. I'm absolutely amazed that some of you are able to in any way function in a market driven society.

Some of us can recognize the fact that sports hardly resemble a typical market driven business.

 

[futurcorerock]

Are you kidding? They willingly signed a third liner to a $15-20 MM contract, and that's the CBA's fault? Unbelievable. I'm absolutely amazed that some of you are able to in any way function in a market driven society.

Columbus the past offseason was trying to up their credentials by adding winners to their roster as opposed to journeymen in the hopes of making the playoffs. Marchant and Agent played this one to a fiddle and suckered them out of a lot of money. If the Leafs or Bruins were asking for his services, they may have gotten a better deal, but given the situation Columbus was in as an organization, he was able to milk them for much more money than he was worth. That may have been the "best offer" they could even come up with.

It wasn't a stupid or outrageous deal if Marchant could've produced more... They will always have to overpay for veterans as long as they are bottom-dwellers in the NHL. Any team could attest to that who's been in a similar situation as them.

Don't you mean Martin LaPointe? ... 5 mil/year for a career 3rd liner

No, but you add ammo to my argument against your case.

 

[cbjrocks]

I know, and thats the problem with most PA supporters.

Where did I write that I was a PA supporter? That's what assuming gets you. I think if you research my posts, you'll see I pretty much blame both sides for this mess. Owners who lie and spend like drunken sailors and players who don't under the simple economic benefits of a partnership. First rule of partnership, however, is trust. Something neither side has.

Tho' I do find that most pro-owner people harbor a deep resentment for someone who makes millions of dollars doing something they can only achieve in their adolescent fantasies. I gave up on scoring the game winning goal in OT in game 7 of the SCF when I was 12. Maybe, you should too. You might be able to accept things just a little better if you view an athlete as a high skilled professional rather than some who is doing what I do in the beer league. I guess that is why it is easy to hate Todd Marchant. In the eyes of many on this board, he no more than an overpaid beer leaguer who got a break. I guess with training and commitment, anyone can be in the NHL.

I never read the quote about slavery. Maybe someone can post it.

 

[Ar-too]

I gave up on scoring the game winning goal in OT in game 7 of the SCF when I was 12. Maybe, you should too.

I find the extent to which people will belittle others and make wild assumptions about their motives on these boards quite sad. Regardless of what I make at my job, the fact that most of the world lives on less than what, $2 a day?, makes anyone who complains about having the average NHL salary dip all the way down to *gasp* $1.3 million/year sound like an idiot - at least for me.

 

[Larionov]

Tho' I do find that most pro-owner people harbor a deep resentment for someone who makes millions of dollars doing something they can only achieve in their adolescent fantasies.

I don't resent at all the big name guys getting big dollars. I have no problem at all when the Iginlas, Naslunds, and Sakics of the League get their big coin. Those guys put people in the stands and win games for their teams -- they are the best in the world at what they do, and deserve to be compensated well, like a top notch CEO.

What I DO resent is when a career third liner, fifth/sixth defenceman, or second tier goalie hits the Lotto, and ends up getting almost as much money as the big name players. What a salary cap will do is force teams to make smart decisions about where they allocate their resources. That is what happens in the NFL -- Peyton Manning and Michael Vick get their money, but the backup guard or backup linebacker playing special teams has to sing for his supper a bit.

Under the NHL's old system, there was a temptation to overpay for a Todd Marchant if you thought he was the "missing piece". Under a cap, you have to make some tough choices as to where he fits into your overall salary system. THAT's why I support a cap.

 

[futurcorerock]

I don't resent at all the big name guys getting big dollars. I have no problem at all when the Iginlas, Naslunds, and Sakics of the League get their big coin. Those guys put people in the stands and win games for their teams -- they are the best in the world at what they do, and deserve to be compensated well, like a top notch CEO.

What I DO resent is when a career third liner, fifth/sixth defenceman, or second tier goalie hits the Lotto, and ends up getting almost as much money as the big name players. What a salary cap will do is force teams to make smart decisions about where they allocate their resources. That is what happens in the NFL -- Peyton Manning and Michael Vick get their money, but the backup guard or backup linebacker playing special teams has to sing for his supper a bit.

Under the NHL's old system, there was a temptation to overpay for a Todd Marchant if you thought he was the "missing piece". Under a cap, you have to make some tough choices as to where he fits into your overall salary system. THAT's why I support a cap.

Thank you

 

[Muleskinner]

Bummer. I was hoping he would go to Russia permanently - apparently the Russians don't want Marchant and his baggage either.

My thoughts exactly. Throw his ass in a goolag.

 

[cbjrocks]

Under the NHL's old system, there was a temptation to overpay for a Todd Marchant if you thought he was the "missing piece". Under a cap, you have to make some tough choices as to where he fits into your overall salary system. THAT's why I support a cap.

you make a very good point, and that's why I am also in favor of contraction. The immediate elimination of 150 jobs would create an excess of supply (available players) each of whom would play for less money since jobs would become more scarse.

To solve the issues:
1. real revenue sharing (like the NFL), so that each team makes about the same about of money.
2. salary cap (like the NFL) so each team spends about the same amount of money.
3. Contraction of six teams, so that the demand for NHL players is roughly equal to the supply of players that are NHL quality.

But, in order for this to work, you need trust. And neither side has that.

But, flame me as you will, when pressed on why people hate overpaid athletes and are pro-owner, you generally find that most are frustrated jocks who say, "I'll get up there an play for 50K, what make him think he deserves $1m."

A friend of mine played high school football with a guy who made it to the NFL...he's still bitter. As I read this board, I tend to find many of the post resemble what my buddy says.

 

[triggrman]

You're in favor of contraction even if it means contracting the CBJ?

 

[cbjrocks]

You're in favor of contraction even if it means contracting the CBJ?

Knowing what I know now, I think NHL should not have expaned in 1997. Rather, they should have encouraged local ownership to purchase and relocate failing teams.

As you might now, Peter Karmanos teased Columbus with the Whalers in 1997. Bettman convinced Karmanos to move the Whalers to Carolina and promised John McConnell an expansion team. But, if Karmanos had moved the team to Columbus, a portion of the team would have been sold to Mr. McConnell and Lamar Hunt.

With that being said, the Blue Jackets are here now I see no reason why Columbus would be contracted. Successful team as far as fan base, mutil-level revenue streams, private arena, only pro franchise in the market, the only NHL teams in the state, and a franshise located within a 3 hour drive of FOUR Top 50 TV markets. Columbus is the poster child for successful expansion. I think we all know the six teams that could go away tomorrow and increase the health of the league.

Anahein
Pittsburgh
Nashville
Florida
Carolina
One Canadian team (Calgary or Edmonton)

 

[OilerFan4Life]

Knowing what I know now, I think NHL should not have expaned in 1997. Rather, they should have encouraged local ownership to purchase and relocate failing teams.

As you might now, Peter Karmanos teased Columbus with the Whalers in 1997. Bettman convinced Karmanos to move the Whalers to Carolina and promised John McConnell an expansion team. But, if Karmanos had moved the team to Columbus, a portion of the team would have been sold to Mr. McConnell and Lamar Hunt.

With that being said, the Blue Jackets are here now I see no reason why Columbus would be contracted. Successful team as far as fan base, mutil-level revenue streams, private arena, only pro franchise in the market, the only NHL teams in the state, and a franshise located within a 3 hour drive of FOUR Top 50 TV markets. Columbus is the poster child for successful expansion. I think we all know the six teams that could go away tomorrow and increase the health of the league.

Anahein
Pittsburgh
Nashville
Florida
Carolina
One Canadian team (Calgary or Edmonton)

Only a guy from Buckeye country would suggest contracting a Canadian team. I think most of everyone here can agree that there are 5-6 other teams that need to go well before the Oilers or Flames.

P.S "The" Ohio State Football teams sucks.

 

[triggrman]

Nashville had two bad season of attendance and now they need to "go away" for the health of the league? I think it should be based more on bad management. Like overpaying 3rd line grinders and washed up defensemen. Or staff instability (how many coaches in how many years)?

 

[CarlRacki]

you make a very good point, and that's why I am also in favor of contraction. The immediate elimination of 150 jobs would create an excess of supply (available players) each of whom would play for less money since jobs would become more scarse.

To solve the issues:
1. real revenue sharing (like the NFL), so that each team makes about the same about of money.
2. salary cap (like the NFL) so each team spends about the same amount of money.
3. Contraction of six teams, so that the demand for NHL players is roughly equal to the supply of players that are NHL quality.

The elimination of jobs through contraction would not lower salaries, except perhaps for the bottom 3-4 guys on a roster. Standard supply-and-demand economics don't apply here because NHL players have a rare set of skills. The better the player, the more rare the skills. It's not as if Mats Sundin is going to be forced to take a lower salary because a former Nashville fourth liner is out on the market. All contraction would do is set off a trickle-down effect that would leave some guys in the ECHL and UHL out of work.

As for "real" revenue sharing, you should realize that there is actually quite a bit of disparity in NFL team revenues. The Redskins, for example, had revenues of $245 million last year. The Colts, Falcons, Cardinals and Vikings all had revenues of $145 million or less.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/results...ory1=category&category2=category&passKeyword=

 

[WhalerBoy]

can't say i blame marchant for his stance- if not for goodenow, this guy would be lucky to make a million bucks per year. he's one of those guys that probably has a life sized poster of bob on his wall at home, and gives him a big kiss before bed each night.

:lol

Im laughing, but your dead on. Marchant owes a lot to the old CBA, and the union. How else could an average player like him make so much for one year of stellar play.

 

[DJA]

Only a guy from Buckeye country would suggest contracting a Canadian team. I think most of everyone here can agree that there are 5-6 other teams that need to go well before the Oilers or Flames.

P.S "The" Ohio State Football teams sucks.

Are you really so dense to believe that everyone from Columbus is a Buckeye fan and that your silly Buckeye "insult" will offend them?

 

[OilerFan4Life]

Are you really so dense to believe that everyone from Columbus is a Buckeye fan and that your silly Buckeye "insult" will offend them?

It was a joke dude...The Buckeyes are "my" team.

 

[DJA]

Oddly enough, I wouldn't have guessed that from your first post....

 

[OilerFan4Life]

Oddly enough, I wouldn't have guessed that from your first post....

I forgot the heheh

 

[Behn Wilson]

If Marchant gives his poster a kiss every night, just imagine what Bobby Holik does....

Can you say Glory Hole????
Which is how the players reps will be making a living if they dont get their heads out of their arses.

 

[AlexGodynyuk]

To solve the issues:
1. real revenue sharing (like the NFL), so that each team makes about the same about of money.
2. salary cap (like the NFL) so each team spends about the same amount of money.
3. Contraction of six teams, so that the demand for NHL players is roughly equal to the supply of players that are NHL quality.

Good ideas, but not really practical. The reason the NFL can have real revenue sharing is because by far the bulk of their money comes from a league-wide TV deal. There are no local TV deals, and most teams makes comparatively close to the same amount off admission, etc...
In the NHL where teams are allowed to negotiate local TV deals and the gates are a lot higher (40 home games vs. 8 for football), all of a sudden the revenue sharing becomes a lot more lopsided.
Teams like Toronto, Detroit, Philly, NYR would be throwing substantially more into the pot to be shared then other teams. This would never fly and it is why none of the owners proposals has contained significant revenue sharing.

 

[Greschner4]

Good ideas, but not really practical. The reason the NFL can have real revenue sharing is because by far the bulk of their money comes from a league-wide TV deal. There are no local TV deals, and most teams makes comparatively close to the same amount off admission, etc...
In the NHL where teams are allowed to negotiate local TV deals and the gates are a lot higher (40 home games vs. 8 for football), all of a sudden the revenue sharing becomes a lot more lopsided.
Teams like Toronto, Detroit, Philly, NYR would be throwing substantially more into the pot to be shared then other teams. This would never fly and it is why none of the owners proposals has contained significant revenue sharing.

Hmmm, I don't know.

I believe Forbes has the highest revenue team in the NFL at about $245 million and the bottom teams at about $145 million. That's a pretty big gap.

National TV revenue in the current deal is about $18 billion over 6 years, call it $3 bil a year. Divided by 32 teams and you're just south of $100 mil per team. That's only 40% of the revenue of the top teams, though admittedly around 70% of the revenue of the smaller-market teams. I don't think the NFL teams share a whole lot more than national TV money, so really the top teams are throwing only 40-45% of their revenues into the socialist kitty. I'm not convinced that that's all that dramatic.

On the broader point. What does it matter, for sharing purposes, whether money comes from a "national" TV contract, or a "regional" one? It's really the unique setup of football, where all the teams play the same day, that even allows for the more "national" structure. To take the point further, a large majority of NFL games are shown regionally, and garner wildly different ratings, so the contract is only "national" in the sense that all the games are shown by one network -- all the games are not shown nationally. And those regional telecasts get wildly divergent ratings; there's no way the Detroit Lions contribute as much viewership to the whole "pool" as the money they take in from TV. Yet that doesn't stop the Lions from getting an equal share of the money.

Since the Lions can get a disproportionate share of what they contribute, what is inherently wrong with the NHL teams having to throw all TV and radio money into a pot and share it equally? Yes, the Rangers wouldn't take out what they contribute, but then neither do the Giants or Jets.

 

[cbjrocks]

Good ideas, but not really practical. The reason the NFL can have real revenue sharing is because by far the bulk of their money comes from a league-wide TV deal. There are no local TV deals, and most teams makes comparatively close to the same amount off admission, etc...
In the NHL where teams are allowed to negotiate local TV deals and the gates are a lot higher (40 home games vs. 8 for football), all of a sudden the revenue sharing becomes a lot more lopsided.
Teams like Toronto, Detroit, Philly, NYR would be throwing substantially more into the pot to be shared then other teams. This would never fly and it is why none of the owners proposals has contained significant revenue sharing.

You make an excellent point. One I use when I try to explain to someone why the NFL still has a team in Green Bay (92nd TV market I belive..of course the State of Wisconsin is really their market). People really don't understand the gate and merch only go so far as far as revenue. The real money is in broadcast revenue and sponsorship. And all 32 NFL teams are equal. The NFL created a base of which all 32 teams are equal. Additional revenue is up to the team. Of course, it's an easy system when you are only dealing with national broadcast revenue.

For complete out of the box thinking, I've always thought the way to solve these problems for the NHL is take local broadcast revenue rights away from the teams and have the league cut the deal. Combine with national broadcast and PPV. Then, split the pot by 30. It would create the same foundation of revenue for each team. Everyone would start at the same place. Then, the individual teams could build more revenue with local sponsorships etc. I know it will not happen because the super rich teams will never allow it, but to have true revenue sharing, you must start with trust...trust with the league and player and trust among owners.

 

[cbjrocks]

To take the point further, a large majority of NFL games are shown regionally, and garner wildly different ratings, so the contract is only "national" in the sense that all the games are shown by one network -- all the games are not shown nationally.

Sponsorships are sold nationally. The Coors ad the airs in the first time out of the Jets-Pats game airs in the first timeout of the Browns-Steelers game and so on for every game. The cost per point (the amount a spot is valued based on the rating generated) is derived by a combined national rating of all games. It's a little differernt on MNF and SNF, but for CBS and Fox, that how it works.

Yea, the NFL broadcast model does not completly fit the NHL...but I think it could if small and medium market teams ganged up against large market teams.