Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Slats432, Jan 11, 2005.
Definitely sounds like "the crack" that Flyline14 and Unlce Al have been looking for. :lol
What I found funny is the Owner of the team MOST LIKELY(Top 3) to go under with no hockey is saying that.
i find more funny is he is one of the top 3 owners who made the current NHL system what it is today with his Ungodly front loaded and inflated offer to RFA Sergie Fedorov.
Could you imagine how much he would be crying if Detroit DIDNT match, and he was stuck paying that Deal?
[still side with the owners, but I havent liked Petey since the Fedorov Debacle]
Copied this from a poster at TSN.CA
"How many times will a business lose all of it's stockholders if it doesn't buy that ferrari it can't afford? In the NHL, when you DON'T spend the money, the fans complain, they want the talent. Not only do the fans complain, YOUR TEAM LOSES TALENT if you're not willing to pay for it!! Do you have any concept of how teams make it to the Stanley Cup? Do you think the team that picks up a bunch of guys off of the street is going to have a shot against Colorado? What games have YOU been watching? This is a business where players don't stay on a team to win, they stay on the team that pays them the most. THEY ARE IN IT FOR THE MONEY AND THAT'S ALL.
SCENARIO: Under that system, and their current CBA, a team that WISELY spends its money drafts a new kid. He gets phenomenal, and a real fan favorite. New York catches wind of this kid and wants him bad. They offer him $6 million because they want the cup, and they can afford it. What does the almighty GONHLPA propose as a solution to the "wisely-spending" team that's about to lose their star player to a higher bidder.....
Let's consider the options:
1) You let him go. You can't afford this ferrari, so you start with a brand new Ford Pinto, great call pal, you just lost all your fans, and surprise surprise, you didn't make the playoffs AGAIN for some astounding reason....maybe you're not willing to pay for any talent, so you'll never compete. Congrats, you now have to sell your team, real smart.
2) You cave and pay the guy an equivalent salary. Great move, now your team salary just went up by $4 million, or you have to dump $4 million worth of talent to another team. Great, now you lost two talented guys to keep one REALLY talented guy, but at least you're in the running for the playoffs, and your fans are still pretty happy. GUESS WHAT? Now that you've agreed to pay this guy this much, EVERY OTHER PLAYER in the league that thinks they're close in talent files for arbitration because they think that THEY are also worth 6 million. You just increased every teams ticket prices by 17%, way to go.
3) You call up New York, you say, come on guys, we should agree not to pay these guys so much, he's asking for too much. Sure he's done great for us, and we really want to keep him. We're going to pay him no matter what so can you please lower your offer so that we can keep him? Not only is this option completely ridiculous and never going to happen, IT'S ALSO COMPLETELY ILLEGAL, and is called collusion. Owners can NOT set a bar on offers it's simply not allowed. All owners are allowed to offer whatever they can afford, and some teams can afford to offer more than others, that's why player salaries have escalated 240% in 10 years.
4) You offer him less money. AWWW, too bad, he took the offer in New York (and your fans leave again), looks like you're a real smart guy. Maybe you should REALLY consider consequences before you make comparisons like Ferraris and hockey players."
That will cost you $1 Million.
Someone tell Karmanos to shut up. I'm tired of his whining.
Unless it was an NHL authorized commentary. Which it may well have been, and it makes sense for it to have been, if you accept that the NHL is never going to go the replacement player route. They're never going to try and get an impasse, so all they can do now is really see how much they shake out of the players. Scary statements from owners who are seemingly risking million dollar fines to say what they're saying are dynamite when it comes to seeing what else you can get the players to throw on the table.
the canes arent in trouble at all. they are still averaging over 15,000 a year to see a losing team. i think karmanos is lying thru his teeth when he says they are losing as much as they are....and im with the owners. he has said that they will lose less money if they dont play at all. if petes telling the truth, how can this team survive WITH a cap? if they cant make money with a 35 mill payroll as is, how will they survive with one later? thats why i think he is lying about losing so many millions each year. they have a sweet arena deal and a local tv deal. karmanos is just a hardliner who will say anything he can to get a cap....which im fine with. i cant stand the guy, but i really cant stand the people who actually think this franchise is in trouble, and about to fail any minute. carolina will do fine in a hard cap world, and pete knows it. any talk of carolinas impending doom is ridiculous, or in most cases, wishful thinking. pete wouldnt be so content with sitting out two years if his team was about to go under. if carolina is really in trouble like every southern team basher thinks, why isnt pete here one of the "cracks" in the wall?
Whenever a rich person is complaing about money, don't believe them. They want you to feel sorry for them and it looks like its working judging by the amount of people who feel sorry for the owners.
Is that your opinion or should I have someone from the NHLPA call you and explain how you didn't understand the question?
Nah, the NHLPA will just send some goons to rough up my family when I talk out of turn.
i dont feel sorry for them at all. i just want a hockey world where the talk all year isnt if buffalo and ottawa will survive another year, or pitts, does carolina have enough fans, can edm continue..blah blah blah. whether you side with either side it doesnt matter, the apocolypse has come. nothing will be the same from this point on like it or not. the owners have the right to make this sport have a shape similar to all the other sports. i think some form of cap is inevitable, though i would prefer a strict luxury tax myself - i understand that a tax might not work. i like davey and goliath in sports, and with a cap...it wont happen as much. but id rather a cap world than the one weve been headed for the last 10 years.
the owners have a right to do this, and if they do it right when they come back, the game has a chance to be better for it. its hard to argue that if they negotioated off the players offer, it wouldnt stay pretty similar to what weve had. i dont think for a second the players will allow for a luxury tax thats strict enough to actually work. the owners way looks like a different world, which to me holds promise, the players world seems to be the same one weve been in for ten years.
We'll never know, but things may have worked out amazingly well for Carolina had Detroit not matched. Fedorov would have been on his side, instead of Detroit when they met in the '02 Cup Final, for instance.
Maybe they have a Cup, and several years of sustained playoff presence, instead of just one year Cinderella, and missing the playoffs the rest of the time.
Excelllent. I am though getting tired of the politics, the B.S.
I thank goodness I follow prospects so I am not bereft of the game.
gasp! what if the canes had been a better team. just crazy talk.
for the record, i think the federov deal was a mess and pretty inflattionary, but in the world these teams have been competing in, this was the only way to make the team better short term. they tried when they traded pronger for shanny, wesley for first rounders, and segei as well. i cant stand the management of my team, but their thinking lies within the structure that the league is in. we need to be better now, we're in a new market and we need fans....we're not the nordiques, we suck. how can we get better without waitng 5 years for draft picks? you spend. TO, detroit, NY, avs, st louis, etc etc... all did it. if youre going to keep up with the joneses in this league, you have to spend, or wait thru 5 years of sucking and hope your draft picks pan out.
Problem is that using your car scenario the New York Rangers can't offer him that $6 million until he has 100,000 miles on him and is in need of new shocks and breaks.
You have a player until he's 31 no ifs, and or butts about it.
Did he slam the NHLPA?
Did he slam Bettman?
Did he slam Goodenow?
Did he slam the NHL's handling of it?
Did he slam any players?
Why would he be fined?
Ottawa didn't keep Yashin until he was 31, nor did Edmonton keep Comrie until he was 31 just to cite a few recent examples. There is nothing stopping a player from holding out, and no team is dumb enough to let a talent rot for years and years.
Because a cap would lower salaries in a big way. No more $10 mil or probably even $5 mil contracts means everyone starts making less. And since stacked teams will need to get rid of some stars it's quite possible Carolina could grab a couple and might start selling out some games with a decent on-ice product.
I think a lot of players are still very good at the age of 31. They stil have a few good years left in them and some of them are still in their prime. Why do big clubs sign them? They have experience. They aren't young but a good 31 year old player can help a team out tremendously. Hey i'd love to have Markus Naslund right now if he was a free agent. I'd still take add Bill Guerin to fill a whole for a cup run. I wouldn't mind Doug Weight either. These guys are over 31 but they still have a lot to offer and are the top players on their teams. Most guys don't hit their stride until their late 20's. By that time small market teams can prepare to let them go.
Most teams can't go out and get a UFA superstar to help their team. Yes a team has a guy until he is 31, but this lockout can help teams retain some of that talent.
sure glad I'm not alone when thinking that this particular owner should just shut up .
...and how did that work out for Ottawa ??? ... think they'd prefer to have Yahsin back for Spezza & Chara
... how 'bout Edmonton .. Comrie or Woywitka, Schremp and a 2005 3rd rounder
I think it is more like Bettman saying, "Peter, just called to tell you not to drop a hint that the season could be cancelled because I may have to *wink,wink* fine you a million bucks.
How many games have Woywitka, Schremp and a 2005 3rd rounder helped the Oilers win? And with Comrie, do the Oilers get the three extra points they needed to make the playoffs last year?
And most importantly, if Woywitka, Schremp and a 2005 3rd rounder become solid NHL players, how long will the Oilers be able to keep them.
The NHL is in jeopardy of becoming just like baseball in that the smaller revenue teams could morph into nothing more than minor league development teams for the big boys.
Take the Expos. In 1988 salary considerations forced them to trade all-star second baseman Delino DeShields to the Dodgers for a young pitcher named Pedro Martinez. If we stop there one might say the Expos got a steal. But five years later salary considerations forced them to trade Martinez to the Red Sox for a young starter named Carl Pavano. Pavano, now an all-star, is stunningly no longer with the Expos.
It's a vicious cylce that, unless the NHL is careful, we'll start seeing soon in hockey.
I won't comment on Ottawa but since I am an Edmonton fan I would gladly have taken a full year of mini-Mike. It's widely believed amongst us fans that he would have helped us make the playoffs (remember we barely missed). The Schremp discussions have been great but playoff talk is a lot more fun.
But dude, you can't seriously make an argument that teams are better off when players hold out. That's just getting silly.