NHL work stoppage hurts everyone including future NHL and minor league players

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
eye said:
There are only two reasons why teams like Calgary, Anaheim, Carolina, Minnesota have done as well as they have;

The great equalizers. Oversized goalie equipment and illegal defense both of which won't be tolerated in the next era of the NHL. .
You might be on to something .. Forget the Parity on the Ice with the Hard Cap ..

The worse your team is the bigger the goalie equipment you are allowed to wear .. So then when Nashville comes into Detroit to play .. With the bigger goalie equipment they have a better chance at winning ..

I thought about making the nets different sizes as well .. but that might be going too far ...
 

OilerNut*

Guest
nyr7andcounting said:
Right, so the Oilers should be asking for revenue sharing not a hard cap.

I think there are better chances at getting a hard cap than meaningful revenue sharing.
 

FLYLine27*

BUCH
Nov 9, 2004
42,410
14
NY
eye said:
There are only two reasons why teams like Calgary, Anaheim, Carolina, Minnesota have done as well as they have;

The great equalizers. Oversized goalie equipment and illegal defense both of which won't be tolerated in the next era of the NHL.

:lol :lol :lol Yup thats it....those darn pads and that illegal defense is what got them the cup. Nothing else.
 

FLYLine27*

BUCH
Nov 9, 2004
42,410
14
NY
eye said:
Look who is calling the kettle black. There is an angle and a point to every thread or post that I contribute to this board. Feel free to disagree and state your viewpoints.

All you have done to date is grade everyone else's efforts while contributing very little substance or fact to anything that others have posted. In other words, your posts sound more like rants than almost anyone else on this board.

How about commenting on all the unfortunate unemployed people and displaced hockey players out there just because the players want a few more dollars before they can agree to a deal. Try to keep it in the present tense and avoid going back to exert blame or to express a viewpoint that only considers the large market clubs of the NHL and not the majority that need a system that actually works for everyone including the fans and the players.

A 45 million cap would easily work....the 3 or 4 teams that It wouldn't work for shouldn't be in the league. Simple as that..this is a professional/major sport...if you cant run with the dogs then get the hell outta the race. Its a joke the small market teams are running the show. A COMPLETE joke. Reading your countless arguments that state the same thing over and over just in different words..its obvious your more concerned about an even playing field then anything else.
 

Guest

Registered User
Feb 12, 2003
5,599
39
FLYLine4LIFE said:
:lol :lol :lol Yup thats it....those darn pads and that illegal defense is what got them the cup. Nothing else.
For one, EYE didn't say the runner up teams got "them the cup" with the goalies pads and illegal defense. I think a valid arguement can be made that both Anaheim & Calgary rode to the finals on enormously hot goaltending (Kipper & Giggy), while Minnesota was able to make it to the Conference Finals due to their defensive abilities as well as hot streaks by both Rolosson & Fernandez. No doubt in my mind if the NHL would have sooner restricted the size of goalie equipment and made attempts to shutdown the defensive game played that you would not have seen some of these teams advance as far as they have.

Talent doesn't win alone, but Colorado went 7 games against Minnesota that year, and then Minnesota went on to beat another talented team in Vancouver. Granted, Gaborik was probably the Wild's playoff MVP, but that was just because he was one of the only guys who was scoring for the team. Had the defensive game been addressed sooner, I don't think you would have seen Minnesota leap past VAN & COL that year.

I'll give some more credit to ANA & CGY, because it takes a lot of things going your way to make it to the finals, and game 7 for the Cup no less. Calgary also had a strong playoff from Iginla, among others, but Anaheim was almost entirely carried by Giguere.

IF goaltending equipment was more limited in size, I don't know if you could have expected the same performances from Kiprusoff & Giguere the past two playoffs, and that may have allowed teams like San Jose, Dallas, or Detroit to advance further than they did.

I've long said that the NHL has compensated for the disparity in payrolls/incomes by allowing the cheaper game be played. That's why we've seen the clutching and grabbing and everything else. It made it so a team with 1/3 the payroll, like NSH vs. DET last year, could be competitive in some regard. You get a hot goalie or drag the other team down to your level, rather than playing up to their level, and you could win. You won't see that when the NHL returns, and if you do, the CBA is the last of their worries.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
OilerNut said:
I think there are better chances at getting a hard cap than meaningful revenue sharing.

Actually the union would have to agree to a hard cap and where it is set, which makes it pretty hard.

On the other hand if the owners came up with a good revenue sharing plan, there would be no opposition from the union, it's something that is more between owners/owners rather than owners/players like the cap.

So from an owners standpoint it is easier to institute a revenue sharing plan that would work for the league than a cap that would work for the league.

And on top of that, the cap doesn't fix the problems. Revenue sharing is the only thing that is going to keep all 30 teams in the league and level the playing field. Even if there's a better chance for a cap what does it matter? They don't exactly need a cap, they need revenue sharing.
 

OilerNut*

Guest
nyr7andcounting said:
Actually the union would have to agree to a hard cap and where it is set, which makes it pretty hard.

On the other hand if the owners came up with a good revenue sharing plan, there would be no opposition from the union, it's something that is more between owners/owners rather than owners/players like the cap.

So from an owners standpoint it is easier to institute a revenue sharing plan that would work for the league than a cap that would work for the league.

And on top of that, the cap doesn't fix the problems. Revenue sharing is the only thing that is going to keep all 30 teams in the league and level the playing field. Even if there's a better chance for a cap what does it matter? They don't exactly need a cap, they need revenue sharing.


They really need both for the long-term viability of the league.
 

AlexGodynyuk

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
170
0
nyr7andcounting said:
So from an owners standpoint it is easier to institute a revenue sharing plan that would work for the league than a cap that would work for the league.
Easier to institute, harder to agree upon. The proposals coming from the owners side have not contained many details on revenue sharing. From an owner perspective, if you're running one of the big teams, why do you want to give away a large part of your revenue with no compensation?
This is the biggest problem with the NHL right now. The disparity in revenue between clubs (to the point where Toronto had one of the highest payrolls, yet was still one of the few teams that could consistently turn a profit) and how to solve that in a way that is fair for all.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
alexmorrison said:
Easier to institute, harder to agree upon. The proposals coming from the owners side have not contained many details on revenue sharing. From an owner perspective, if you're running one of the big teams, why do you want to give away a large part of your revenue with no compensation?
This is the biggest problem with the NHL right now. The disparity in revenue between clubs (to the point where Toronto had one of the highest payrolls, yet was still one of the few teams that could consistently turn a profit) and how to solve that in a way that is fair for all.

Hard to agree upon but no harder than agreeing with the PA on a salary cap deal with no revenue sharing. I understand that big markets don't want to share revenues, but if the league is going to sustain 30 teams, which they say they are going to, than sharing revenue is something that has to be done.

Having a salary cap helps in some respects but it does not come close to solving the biggest problem which is, as you say, disparaties in revenues.
 

eye

Registered User
Feb 17, 2003
1,607
0
around the 49th para
Visit site
Converse said:
For one, EYE didn't say the runner up teams got "them the cup" with the goalies pads and illegal defense. I think a valid arguement can be made that both Anaheim & Calgary rode to the finals on enormously hot goaltending (Kipper & Giggy), while Minnesota was able to make it to the Conference Finals due to their defensive abilities as well as hot streaks by both Rolosson & Fernandez. No doubt in my mind if the NHL would have sooner restricted the size of goalie equipment and made attempts to shutdown the defensive game played that you would not have seen some of these teams advance as far as they have.

Talent doesn't win alone, but Colorado went 7 games against Minnesota that year, and then Minnesota went on to beat another talented team in Vancouver. Granted, Gaborik was probably the Wild's playoff MVP, but that was just because he was one of the only guys who was scoring for the team. Had the defensive game been addressed sooner, I don't think you would have seen Minnesota leap past VAN & COL that year.

I'll give some more credit to ANA & CGY, because it takes a lot of things going your way to make it to the finals, and game 7 for the Cup no less. Calgary also had a strong playoff from Iginla, among others, but Anaheim was almost entirely carried by Giguere.

IF goaltending equipment was more limited in size, I don't know if you could have expected the same performances from Kiprusoff & Giguere the past two playoffs, and that may have allowed teams like San Jose, Dallas, or Detroit to advance further than they did.

I've long said that the NHL has compensated for the disparity in payrolls/incomes by allowing the cheaper game be played. That's why we've seen the clutching and grabbing and everything else. It made it so a team with 1/3 the payroll, like NSH vs. DET last year, could be competitive in some regard. You get a hot goalie or drag the other team down to your level, rather than playing up to their level, and you could win. You won't see that when the NHL returns, and if you do, the CBA is the last of their worries.


Thanks for saving me 15 minutes of typing. It's not rocket science unless of course your a Rangers fan with a username that makes others think your a Flyers fan. Any fan of hockey with an ounce of intelligence will agree with your analogy.
 

Digger12

Gold Fever
Feb 27, 2002
18,313
990
Back o' beyond
nyr7andcounting said:
I agree, but revenue sharing is more important.

I have to disagree with that. While disparities in revenue streams is definitely an issue that can't be left rotting on the vine, the key problem economically with the NHL is the allocation of that revenue...far too much is going towards player costs, and whether you go by Leavitt's or Forbes' numbers the NHL is an OVERALL money loser. Rearranging the deck chairs of such revenue so that big clubs spend less and small clubs spend more only serves to spread that deficit over more clubs. Revenue sharing by itself might help the competitive balance of the game, but the economics of the game would still be messed up.

Combined with a salary cap or an extremely punitive luxury tax though, then it becomes a key part of a long term solution.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
nyr7andcounting said:
I agree, but revenue sharing is more important.

Only to the player's wallets.

The best solution for everyone BUT the players is a low cap.

Too bad for the players that the world wide market place has set their value at well below the artificial market of the last CBA. Reality bites, from their perspective.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Digger12 said:
I have to disagree with that. While disparities in revenue streams is definitely an issue that can't be left rotting on the vine, the key problem economically with the NHL is the allocation of that revenue...far too much is going towards player costs, and whether you go by Leavitt's or Forbes' numbers the NHL is an OVERALL money loser. Rearranging the deck chairs of such revenue so that big clubs spend less and small clubs spend more only serves to spread that deficit over more clubs. Revenue sharing by itself might help the competitive balance of the game, but the economics of the game would still be messed up.

Combined with a salary cap or an extremely punitive luxury tax though, then it becomes a key part of a long term solution.

It's true that far too much is going to player costs but revenue sharing will take money out of the hands of teams that are spending the most and give it to teams who need that revenue to survive, not just buy more players. Overall, revenue sharing would result in a decrease in spending as well as a leveling of the playing field.

And of course you have to look at it from the point of view as the league having a salary cap, because they will. With the cap, only some of the problems are fixed but the system is no good unless revenue are shared and distributed more equally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->