Owners cave again??

[i am dave]

1. "they both made the playoffs last year..." do you really believe that there is any kind of comparison between the Red Wings and the Preditors??? Give me a break!!

First of all, breathe. Good. Feel better? Good.

How many times in the last 10 years have the Wings been Cup contenders at playoff time? 10? How many Cups have they won in the last ten years? 3? How many times have the Preditors made the playoffs? 1. How many times have they been contenders? NEVER!!! come on...did you write that with a straight face??

Nashville wasn't around 10 years ago. Nashville is a small market team. Nashville made the playoffs last year. Nashville has a damn good goaltender, and not a pretender like JSG. Making the playoffs generates revenue. None of these things are bringing a smirk to my face.

In the last ten years Detroit, Colorado, Dallas, St Louis, Toronto and Philly are always in the top 7 in payroll and have missed the playoffs a grand total of once in the last 10 years and are usually legit cup contenders.

St. Louis is never a legitimate Cup contender. Sorry I had to say that. :lol

If you think that any team in the bottom 10 in payroll is EVER in the cup contender list, you are lost and they only occasionally go as far as to make the playoffs at all.

Calgary made it to Game 7 of the Cup finals, and arguably won it in Game 6. Nah, they're not a contender.

2. Yes, the $38m hard cap would help spread the marquee players more round the league rather than have 4 or 5 stacked teams and 8 or 10 no name teams. Thats just not good for the league.

Are you proving my theory that you were just hoping for a fantasy draft?? Not for nothing, but NJ won 3 cups with three "no name teams." The average hockey fan (read: no one who ever comes to hfboards) couldn't name more than three players on those teams. They were most certainly not stacked top to bottom. They won with a goaltender and a system.

3. You are spinning the numbers to your benefit and not reading them truely. you say, "you were fine with a $38M hard cap, but now are not fine with a $50M hard cap (minus one player) because you think teams won't be able to compete with a $12M payroll disparity, then you need to rethink what kind of league you're looking for.".....we its not a $12m disparity. its more like a $22m disparity.
Those 5 or 7 big spender teams with payrolls currently between $60m and $80m can afford $50 + one big contract while at least half of the league can't afford to go much over the $38m mark. so..you say $50m (minus one player) and then forget that about adding the big contract for that one player back into the financial disparity. oops

You are also spinning numbers assuming a majority of teams will max out their cap and then go wild on the franchise player. Please read my previous comments on franchise players and their market-setting-abilities.

You are assuming that even with a hard cap at $50M, where they will have to pay luxury taxes over $40M, owners will want to maximize their payroll and then top it off with the franchise player. You know, since a bunch of people keep brining up the NFL, let me point out that the two franchises in the Super Bowl have not only been extremely successful the past 5 years on the field, but have set the standard for cap management as well - both teams have maintained their franchises well under the salary cap.

Think of it this way. You are allowed (by some unimportant-to-this-scenario-entity) to spend a maximum of $1000 on payroll. As an employer, are you not going to find a way to maximize your production at the lowest cost? Exactly what success have the Rangers had in the Sather era of spending? '

Hear this now: With a luxury tax and salary cap, enter the era of sabermetrics to the NHL.

 

[dawgbone]

Well, first of all, there's no local TV contract to be had in the NFL. Secondly, the Eagles are profitable and successful, AND $22M under the cap. Third, the NFL has a high cap AND franchise tags.

Granted, the NFL has a high cap and franchise tag, but also a CBA that works from the bottom team all the way to the top.

I agree with you that the NHL can also have 30 healthy teams. I disagree with you in that I think teams like Edmonton can still be healthy with a $50M cap. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate when I'm talking about Edmonton folding or moving because I don't see the difference between life and death for a franchise existing over a $12M difference in a cap (granted, minus one player).

My problem is that there will be the same 6 or 7 teams with a $60+ mil payroll, that will be setting the pay scale for 23 or 24 other teams. Granted, there won't be the big salary increases over the duration of the deal, but it doesn't change the current landscape of the league, nor does it account for the backlash the league will receive for the lockout. This isn't even about Edmonton anymore, as there will be next to no backlash against NHL hockey, and the team with a $35 mil payroll can at least break even.

I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but from my side it really looks like a lot of people were expecting a low cap, which would have forced many teams to cut/buyout/disperse players - good players - that would end up on teams like Edmonton. It sounds like some folks were looking more for a fantasy draft than establishing a salary cap.

I'm not entirely sure of that... one of the thnigs Oiler fans have been talking about was acquiring a #1 centre... and it was UFA names like Demitra or Lindros being taled about... not necessarily picking up Sakic for a nickle, so to speak. And to be honest, it's what the league has been saying for 4 years... they are going for cost certainty, and for the teams to be prepared for that... I don't really have any sympathy for a team who has $50 mil in payroll tied up over the next couple of years, especially after what has been talked about. You can't really fault people for listening to what they have been told.

 

[Sammy*]

Were the Oiler fans complaining in the 80's when they had all the marquee players ?? Also, the days of the 10 million dollar player are over. The owners have slowly been fixing that of late.

I think his point is only the rich by & large canafford marquee players under the current system, which was not the case in the Oilers hey day.
Furthurmore, "The owners have slowly been fixing that of late' . I have no idea what planet you have been on but obviously its not the one the NHL is on (unless by late you mean like, the last 3 months).

 

[i am dave]

I guarantee you, that you could take away all the American teams and have an all Canadian league, and it would survive just fine. Chicago, other than being an original six team, brings nothing to the league. Say what you want, but Canada is way more important to the existence of the league than you'd like to admit.

Wolfpack says the Canadian dollar is the problem. So, maybe you should reconsider...

 

[Trottier]

I see. So the last 10 years of a few teams offering ridiculouse contracts to any UFA they can think of has been.... good for the game? Yes, I see that over paying so that the same 8 teams can have all the marquee players has really made the NHL a vibrant, wonderful league.

Thanks for pointing out our myopic agenda.

My post suggest nothing of the kind, sport. It does suggest (once again ) that this CBA is about a lot more than punishing "those greedy players," and/or simply helping out the few financially challenged franchises like your's.

 

[kerrly]

You think all of those 55,000 fans were edmonton fans? :lol

Easily could have been. There were over 1 million request for tickets. So many that they had to have a lottery. I'd bet that the amount of requests that came in from Edmonton and surrounding area, that they could have filled Commonwealth stadium twice, at least.

 

[oil slick]

Were the Oiler fans complaining in the 80's when they had all the marquee players ?? Also, the days of the 10 million dollar player are over. The owners have slowly been fixing that of late.

I don't know if you saw where Gretzky, Kurri, Anderson, Messier, Coffey, Moog, and Fuhr finished their careers, but it sure as hell wasn't Edmonton. I objected to the dismantling of the 1991 Oilers a hell of a lot less than loosing Cujo, Geurin, and Weight... who were our only good players. OK... call me an *******, but when you're a fan of a team that can't afford to dream about signing Demitra as you're only marquee player, things are a bit off.

And then you've got people who claim that the league is better if all the talent belongs to a few big market teams .

 

[i am dave]

My problem is that there will be the same 6 or 7 teams with a $60+ mil payroll, that will be setting the pay scale for 23 or 24 other teams. Granted, there won't be the big salary increases over the duration of the deal, but it doesn't change the current landscape of the league, nor does it account for the backlash the league will receive for the lockout. This isn't even about Edmonton anymore, as there will be next to no backlash against NHL hockey, and the team with a $35 mil payroll can at least break even.

I honestly disagree with the thought of a backlash. I don't think Canadians would ever backlash against hockey, and I don't think Americans care enough to do so. It's not like baseball where American fans felt betrayed by the cancellation of the World Series. The same fans and corporations who had their season tickets will renew. Whether or not they then show up, well, that's not really anybody's problem once the check is cashed!

 

[kerrly]

you just don't get it do you? ITS NOT ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE SHOW UP AT THE GAMES. we could stick all 30 teams up in canada, and besides toronto and montreal, where would the money come from? the owners are in this to make money...even those in the smaller markets. they couldn't care less about how many people show up at the games, as long as they're making money. professional sports are a business, and that's what this lockout is about- not evening out the quality of the teams.

Actually if you've listened to Gary Bettman, he has said many time that there needs to be a competitive balance throughout the league.

 

[bennysflyers16]

I think his point is only the rich by & large canafford marquee players under the current system, which was not the case in the Oilers hey day.
Furthurmore, "The owners have slowly been fixing that of late' . I have no idea what planet you have been on but obviously its not the one the NHL is on (unless by late you mean like, the last 3 months).

I the last 2 years, who has received a 9 million plus salary ?

 

[cneely]

I guarantee you, that you could take away all the American teams and have an all Canadian league, and it would survive just fine. Chicago, other than being an original six team, brings nothing to the league. Say what you want, but Canada is way more important to the existence of the league than you'd like to admit.

For sure.
I mean when the Nordiques left... Wait, nobody noticed...

But then when the Jets left... Oops. Nobody noticed again.

Still, I see your point...

 

[Dr Love]

Think of it this way. You are allowed (by some unimportant-to-this-scenario-entity) to spend a maximum of $1000 on payroll. As an employer, are you not going to find a way to maximize your production at the lowest cost? Exactly what success have the Rangers had in the Sather era of spending? '

Hear this now: With a luxury tax and salary cap, enter the era of sabermetrics to the NHL.

Which isn't sabremetrics, you're thinking of the simple philosophy of selling what the market overvalues and buying what it undervalues.

 

[i am dave]

Which isn't sabremetrics, you're thinking of the simple philosophy of selling what the market overvalues and buying what it undervalues.

Well, actually I hadn't made a case for sabremetrics. I just added that in there at the end.

 

[Anthony*]

is it even possible for sabremetrics to work with the nhl or hockey in general

 

[Wolfpack]

All valid points (except bringing up Green Bay opens up the "but they're owned by the public" can of worms). My question THEN becomes... if the Oilers (and just hear me out as I play devil's advocate) cannot compete with the US dollar, cannot generate the TV/radio revenue that other teams can, cannot charge more for their tickets, and now apparantly (from the sentiment in this thread) cannot reconcile the $12M difference between a $38M cap and a $50M cap (minus one player, granted), why do they then have the right to

a.) remain in Edmonton or
b.) remain in the League.

I think some people are getting the wrong impression of my stance. I am all for Canadian teams. I am much more for them than I am for warm weather teams. I just have a problem with having to service the lowest common denominator instead of meeting in the lower-end of the middle, which is what the rumors are stipulating.

Well, the Oilers have just as rich and successful a history as the Flyers (if not quite as long), and up until a decade or so ago they were making money and icing a team that had every chance of winning it all. Obviously something has gone wrong since then. And if it were only the Oilers that were suffering, then I would say that you are right, maybe they should be moved or folded. But there are 20 or so other teams suffering financial woes as well... not to mention their chances of winning the Stanley Cup are slim to none, since up until this past year it was only teams in the top 1/4 of the league in payroll that had won the Cup for a decade. If the Oilers don't deserve to be in the NHL then there are at least a dozen teams who don't deserve to be there either. That tells me that the system is seriously flawed and that providing a CBA designed to INCREASE payrolls doesn't make much sense.

 

[Dr Love]

is it even possible for sabremetrics to work with the nhl or hockey in general

Not in great detail (just like every other sport but baseball), but that is a topic for another day.

 

[DownFromNJ]

is it even possible for sabremetrics to work with the nhl or hockey in general

Only baseball statistics are accurate enough to really promote something like that.

 

[Bauer83]

I the last 2 years, who has received a 9 million plus salary ?

Pronger, Forsberg was offered 9+, and those are two off the top of my head.

 

[i am dave]

Didn't sabremetrics invent statistics to determine a player's value? I certainly think at least some sort of "cousin" to sabremetrics could be a possibility in the NHL. But if I ever hear about people talking about a 4th line winger's "win-shares" I might explode.

 

[CarlRacki]

My post suggest nothing of the kind, sport. It does suggest (once again ) that this CBA is about a lot more than punishing "those greedy players," and/or simply helping out the few financially challenged franchises like your's.

The Forbes report - lauded for its integrity by none other than Ted Saskin - states that 17 0f 30 NHL teams lost money last year. It also states that 15 of 30 lost money overall between 1997-98 and 2003-04.
To me, that seems more like a systemic problem than "a few financially challenged franchises."

 

[kerrly]

For sure.
I mean when the Nordiques left... Wait, nobody noticed...

But then when the Jets left... Oops. Nobody noticed again.

Still, I see your point...

Canadian fans have had enough. Get rid of all the Canadian teams then, and watch the league thrive down south. Good luck.

 

[oil slick]

Pronger, Forsberg was offered 9+, and those are two off the top of my head.

Belfour was 8 million

 

[i am dave]

The Forbes report - lauded for its integrity by none other than Ted Saskin - states that 17 0f 30 NHL teams lost money last year. It also states that 15 of 30 lost money overall between 1997-98 and 2003-04.
To me, that seems more like a systemic problem than "a few financially challenged franchises."

I caution you on the interpretation of this. There are many times in the business world where "lost money" means "we made a profit, but it was less than expected" or "we made money, but not as much as last year." I am NOT an expert.

 

[SuperNintendoChalmrs]

I noticed when the Quebec Nordiques left......it ended what had been a real ugly rivalry at times. The Nordiques were a great component of the old Adams division. Everyone loathed them.




Damn, that's when hockey was fun to watch.

 

[oil slick]

Canadian fans have had enough. Get rid of all the Canadian teams then, and watch the league thrive down south. Good luck.

Amen... I'm sick of this thread. If fans think they'll be involved in some kind of panacea league if the large markets can consistently sign all big named free agents, I say fine.

I have pointed out what has happened over the last 10 years in the NHL. I have pointed out the success of the NFL which is thriving by promoting a level playing field for weak market teams. Don't know what else to say.