Owners considering a new league...

[Brent Burns Beard]

yet when a player underperforms then where does that leave his value when he's got a guaranteed contract for 3 or more years?...

thats the point of a "contract" ....

why should we feel sorry for an owner who has to live up to a contract ? we expect the players to live up to a contract, even if they are underpaid (so to speak).

dr

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

would you play 9 mil/year for holik?, most GM's out there wouldn't, but sather wanted him that badly and he didn't want any competition

well, NJD and TOR both offered similar money. so what is it ? a players worth isnt determined by what another party is willing to pay ?

who are we to say what a guy is worth, Bobby Holik doesnt care what you get paid and doesnt tell your employer you are overpaid.

three teams lined up to pay Holikd 45 million dollars, doesnt that indicate thats how much he was worth at the time ?

its not rocket science, if the player wasnt worth it, shame on the people offering it. why should i feel sorry for a stupid owner who offers a player much more than he should. and if another GM gives in to a player using a Holik or LeClair comparable, shame on that GM for giving in.

sheesh ... this isnt health care, it doesnt have to be fair.

dr

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

...no player worth even close to 9 mil,

says who ? why draw the line at 9m, how about no player is worth 150,000 or 1,500,000 ?

seriously, i dont know what you do, but you are worth what your boss will agree to pay you and not a penny more or less. same with hockey players.

dr

 

[codswallop]

says who ? why draw the line at 9m, how about no player is worth 150,000 or 1,500,000 ?

seriously, i dont know what you do, but you are worth what your boss will agree to pay you and not a penny more or less. same with hockey players.

dr

These guys could make as much money as the can get for all I care, so long as the teams that pay them are able to remain a healthy part of this league. The unfortunate part is that hockey is, and never will be, a sport that can garner the finances of football or baseball. At some point, it does become about the actual dollars involved. In a strict sense, is it fair to restrict what they make? No, it isn't. But they are part of something larger than just themselves. The foundation for that larger entity is starting to erode, whether you believe it or not. If it does, which I believe it would in about five years on this present course, far worse problems will appear for players and owners alike. Losses of every kind would result for both sides. I have a feeling neither side wants that.

And unless you play in some professional sports league, it's not too fair to compare anyone to an NHL player in terms of how your relative worth is perceived. It's not static across industry lines (or even company lines). Far too many differences in far too many categories for such a blanket statement to be true. Again, I'd elaborate but there's too much to cover. I'd be nice if that were true but alas, 'tis not.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

The foundation for that larger entity is starting to erode, whether you believe it or not. If it does, which I believe it would in about five years on this present course,

ok, so lets go with your doomsday scenario and the league basically crashes in 5 years and shuts down.

does that mean the demand for Pro hockey dries up ? no, there will still be 25-30 markets that will support a pro hockey league. a new league will spring up, using the foundation of whatever is left of the NHL and the new league will correct the market.

dr

 

[djhn579]

ok, so lets go with your doomsday scenario and the league basically crashes in 5 years and shuts down.

does that mean the demand for Pro hockey dries up ? no, there will still be 25-30 markets that will support a pro hockey league. a new league will spring up, using the foundation of whatever is left of the NHL and the new league will correct the market.

dr

Is that supposed to be a better option than fixing the problems with the current league? A new league will not spring up over night.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Is that supposed to be a better option than fixing the problems with the current league? A new league will not spring up over night.

i didnt say it was a better option.

the best option would be to extend this CBA, start hockey in October and have the owners not offer more than they can afford.

although, the owners should take the players offer of a 5% roll back, lowered entry level contracts and reduced arbitration right (or zero).

dr

 

[codswallop]

ok, so lets go with your doomsday scenario and the league basically crashes in 5 years and shuts down.

does that mean the demand for Pro hockey dries up ? no, there will still be 25-30 markets that will support a pro hockey league. a new league will spring up, using the foundation of whatever is left of the NHL and the new league will correct the market.

dr

You get the point, except for the fact that the league would be a shell of what it once was. The salaries that the players covet now would merely be pipe dreams.

I don't buy everything the owners are saying either. I do believe that many of the 20 teams that claim to be losing money could still be viable businesses at the current level. Some of the owners could manage that. But there are some that simply can't, they just don't have the resources to keep with the current market. Those teams would fail, and that would be the disaster. In some other industries, I would say good riddance. If you can't keep pace, it's better for the rest that you'd go out of business. But in this industry, that actually hurts the remaining businesses.

One of the biggest factors of that is in how all the outside influences perceive the NHL and its teams. Failing businesses don't inspire a lot of confidence; TV, advertisers, fans, etc. You show these people that your league has trouble sustaining itself, there will be less buying into it. Trying to put the spin on it that a stream-lined league is better and more efficient than its bulky predecessor is just a mild form of damage control. Anyone with some intelligence and the ability to do a little research will see that the NHL or one of its teams is more of a liability. It's not perceived as an asset anymore, and that is where the hurt comes in. You may be able to build it up again, but there will be skepticism towards the product and that will definitely slow the growth. This isn't even Business 101, this is more common sense than anything else.

I'm sure the last thing the PA wants is less teams. That means less jobs. If this union really does represent all players, they will do whatever it takes to make sure all 30 teams stay in the league. Anything short of that is contradictory of their stated goals, which makes this current situation dangerous. Which makes me quite hesitant to believe that they will continue on this path. What I said above may not happen, but the chances of it are far greater on this road everyone is currently one. Why would they want to give this scenario even a chance to play out? It doesn't make enough sense to for me to believe what they're saying at the moment. These are smart men, I know they have thought of such a scenario and its part of their process right now.

If you look at this all one way, it's fairly simple. You look at it another way, it's overly-complex. It's all quite confusing. But easier to absorb if you keep your mind open to all the possibilities.

 

[Licentia]

if he wasnt worth what he was asking, why would 2 (or more) teams be willing to pay it ?dr

They are willing to pay it so that the player plays for them and not someone else. You can't win hockey games without good players. You can't have good players if you don't outbid the opposition for that player's services.

Teams like Edmonton can't get into bidding wars cause they will lose to teams like the New York Rangers who will offer more. Of course New York is going to offer more money to a given player, because that extra cash will make that player want to play for them instead of a team like Edmonton. Whether a player is only worth 2 million a year or not is pointless. If paying him 2.5 million will encourage the player to leave Edmonton (who can't offer more than 2 million) and join New York, then that is what New York will do. They would be stupid not to, because they would have failed to improve their team. When they sign the player, then New York is a better team for it, and they don't care cause they got the cash. However now the small market Edmonton Oilers are a worse team because of it. Then another player somewhere else expects more money because the player who signed with New York is earning 2.5 million so he thinks he should too. So player salaries go up. Is New York's GM the one to blame? No! He has to improve his team or he gets fired. He just happens to have a bigger cash reserve to draw on than Edmonton. He did what he had to do, but player's salaries around the league will go up because of it.

It's clearly not about "wanting or not wanting" to pay a player a certain amount. New York's GM doesn't "want" to pay the player 2.5 million. But if that's what it will take to improve his team then he will "HAVE" to do it, or else his job will be on the line. Edmonton's GM in this case would kind of "want" to pay 2.5 million to keep the player. But it's just not in the budget. So the small market teams suffer again, and the salaries go higher. It's a never ending cycle.

 

[thinkwild]

They are willing to pay it so that the player plays for them and not someone else. You can't win hockey games without good players. You can't have good players if you don't outbid the opposition for that player's services.

Who did Tampa Bay and Calgary have to outbid to get their good players. Are you saying they dont have good players. Clearly there is a better way to get good players, and that is to draft, develop, and trade for them before they get good.

You are upset because Edmonton cant buy enough good players. But thats exactly what is good. We dont want teams to be able to buy a cup. NYR and Tor have an advantage in that they can spend more than Edmonton, but the real way to develop a champion is to build it first. And it aint easy or quick. This is why the current marketplace created by this CBA is so great - you cant buy a champ. you must build it like everybody else.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

They are willing to pay it so that the player plays for them and not someone else. You can't win hockey games without good players. You can't have good players if you don't outbid the opposition for that player's services.

Teams like Edmonton can't get into bidding wars cause they will lose to teams like the New York Rangers who will offer more. Of course New York is going to offer more money to a given player, because that extra cash will make that player want to play for them instead of a team like Edmonton. Whether a player is only worth 2 million a year or not is pointless. If paying him 2.5 million will encourage the player to leave Edmonton (who can't offer more than 2 million) and join New York, then that is what New York will do. They would be stupid not to, because they would have failed to improve their team. When they sign the player, then New York is a better team for it, and they don't care cause they got the cash. However now the small market Edmonton Oilers are a worse team because of it. Then another player somewhere else expects more money because the player who signed with New York is earning 2.5 million so he thinks he should too. So player salaries go up. Is New York's GM the one to blame? No! He has to improve his team or he gets fired. He just happens to have a bigger cash reserve to draw on than Edmonton. He did what he had to do, but player's salaries around the league will go up because of it.

It's clearly not about "wanting or not wanting" to pay a player a certain amount. New York's GM doesn't "want" to pay the player 2.5 million. But if that's what it will take to improve his team then he will "HAVE" to do it, or else his job will be on the line. Edmonton's GM in this case would kind of "want" to pay 2.5 million to keep the player. But it's just not in the budget. So the small market teams suffer again, and the salaries go higher. It's a never ending cycle.

what players have EDM lost by being outbid for by a team like NYR, TOR, DET or PHI (or other big spender) ?

Petr Nedved ? Surely you arent saying a team in the desert has the resources to pay hockey players that a team in the heartland of hockey doesnt ?

Doug Weight ? Surely you arent saying that STL is any better off or that EDM is any worse off because they couldnt afford to pay him 8m ?

MA Bergeron ? Oh wait, didnt they just sign him yesterday to a long term deal that escalates to almost 2m in the last year of the deal. If EDM is so *poor* why are they giving losers like Bergeron huge deals. Why should I feel sorry for their poor managment decisions.

So anyhow, instead of giving us the cliche "NYR can pay more than EDM", why dont you actually show us even ONE example of where EDM lost a player and was worse off for it.

Why dont you show us where the ability to pay players has helped anyone win a cup. DET can pay its players, but the core of that team was drafted. COL can pay its players, but the core of that team was drafted. TBY, nope. NJD, nope. The big spenders, PHI, TOR, and NYR havent one anything in decades. Big markets like BOS, CHI and LAK havent won anything in decades.

Small markets like MIN, CRL, ANA, BUF, WSH, CGY, TBY & OTT have more collective playoff success than any of the big spenders.

So what is it ? I dont see how money has helped anyone win.

DR

 

[Licentia]

Who did Tampa Bay and Calgary have to outbid to get their good players. Are you saying they dont have good players. Clearly there is a better way to get good players, and that is to draft, develop, and trade for them before they get good.

You are upset because Edmonton cant buy enough good players. But thats exactly what is good. We dont want teams to be able to buy a cup. NYR and Tor have an advantage in that they can spend more than Edmonton, but the real way to develop a champion is to build it first. And it aint easy or quick. This is why the current marketplace created by this CBA is so great - you cant buy a champ. you must build it like everybody else.

?? What does this have to do with anything? Will Edmonton be able to keep those good players they draft? Eventually those good players will leave to sign big contracts elsewhere. Gretzky is the perfect example.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

. Gretzky is the perfect example.

lol ... the owner in EDM put 15,000,000 dollars in his pocket by trading Gretzky.

dr

 

[Licentia]

what players have EDM lost by being outbid for by a team like NYR, TOR, DET or PHI (or other big spender) ?

Petr Nedved ? Surely you arent saying a team in the desert has the resources to pay hockey players that a team in the heartland of hockey doesnt ?

Yes, because of the American dollar compared to the Canadian dollar.

Doug Weight ? Surely you arent saying that STL is any better off or that EDM is any worse off because they couldnt afford to pay him 8m ?

Arguing with you is pointless because you are blind to the obvious. How doesn't Edmonton hurt losing Doug Weight? He was their franchise guy. He was what the fans came to see. He would be great playing beside Ryan Smyth right now. Gosh, Edmonton didn't even make the playoffs this year. How can you possibly say Doug Weight wouldn't help them? Yes Edmonton is worse off not having Doug Weight. The point is they couldn't pay him the money he wanted, so he's gone and Edmonton missed the playoffs. The fans suffer because of it too.

Edmonton would be better off paying Weight 8 million if they could, because that would make the fans happy, and make the team more competitive. But since Edmonton can't pay that much, and teams like Edmonton can't pay that much, then we need a salary cap so that those small market teams have an equal playing ground. 8 million is too much to pay for Doug Weight. I can say that!!! Why? Because the NHL cannot survive as a 30 team league paying out those kind of salaries. That's how we can say a player is being payed "too much."

MA Bergeron ? Oh wait, didnt they just sign him yesterday to a long term deal that escalates to almost 2m in the last year of the deal. If EDM is so *poor* why are they giving losers like Bergeron huge deals. Why should I feel sorry for their poor managment decisions.?

Bergeron? I guess that's what Edmonton had to pay so that the kid won't strike. If players are FA's they will sign elsewhere. If they are RFA's they will strike. Either way, the fans and team performance hurts, if the player won't/can't pay.

So anyhow, instead of giving us the cliche "NYR can pay more than EDM", why dont you actually show us even ONE example of where EDM lost a player and was worse off for it.

Edmonton lost Gretzky. That's the answer to that question.

Why dont you show us where the ability to pay players has helped anyone win a cup. DET can pay its players, but the core of that team was drafted. COL can pay its players, but the core of that team was drafted. TBY, nope. NJD, nope. The big spenders, PHI, TOR, and NYR havent one anything in decades. Big markets like BOS, CHI and LAK havent won anything in decades.

So what if the core of Detroit is drafted. That is irrelevant. If Detroit couldn't afford to pay players like Lidstrom $10 million a year then he would be gone, and Detroit wouldn't be a contender every year.

Small markets like MIN, CRL, ANA, BUF, WSH, CGY, TBY & OTT have more collective playoff success than any of the big spenders.

Yes, but as Gary Bettman said, only the big market cities can remain contenders year in year out. Many of those teams above didn't make the playoffs the season after they had their great playoff run. Look at Calgary, they already lost their second most important player in last years playoff run in Craig Conroy. If Calgary had $3+ million to throw at him they'd have gotten him back. But because they lost him, they are going to be a weaker team.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Look at Calgary, they already lost their second most important player in last years playoff run in Craig Conroy. If Calgary had $3+ million to throw at him they'd have gotten him back. But because they lost him, they are going to be a weaker team.

well here is the thing. you cant cry the players make too much money and then say that the teams are hard done by when the decide they dont want to pay a player too much. edit: CGY didnt try to resign him, the didnt want him back.

link:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040903.wduha3/BNStory/Sports/

" I was disappointed Calgary didn't do anything. The writing was on the wall there. They were going in a different direction. Now, they've got (Daymond) Langkow and some other guys, so they must have had a plan in place"

Craig Conroy is overpaid at 3m. CGY should be congratulated for letting him go, not felt sorry for.

Why pay a guy more than he is worth ?

DR

 

[Licentia]

Why pay a guy more than he is worth ? DR

It has already been explained to you why teams pay a guy more than he is worth.

They are willing to pay it so that the player plays for them and not someone else. You can't win hockey games without good players. You can't have good players if you don't outbid the opposition for that player's services.

Teams like Edmonton can't get into bidding wars cause they will lose to teams like the New York Rangers who will offer more. Of course New York is going to offer more money to a given player, because that extra cash will make that player want to play for them instead of a team like Edmonton. Whether a player is only worth 2 million a year or not is pointless. If paying him 2.5 million will encourage the player to leave Edmonton (who can't offer more than 2 million) and join New York, then that is what New York will do. They would be stupid not to, because they would have failed to improve their team. When they sign the player, then New York is a better team for it, and they don't care cause they got the cash. However now the small market Edmonton Oilers are a worse team because of it. Then another player somewhere else expects more money because the player who signed with New York is earning 2.5 million so he thinks he should too. So player salaries go up. Is New York's GM the one to blame? No! He has to improve his team or he gets fired. He just happens to have a bigger cash reserve to draw on than Edmonton. He did what he had to do, but player's salaries around the league will go up because of it.

It's clearly not about "wanting or not wanting" to pay a player a certain amount. New York's GM doesn't "want" to pay the player 2.5 million. But if that's what it will take to improve his team then he will "HAVE" to do it, or else his job will be on the line. Edmonton's GM in this case would kind of "want" to pay 2.5 million to keep the player. But it's just not in the budget. So the small market teams suffer again, and the salaries go higher. It's a never ending cycle.

 

[Licentia]

Craig Conroy is overpaid at 3m. CGY should be congratulated for letting him go, not felt sorry for.DR

Weren't you the one saying that we shouldn't judge how much a player is worth? What are you doing now?

says who ? why draw the line at 9m, how about no player is worth 150,000 or 1,500,000 ?

seriously, i dont know what you do, but you are worth what your boss will agree to pay you and not a penny more or less. same with hockey players.

dr

Great, Calgary's management should get a medal. The team will not have the success they did last year, and the fans lost a favorite player. Way to go Calgary!

Now the LA Kings will be a better team. That's okay. They paid more for Conroy than Calgary would be able to. The LA GM will get to keep his job because he improved the team. The Kings can spend what they want because there is no salary cap, so they pay whatever they can.

This is not a system that works for all teams.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Weren't you the one saying that we shouldn't judge how much a player is worth? What are you doing now?



Great, Calgary's management should get a medal. The team will not have the success they did last year, and the fans lost a favorite player. Way to go Calgary!

Now the LA Kings will be a better team. That's okay. They paid more for Conroy than Calgary would be able to. The LA GM will get to keep his job because he improved the team. The Kings can spend what they want because there is no salary cap, so they pay whatever they can.

This is not a system that works for all teams.

right .. so big market LAK is better for signing Conroy and letting Palffy go ?

whats your point ? teams make player personel decisions, sometimes it means cutting salary. why should we care ?

dr

 

[Licentia]

right .. so big market LAK is better for signing Conroy and letting Palffy go ?

whats your point ? teams make player personel decisions, sometimes it means cutting salary. why should we care ?

dr

We've already shot down all of your arguments, yet you keep dancing around throwing them back at us.

Because some teams have to cut more salary than others.

Then teams are less competitive because of it.

It's not an even playing field.

 

[Licentia]

right .. so big market LAK is better for signing Conroy and letting Palffy go ?

whats your point ? teams make player personel decisions, sometimes it means cutting salary. why should we care ?

dr

What's your point ? Teams can make player personal decisions, sometimes meaning cutting salaries, and they can do it all under a cap so that everyone has equality financially. They can do just as you say under a cap, so why not let every team have an equal chance rather than give some teams a better chance with less salary to cut.

 

[garry1221]

right .. so big market LAK is better for signing Conroy and letting Palffy go ?

whats your point ? teams make player personel decisions, sometimes it means cutting salary. why should we care ?

dr

1. has it been said that palffy definitely won't be back in a kings jersey next year?, just asking cause i haven't heard anything on it in awhile

2. point is the market is skewed to the players complete advantage, no matter if a team caves to a player's original demands or not, chances are better than not that a player who's a fan fav/star on a smaller market team won't be there much longer after his contract runs out because the smaller market can't pay what he's asking for... no matter if his demands aren't met, there's still a better than not chance that what he settles for would still be too high for the smaller market club

3. why should we care?.. so you're saying you wouldn't give a damn if you're favorite team lost all it's younger stars because they got greedy and demanded way too much money and your fav. team couldn't even possibly afford what they are asking?

 

[Licentia]

3. why should we care?.. so you're saying you wouldn't give a damn if you're favorite team lost all it's younger stars because they got greedy and demanded way too much money and your fav. team couldn't even possibly afford what they are asking?

That's the reason why I don't understand any fan being on the NHLPA's side. Unless of course you are a Detroit fan. Then you want the current CBA. But that is a selfish perspective. I'm a Habs fan. The Habs would have to cut salary to get down to the salary cap, but that's fine. I am more worried about 30 strong teams rather than my own team being strong.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

3. why should we care?.. so you're saying you wouldn't give a damn if you're favorite team lost all it's younger stars because they got greedy and demanded way too much money and your fav. team couldn't even possibly afford what they are asking?

yes, if VAN decided they did not want to pay Bertuzzi, Naslund, Jovo or whoever, I wouldnt cry one bit.

the fact is, a young star has no leverage, so why give in unless you CHOOSE TO for your own good reasons. the Canucks are not caving into the Sedins demand for an extra few hundred thousand and I support that 100%. you cant have it both ways. if the teams are crying poor, then DONT OFFER THE CONTRACTS YOU CANT AFFORD !!!

dr

 

[garry1221]

yes, if VAN decided they did not want to pay Bertuzzi, Naslund, Jovo or whoever, I wouldnt cry one bit.

the fact is, a young star has no leverage, so why give in unless you CHOOSE TO for your own good reasons. the Canucks are not caving into the Sedins demand for an extra few hundred thousand and I support that 100%. you cant have it both ways. if the teams are crying poor, then DONT OFFER THE CONTRACTS YOU CANT AFFORD !!!

dr

this has already been gone over 1000 times here so i'll just say, if it were that simple then the league wouldn't have the problems it's having now. there would be 30 strong competitive teams and the season would be as exciting as the playoffs since everyone would have an equal oportunity to make the playoffs

That's the reason why I don't understand any fan being on the NHLPA's side. Unless of course you are a Detroit fan. Then you want the current CBA. But that is a selfish perspective. I'm a Habs fan. The Habs would have to cut salary to get down to the salary cap, but that's fine. I am more worried about 30 strong teams rather than my own team being strong.

as a detroit fan im not even on the pa's side, the current cba has done well for us in the past few years yes, but i'd rather see a healthy complete league, than one where going into the season the whole league knows detroit are huge contenders, yes it's nice, but i'd rather see some serious competition out there

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

this has already been gone over 1000 times here so i'll just say, if it were that simple then the league wouldn't have the problems it's having now. there would be 30 strong competitive teams and the season would be as exciting as the playoffs since everyone would have an equal oportunity to make the playoffs



as a detroit fan im not even on the pa's side, the current cba has done well for us in the past few years yes, but i'd rather see a healthy complete league, than one where going into the season the whole league knows detroit are huge contenders, yes it's nice, but i'd rather see some serious competition out there

first off .. why does each season have to start with every team having an equal opportunity to make the playoffs. for starters, 14 teams will not make hte playoffs. for seconds, some teams are in a rebuilding phase and finally others just dont deserve to be in the playoffs due to their poor managing.

secondly, it is as simple as not paying more than you can afford. if the Canucks dont want to pay the Sedins, what choice do the Sedins have ? play in Sweden ? ok, see ya. VAN took a stand with Schaefer and didnt pay him more than they wanted too and they can do it with the Sedins too.

its simple if you have balls. its simple if you dont give a rats ass what other teams do and only worry about managing your team. if hte player has leverage (arbitration or pending UFA) then so be it. make a business decision and walk away from the player. it wont hurt you to replace a guy who can command 4m with a young guy who makes 900k. really it wont.

dr