WC Handy*
Guest
signaliinoise said:It is a fallacy that more money equates to a better team.
More money doesn't equate to a better team, but there's no denying that it provides an advantage.
signaliinoise said:It is a fallacy that more money equates to a better team.
WC Handy said:More money doesn't equate to a better team, but there's no denying that it provides an advantage.
The Messenger said:Okay then why are you so surprized at the results and questioning the fact that concessions are being made by the NHLPA.....................
..............................................................................
Once the new CBA is in place Pro-PA supporters will be able to say .. I TOLD YOU SO .. for years to come should the NHL prevail in this battle .. and the results of the predictions of above come true ..
Since 1998, the Eastern Conference has always been represented either by the New Jersey Devils or a low revenue team. And the Devils aren't even close to being one of the high revenue teams in the conference.slats432 said:No, but if a team that is a low revenue team ALWAYS made the playoffs, the PA apologists would at least have some validity to their point....but the one run from Carolina or Buffalo or Calgary really doesn't hold much weight.
Drury_Sakic said:First... addressing the magent issue....
Magnet
*giggles*
I just like to say that word... comic relief...
The reason behind the NFL and NBA's teams all aproaching or being at their cap is that both league make almost enough through their TV deals to GET to their respective caps..Most of those teams spend up to their caps because they can afford to..
The NHL will NEVER get more than an Average of 2-5 million dollars PER TEAM from a TV deal in the short term(5-7 years)....
Thus why only the teams that can afford it(Avs, Rangers, Stars, Wings, Philly, Ext) would do it in the NHL... Calgary, as a case study, has had a lot of good players part due to money issues... If you were to place a 45 million cap on the Flames...Would the payroll change? NO...
Another reason you have seen the NBA and NFL teams all get closer to Cap levels is because of revenue sharing. Unless the NHL has a revenue sharing plan that makes SURE 100% that all teams can spend up to the cap, it won't EVER happen.
Granted.... I think over the 8 year term(thats whats being talked about) teams would get closer to the cap(in theory). Inflation would be a big factor.... Hopefully the league will become healthy again, which would mean more profits for all involved, and bigger payrolls as teams have more money to spend.. Plus I think in General hockey is entering an era of new Fans, Players, and Growth. Teams in weak markets will move to stronger markets..ext...ext.... but that will happen over time...
I would not be shocked to see more teams at around 38-40 million(if the cap is say 45) by the end of the 8 years...thats just the nature of things..... but you will still have teams just "gettting by" at 25-30 million...
Drury_Sakic said:First... addressing the magent issue....
Magnet
*giggles*
I just like to say that word... comic relief...
The reason behind the NFL and NBA's teams all aproaching or being at their cap is that both league make almost enough through their TV deals to GET to their respective caps..Most of those teams spend up to their caps because they can afford to..
The NHL will NEVER get more than an Average of 2-5 million dollars PER TEAM from a TV deal in the short term(5-7 years)....
Thus why only the teams that can afford it(Avs, Rangers, Stars, Wings, Philly, Ext) would do it in the NHL... Calgary, as a case study, has had a lot of good players part due to money issues... If you were to place a 45 million cap on the Flames...Would the payroll change? NO...
Another reason you have seen the NBA and NFL teams all get closer to Cap levels is because of revenue sharing. Unless the NHL has a revenue sharing plan that makes SURE 100% that all teams can spend up to the cap, it won't EVER happen.
Granted.... I think over the 8 year term(thats whats being talked about) teams would get closer to the cap(in theory). Inflation would be a big factor.... Hopefully the league will become healthy again, which would mean more profits for all involved, and bigger payrolls as teams have more money to spend.. Plus I think in General hockey is entering an era of new Fans, Players, and Growth. Teams in weak markets will move to stronger markets..ext...ext.... but that will happen over time...
I would not be shocked to see more teams at around 38-40 million(if the cap is say 45) by the end of the 8 years...thats just the nature of things..... but you will still have teams just "gettting by" at 25-30 million...
R0CKET said:Seriously, I mean wise up pal!
The first offer was you cited was before the season would have started. Don't even begin to try this as some kind of offer , knowing how Don Goodenow works this, was all BS. I mean how many proposals do you want to go back to before during any prior talks for the last 2 years? This season should have began AFTER that 1 POS craposal. Its not relevant at all.
What the other crap says is that they found a way to talk the same offer in several different ways that all pretty much would have arrived at the same end...assurance that the 70% gravy train will go on for the long haul. You know its one of those 6 of one half a dozen of the other "deals".
Only a chump would actually be taken to think they would have resulted in something different.
You may see them as "formal proposed offers" but they are only BS designed to satisfy the idiots that believe these liars words and provide no way to hold them to accountability.
Words are cheap.
R0CKET said:So I noticed you're kinda mum about the Wayne and Mario "deal"?? It had the same bona-fide validity as the rest of their "proposals" but you seem to have conveniently omitted it? Their BS "negotiations" are meaningless.
cw7 said:Teams wouldn't automatically spend up to the cap number, if it were at the $42M NHL offer or the $49M PA offer. Pretty obvious that some just aren't capable or willing to. But it will pull salaries upward, that's just part of the nature of the market.
The NHL exhibits many distinctive properties of an oligopolistic market. The business decisions of one entity (advertising/marketing, salaries, etc) are directly related to what their competitors do. In other words, you have to closely watch what the competition is doing and adjust your strategy accordingly. If you don't, you'll get left behind in a big damn hurry.
Every team, every year will not spend up to the limit. Like you alluded to, some just don't have the revenue streams to pull that off. But teams will get closer and closer to that cap as time goes on, that's what the market will dictate. Of course, they could keep to a low budget and hope to get lucky one year but that's part of the problem right now. One that can be corrected (or at least helped) by a more balanced economic system.
Don't know about you, but it looks like a magnet to me. Maybe not one that instantly pulls everyone to the top, but definitely one that will pull everyone upward in the near future.
WC Handy said:2. If you're lucky enough to sign a player for the league minimum that eventually turns into a Hart trophy winner and are able to pick up a goalie for next to nothing because he's holding out, you just might be able to win a Cup with a low payroll.
gc2005 said:For payroll to hit 70% of $2.1 billion under this proposal the average team salary would have to be $49 million. How do you think that is going to happen with a $49 million salary cap?
PecaFan said:Nope. Remember, it's player costs in the offers, not just salaries. With an average salary per team of just $40 million in 03/04, player costs hit the 75% mark.
WC Handy said:2. If you're lucky enough to sign a player for the league minimum that eventually turns into a Hart trophy winner and are able to pick up a goalie for next to nothing because he's holding out, you just might be able to win a Cup with a low payroll.
gc2005 said:Wait a minute, I thought the absence of a salary cap was supposed to drive salaries up. Now a salary cap is going to pull salaries upward?
gc2005 said:Nope, NHLPA has never used the term "player costs", their cap proposals have been payroll. There's no rule saying they have to make proposals based on "player costs" just because the NHL wants it that way.
So if you really want to include player costs in the 70%, then take $2.2 million off the $49 million average.
Levitt didn't do 2003-04, so I'm not sure where you're getting 75% there. Revenues for that year are pegged at $2.1 billion. And average salary was $44.0 million in 03/04, not $40 million.
PecaFan said:So the difference between the players offer ($46.8) and last season ($44) is $2.8 million per team. Which pretty much proves his argument. That player's offer is one player or arbitration award from being right back at the 70% range, and it's a far cry from the 54% the owners need just to break even.
PecaFan said:No, there's no rule, but R0cket was clearly talking about from the NHL side, which does include it. So the adjustments need to be made.
Giving us $46.8 million.
I was just talking in averages and approximations, rather than specifics right now, so I just did 1.2 billion / 30 teams.
So the difference between the players offer ($46.8) and last season ($44) is $2.8 million per team. Which pretty much proves his argument. That player's offer is one player or arbitration award from being right back at the 70% range, and it's a far cry from the 54% the owners need just to break even.
signaliinoise said:No... I dispute that.
Smart management provides the advantage.
WC Handy said:Dispute it all you want. It won't make me less right. Smart management with $60M will do better than equally smart management with $35M every single time. Dumb management with $60M will do better than equally dumb management with $35M every time. But here's the real kicker... Often times dumb management with $60M will do better than smart management with $35M (See: Blues, St Louis).
signaliinoise said:That's a straw man. Show me equally smart management in those two budgets. If all levels of management are equally smart and equally good, the one with more money to spend has a slight edge -- but the smart management also is not going to keep spending to the upper limit of the cap. He'll stop when he has his team. Part of smart is not spending for the sake of spending.
I'll admit, I don't know a damned thing about the Blues -- they've never interested me enough to pay attention. However, if you tell me what you're getting at with that reference, I'll read it.
As an aside: why is everyone so hot and bothered about chasing parity. Parity is boring. Parity opens the door to homogeny. Isn't watching David beat Goliath a big chunk of the appeal of sport?
Economics are only one factor that leads to disparity. If you really want to chase parity so much, then go whole hog. No one should be able to have better trainers than the other teams. No one should be better conditioned. No one should have better personnel evaluation or development. No Scotty Bowmans behind the bench. No Lamariellos, Burkes or Lombardis in the front office. Any of these things can give an (unfair||competitive) advantage. I think there's more of a direct corellation between just about any of these to success, than there is a corellation between budget-size and success.
This is supposed to be the ultimate team sport. Everyone is supposed to give their all ... if their 'all' includes more talent in management, better systems on ice or a fatter wallet, then that's what they should use. No two teams are the same, as it should be.
Honestly -- don't you get just the teensiest bit of schadenfreude out of seeing the high-spending Rangers stink on ice year after year? Or watching Bobby Clarke fall just shy of a cup run year after year? Watching the Leafs buy up every coffin-dodging superstar, and still not close the deal? Why curtail your own enjoyment of the game? Honestly, if you force these teams to spend more wisely, they will get better -- they will hoist the cup.
WC Handy said:Contrary to popular belief, parity is not something pro-owner people want. Nobody wants to see a league full of .500 teams. What people want is a system where a team has an equal chance to field a competitive team as every other team. A system where Florida fans and Edmonton fans feel like their team has a shot to be competitive over a number of years.
Are there fans that like to see certain teams lose? Certainly. But chosing between that and increasing the chances of my team winning the Cup (if I'm a small market team fan) is quite easy.
WC Handy said:A slight edge? Have you watched hockey over the last 10 years? The high spending teams with smart management have won all but one Cup since 1993. The low spending teams with smart management have ONE Cup since 1993. Correct me if I'm wrong, but has a team with a top 5 payroll other than the Rangers missed the playoffs over the past decade? These are things you simply cannot ignore. Money clearly gives an advantage.
gc2005 said:$2,100 Revenue x 54% = $1,134 player costs
Operating costs = $800 (based on NHL projections for 2004-05)
PROFIT = $166 million
signaliinoise said:The Devils aren't a huge-spending team.
The past couple of seasons have shown that the Stars don't have the most brilliant managent -- if anything, they rode Hitchcock's coaching system, and ended up facing a much inferior team in te finals (my Sabres). Hitchcock moved on to an even more high-spending team, and hasn't gotten a whiff of the finals since.
The Avalanche -- I don't think qualify as being smart management. On the contrary, their success was built on the Lindros deal -- a savvy move, sure, but what have they done lately? Turning Drury into Morris into Gratton is not the mark of brilliance. Probably their biggest deal last season was Battaglia for Konowalchuk, which was more a courtesy Washington showed to their former captain than anything else (does anyone really believe that was a hockey decision or even a financial decision on Washington's part?) Colorado does seem to develop their players well, though (Tanguay & Hejduk will keep them set up for a while).
Is it possible that each of these teams continues to be successful in part because success is a self-fulfilling prophecy? Aren't players attracted to teams that they perceive as being close to a cup? If you're a UFA player, do you take the $4M from the Sabres or the $4M from the Avalanche? As a player, how much is contention worth? If I'm a UFA, I'd take $3.5M from Ottawa over $4M from Carolina.
The Oilers do contend every year. So do the Senators. So do the Devils. The Canadiens. The Flames and Lightning will be there for the next few years. Hell, even my Sabres are on the cusp of the playoffs with a pocketchange budget.
I don't think that UFA signings are a panacea for sucking -- I think developing your players, finding chemistry and honing your system and skills is the way to go.