Pats-Eagles SB:NHL's dream match-up

Status
Not open for further replies.

Prof_it

Registered User
Sep 2, 2004
152
0
Cawz said:
Please note the words in bold, and comment on your comparison.


I may be wrong, but I think Trottier is trying to point out that there has been a fair degree of competition under both labor agreements.
 

Cawz

Registered User
Sep 18, 2003
14,372
3
Oiler fan in Calgary
Visit site
O_Oglethorpe said:
I may be wrong, but I think Trottier is trying to point out that there has been a fair degree of competition under both labor agreements.
But the point of the thread is to contradict the doomsayers that say that under a cap, dynastys wont exist and that 2 different random teams will play for the big prize every year. I don’t understand the comparison between the initial post, and teams that are arguably “Cinderella†teams
 

Prof_it

Registered User
Sep 2, 2004
152
0
Cawz said:
But the point of the thread is to contradict the doomsayers that say that under a cap, dynastys wont exist and that 2 different random teams will play for the big prize every year. I don’t understand the comparison between the initial post, and teams that are arguably “Cinderella†teams

I understand...i've never really bought into the idea that you can't have dynasties because of an economic system. But the idea that the labor fight is about competitive parity is a little silly...it's about dollars and cents.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
Trottier said:
True.

And Calgary/TB, Anaheim, Carolina and Buffalo (read: "poor, poor teams who cannot spend like the big boys and have no chance of competing" :cry: :speechles ) making recent Stanley Cup Finals runs totally counter to Bettman's competition propaganda, which some swallow fully.

How odd that you and your ilk ignore or humorously bypass those examples. ("But those are just exceptions! Cinderellas!" :speechles )

Fact is, a deep, vast level of competition is found in both the current NHL and the NFL. To bring forth select facts without providing the entire picture is...disingenuous.

70% of Stanley Cups during the previous CBA have been won by teams with Top5 budget. A fact.

During the previous CBA, Carolina made it past round 2 ONLY ONCE. They missed the play-offs completely 4 times during the 7 years .

Mighty Ducks made it past round 2 ONLY ONCE during the last CBA, they missed the play-offs completely 8 times during that time.

Tampa Bay made it past round 2 ONLY ONCE during the last CBA, they missed the play-offs completely 8 times during that time.

Calgary Flames made it past round 2 ONLY ONCE during the last CBA. They missed the play-offs completely 7 times during that time.

Buffalo Sabres made it past round 2 ONLY TWICE during the last CBA. They missed the play-offs completely 4 times during that time.

Notice a trend here? Those teams as you mentioned as great examples of the parity in this league have had 47 chances between them to get past round 2, they succeeded 6 times, that's 12.8% success rate for you mathematically lazy people.

During the same time, those teams missed the play-offs 31 times. Or 66% of the time.

Maybe you should get some other teams to prove your point...
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Thunderstruck said:
Yes PRETEND. The PA wants reveue sharing simply to increase the supply of money, causing inflation and thus increasing their share of the pie.

I'd like to see them argue why they deserve a higher % and stop PRETENDING that they care about how the owners find the money to pay them the share they have promised.

Why would the supply of money increase? How would their be inflation? Revenue sharing simply means shifting some of the revenue from big markets to small markets in order to level the playing field to a certain extent. Where are you getting that extra money will be created? This isn't a luxury tax, it's a revenue sharing process. I think the most important thing, more important than a cap or a auto-profit for owners, is that the difference between revenues from the biggest market to the smallest market is minimized. Revenue sharing does this.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
Pepper said:
70% of Stanley Cups during the previous CBA have been won by teams with Top5 budget. A fact.

Maybe you should get some other teams to prove your point...

First, let me know what percentages would appease you and other purveyors of socialistic re-engineering of results/outcomes.

We'll even make sure that your team "gets to win" a Cup every so often, just to make you especially happy! ;)

Cawz said:
But the point of the thread is to contradict the doomsayers that say that under a cap, dynastys wont exist and that 2 different random teams will play for the big prize every year. I don’t understand the comparison between the initial post, and teams that are arguably “Cinderella†teams

Cawz, guess what? The Patriots indeed debunk the position of those of us who contend that sustained success will be virtually impossible to achieve under a cap. I admit that. There are numerous examples, however of teams that were here today, gone tomorrow, in the modern NFL, e.g., Tampa Bay ('02), Oakland ('02), Baltimore ('00), NJG ('00). Cindrellas? No less than Carolina, Anaheim, etc. Point is, the pro-hardcappers can't have it both ways. There are examples of teams that sustain success in both leagues and teams that make singular championship runs. And some of the same people who childishly rip NJD, Colorado and the Wings for running superior franchises that constantly contend are holding up the Patriots as a shining example of management brilliance...simply because they do it under different economic system?! Hypocrisy.

Most funny of all, this has nothing to do with why a hardcap is being debated between owners and players (i.e., in the real world of CBA negotiations)...and everything to do with the hope of fans of poorer teams to find their own "quick fix" for actually becoming respectable.
 
Last edited:

SENSible1*

Guest
nyr7andcounting said:
Why would the supply of money increase? How would their be inflation? Revenue sharing simply means shifting some of the revenue from big markets to small markets in order to level the playing field to a certain extent. Where are you getting that extra money will be created? This isn't a luxury tax, it's a revenue sharing process. I think the most important thing, more important than a cap or a auto-profit for owners, is that the difference between revenues from the biggest market to the smallest market is minimized. Revenue sharing does this.

The PA could care less if the owner from Nashville makes a profit or loss.

They want the profit money from the big markets in his hands so that he can spend it on his roster, thus creating inflation and raising their share of the pot.

This dispute is about money. The PA is using this smokescreen to hide the fact that they want more money in play, thus increasing their share.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Trottier said:
Cawz, guess what? The Patriots indeed debunk the position of those of us who contend that sustained success will be virtually impossible to achieve under a cap. I admit that. There are numerous examples, however of teams that were here today, gone tomorrow, in the modern NFL, e.g., Tampa Bay ('02), Oakland ('02), Baltimore ('00), NJG ('00). Cindrellas?

Well, let's deal with facts a little, shall we.
Oakland has fallen on hard times post-Super Bowl, but before that they won three straight division champiionships, made two out of three AFC Championships and would have been to a third if not for a bad call on a snowy night outside Boston. That's hardly "here today, gone tomorrow."
Prior to their Super Bowl win, Tampa had been to the playoffs five out of six years, going 60-36 in that time. Again, hard to qualify that as a flash in the pan.
Baltimore went to the playoffs two of the three seasons since their Super Bowl win.

Pats managment deserves more credit because they work under a system that aims to level the playing field, that prevents them from spending more than their opponents and that allows free agents to leave sooner.
The Wings, Avalanche and, to a lesser extent, New Jersey have been able to sustain their success largely by increasing their payrolls to levels many, if not most, of the league's teams cannot afford.
 

Vomiting Kermit*

Guest
Go Flames Go said:
If Jarome Iginla is making 5 Million one season, and then 8 the next Sutter could go up to him we have targeted a few players in free agency but we don't have the cap space then okay, lets take that 3 million back load it and we give you some interest on that amount.
What if Iginla goes Lawyer Milloy on Sutter's ass and gets released, only to sign with a rival team so he can watch his former team become champions again? :D
 

Go Flames Go*

Guest
York16 said:
What if Iginla goes Lawyer Milloy on Sutter's ass and gets released, only to sign with a rival team so he can watch his former team become champions again? :D

Iginla is a flame for life.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
CarlRacki said:
The Wings, Avalanche and, to a lesser extent, New Jersey have been able to sustain their success largely by increasing their payrolls to levels many, if not most, of the league's teams cannot afford.

:cry:

"Facts", eh? :speechles

Let's watch your team draft and trade as shrewdly as those model franchises. Then we'll all sit back and have the nerve (read: lack of respect) to rip them. How dare you minimize the decade-long management accomplishments of Lamariello, Lacroix and Holland? Geez, run a rotisserie team and suddenly one thinks that sustaining success is simply a matter of throwing money around. :joker:

The players are all replaceable (according to some of your ilk) and now the GMs who win are just beneficiaries of their budget? :speechles

Pitiful and petty. But common laments of the common fan (of non-winners).

Ps - Since you twisted my remarks, here goes: each of the aforementioned NFL teams disappeared from playoff contention immediately after appearing in the Super Bowl. Get it?

:dunce:
 
Last edited:

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Trottier said:

A little too much to drink tonight Trots? Rough day at work? The Old Lady giving you a hard time?
Who'd have thought being proven wrong would have such an effect on you.

Oh well, when you can't argue facts (or refute the ones I state), tossing out insults is always a fine alternative. :shakehead
 

Coffey77

Registered User
Mar 12, 2002
3,340
0
Visit site
detroit, Colorado and NJ have higher payrolls but they ALSO have good to great management. Money allows teams to:

1. Be able to make more mistakes than poor teams and get away with it more (eg. Uwe Krupp signing.)
2. Allows you to keep your star players. Many of the 3 main culprits have expensive players that are HOMEGROWN or acquired through trades or transactions that weren't buyout trades.
Detroit: Lidstrom, Yzerman, Fedorov (Anaheim now)
Colorado: Forsberg, Sakic, Foote, Roy (now retired)
NJ:Stevens, Niedermayer, Brodeur
3. Does allow you to add UFA players. If UFA players are added to supplement what you have then it could work out great like Detroit. If the UFA guys are the core of the team it may not, like the Rangers.
4. Those 3 teams draft really well. It's part luck of course but seeing the same teams do it over and over again there has to be some skill involved. Either those youngsters become part of their NHL roster or used as assets to get other players.

I suspect that even in a cap world similar to NFL or NBA that those 3 teams would still do better than most of the other teams. Not as good as they would be under the current system but they won't fall of the face of the earth.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Coffey77 said:
detroit, Colorado and NJ have higher payrolls but they ALSO have good to great management. Money allows teams to:

1. Be able to make more mistakes than poor teams and get away with it more (eg. Uwe Krupp signing.)
2. Allows you to keep your star players. Many of the 3 main culprits have expensive players that are HOMEGROWN or acquired through trades or transactions that weren't buyout trades.
Detroit: Lidstrom, Yzerman, Fedorov (Anaheim now)
Colorado: Forsberg, Sakic, Foote, Roy (now retired)
NJ:Stevens, Niedermayer, Brodeur
3. Does allow you to add UFA players. If UFA players are added to supplement what you have then it could work out great like Detroit. If the UFA guys are the core of the team it may not, like the Rangers.
4. Those 3 teams draft really well. It's part luck of course but seeing the same teams do it over and over again there has to be some skill involved. Either those youngsters become part of their NHL roster or used as assets to get other players.

I suspect that even in a cap world similar to NFL or NBA that those 3 teams would still do better than most of the other teams. Not as good as they would be under the current system but they won't fall of the face of the earth.

Yes, and if you read my post you'd see I said the ability to afford a higher payroll than most allows those teams to sustain their success. Nowhere did I say it was the reason for their success.
Fact is, if a team like Calgary, for example, drafted as well as Colorado had, there's no way they'd a) be able to keep all their star players because of financial constraints and b) be able to supplement that core with high-priced acquisitions from other teams (i.e. Blake to Colorado, Niuewendyk to Jersey, Hasek/Hatcher/Hull to Detroit, etc.).
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
nyr7andcounting said:
Its common sense. NFL teams with more money backload contracts and give bigger signing bonuses in order to create more cap room at the present time.

Besides, I don't understand why pro-NHL people continue to talk about the NFL. You want to talk about it, than let's talk about the revenue sharing program the NFL has had in place for a long time that has gotten that league to where it is now, and why the NHL won't accept revenue sharing.

The NHL is willing to put into place revenue sharing.....it was in the last proposal. I think I might have to start a thread on this reminding everyone that the NHL has no problem with revenue sharing.

http://nhlcbanews.com/news/comparison.html

Scroll down and you will find that the NHL wants revenue sharing. No details but I'm sure the terms are fully negotiable. Now will everyone stop talking about the NHL not wanting revenue sharing.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
Trottier said:
First, let me know what percentages would appease you and other purveyors of socialistic re-engineering of results/outcomes.

We'll even make sure that your team "gets to win" a Cup every so often, just to make you especially happy! ;)

I'd be happy if the best managed team would win the cup every year. Lightning managed to do it last year but it was fluke year with everybody getting ready for the lock-out.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,669
37,463
Hockey could really care less about the Super Bowl matchup. The NFL doesn't have 7 million dollar TV deals.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
Pepper said:
I'd be happy if the best managed team would win the cup every year. Lightning managed to do it last year but it was fluke year with everybody getting ready for the lock-out.

Why is every year seemingly a "fluke year," according to your type?


Buffalo making the Finals in '99? Fluke.
Carolina making the Finals in '02? Fluke.
Anaheim, '03. Fluke.
Calgary '04. Fluke
TB winning it all in '04? Fluke.

Funny, others of us call that a TREND. As in: evidence of parity. ;)

But I'm not here to argue that old tired debate. Just curious what constitutes a "non-fluke"?

Guess is when the team you think (or want) to win, does!
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Trottier said:
Why is every year seemingly a "fluke year," according to your type?


Buffalo making the Finals in '99? Fluke.
Carolina making the Finals in '02? Fluke.
Anaheim, '03. Fluke.
Calgary '04. Fluke
TB winning it all in '04? Fluke.

Funny, others of us call that a TREND. As in: evidence of parity. ;)

But I'm not here to argue that old tired debate. Just curious what constitutes a "non-fluke"?

Guess is when the team you think (or want) to win, does!

I'd consider these teams less of a fluke (though I'd exclude Tampa - and perhaps Buffalo - from that list) if they produced consistently competitive teams/contenders for a couple of years prior to or after their Cup runs.

Buffalo rode the world's best goaltender to the Finals, but only made it past the first round once in the five years since. They've missed the playoffs every year since Hasek's departure.
Anaheim made the playoffs just once in the five years (a first-round exit) prior to their Finals run, and quickly returned to a non-playoff team last year.
The Canes' finals run has been followed by two seasons of absolute dismal play (combined record of 50-77-25-12).
Calgary may or may not be a fluke. It's too soon to tell. But the fact remains they were a non-playoff team for seven consecutive seasons prior to last year. In a league where more than half the teams qualify for the playoffs, that's quite an accomplishment.
I'm surprised you haven't mentioned Florida, who've missed the playoffs six out of eight years since their Finals run and haven't been past the first round.

In the meantime, big spenders like Philly, Colorado, Dallas, Detroit, Jersey and Toronto are almost never absent from the playoffs.
 
Last edited:

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
Trottier said:
Why is every year seemingly a "fluke year," according to your type?


Buffalo making the Finals in '99? Fluke.
Carolina making the Finals in '02? Fluke.
Anaheim, '03. Fluke.
Calgary '04. Fluke
TB winning it all in '04? Fluke.

Funny, others of us call that a TREND. As in: evidence of parity. ;)

But I'm not here to argue that old tired debate. Just curious what constitutes a "non-fluke"?

Guess is when the team you think (or want) to win, does!

It is parity so much so that these teams cannot compete the very next season.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
Trottier said:
Why is every year seemingly a "fluke year," according to your type?


Buffalo making the Finals in '99? Fluke.
Carolina making the Finals in '02? Fluke.
Anaheim, '03. Fluke.
Calgary '04. Fluke
TB winning it all in '04? Fluke.

Funny, others of us call that a TREND. As in: evidence of parity. ;)

But I'm not here to argue that old tired debate. Just curious what constitutes a "non-fluke"?

Guess is when the team you think (or want) to win, does!

You want trends? Ok, I'll show you trends.

NONE OF THOSE TEAMS WON THE CUP (TB excluded because of non-typical season)! Pretty damn clear trend.

all of those teams were crap the year after making the SC run.

70% of Stanley Cups won during the last CBA were won by top5 salary teams.
 

paxtang

Registered User
May 1, 2003
2,242
0
Harrisburg
Thunderstruck said:
Notice that both these teams, instead of losing core members as PA aplogists claim is inevitable, added star players this season.


How did the Eagles add Jevon Kearse?

By letting go their two starting CB's, their starting SAM, a vet running back, and trading an O lineman. The Eagles lose important players every year to free agency because of the cap. The thing they do is keep all their draft picks (they'll have something like 5 picks in the first three rounds next year), and evaluate talent well. They couldn't have lost their starting CB's if they hadn't drafted replacements a few years ago, and having the confidence to let them start. They lock up young talent long term, and don't hang on to talent for too long at too high a price just for the sake of loyalty. The cap itself causes them to lose players all the time, but good cap management, which plenty of teams out there DON'T have (see teams like San Fran) allows them to stay good.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
paxtang said:
By letting go their two starting CB's, their starting SAM, a vet running back, and trading an O lineman. The Eagles lose important players every year to free agency because of the cap. The thing they do is keep all their draft picks (they'll have something like 5 picks in the first three rounds next year), and evaluate talent well. They couldn't have lost their starting CB's if they hadn't drafted replacements a few years ago, and having the confidence to let them start. They lock up young talent long term, and don't hang on to talent for too long at too high a price just for the sake of loyalty. The cap itself causes them to lose players all the time, but good cap management, which plenty of teams out there DON'T have (see teams like San Fran) allows them to stay good.
Let's not forget they added Terrel Owens too.

Your post merely backs up my claim that the teams that are the best managed will continue to have success and be rewarded in a capped league. Excellent drafting and player development will be paramount when teams can no longer buy their way out of mistakes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->