Potentially-workable concept????

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Ummm.. Isn't that the whole point of the lockout?

So their payrolls are equal. One team is making money hand over fist, because they are only spending 37.5% of their revenues on labour costs, while the other is losing money hand over fist, because they are spending 75% of their revenues on labour costs... this is good because...?

If the percentages of revenues is irrelevant, why the insistence on "linkage?"

You're skewing your numbers in a way. The percentage that is being guaranteed is from the total amount of revenues from a league perspective and not from an individual team perspective. I think the league is working from the idea of leveling the playing field, identifying the point where everyone needs to be at where all can compete fairly, and share that cost across the board, allowing teams a change to push into profitability while being competitive. Anyone that wished to spend over that level would have to sustain those expenditures themselves through generation of their own revenue streams. I like this because it gets the teams to the point where the excuses are gone. Now a team's hardwork is what is going to take it to the next level.

A good example is that challenge that the Canadian teams face. The currency difference is a terrible burden to have to live with. That linkage guarantees that the rest of the league also shares the burden of the currency differentiation and allows the Canadian clubs to go on with business without worrying about that one bugaboo that the US teams do not even think about. The Canadian teams can then move from survival mode into competition mode and leverage the creative ways they have been finding revenue streams over the past five or six years into profits and realistic runs at championships. The combination of the linkage, the league sharing the responsiblity for the linked revenues (that's where the revenue sharing that the players have been demanding come in and why the league has not been able to say how much that will be, as it will be variable from year to year), and the cap levels (minimum and maximum) make a very smart way of controlling costs and not handcuffing any one franchise (or six) and not making it a welfare league. Its the ultimate compromise from all levels in an attempt to find a common ground IMO. I'm surprised more people have not been able to see the elegance of this proposal and the opportuinities it presents to all parties.

 

[PecaFan]

Not according to Gary Bettman. He insists that cap levels act as "magnets" that draw teams to there level, regardless of whether they can afford it or not.

And they will, over time. Not over night.

It doesn't matter anyway, because that's the whole point of a linkage cap. Even if every team is at the cap, the league is still profitable as a whole, because player salaries can only be a set percentage of revenue. (Assuming the percentage is set at the correct level)

That's an assumption that really isn't born out by history. Take the New York Rangers, or AK Bars, or Calgary Flames, or Tampa Bay Lightning, or what have you.

Ah yes, the old "drag out the exceptions" argument. I saw a guy win a lot of money on the lottery, does that mean I should spend my retirement savings on lottery tickets? Worked once for him, that must mean it's a sound strategy, right?

There is a direct strong correlation between high salary and success. High salary teams make the playoffs year after year, and low salary teams usually don't.

I just love Tampa and Calgary being used as examples of success nowadays. These were two doormat teams who've missed the playoffs 9 out of 11 years, and 7 out of 8 years respectively. Gee, we should all be so lucky for our teams to follow this route. I like Tampa, they're a good team, but they got incredibly lucky that they met an even bigger Cinderella in the Finals than they were. Had they met up with one of the experienced teams like Detroit or Colorado, they'd have lost just like every other recent unlikely Finals participant.

 

[JohnnyReb]

And they will, over time. Not over night.

It doesn't matter anyway, because that's the whole point of a linkage cap. Even if every team is at the cap, the league is still profitable as a whole, because player salaries can only be a set percentage of revenue. (Assuming the percentage is set at the correct level)

"Profitable as a whole" is of little consolation to the teams that are losing money. If the Maple Leafs make $5 billion next year, and every other team loses money, would that be good?

Ah yes, the old "drag out the exceptions" argument. I saw a guy win a lot of money on the lottery, does that mean I should spend my retirement savings on lottery tickets? Worked once for him, that must mean it's a sound strategy, right?

There is a direct strong correlation between high salary and success. High salary teams make the playoffs year after year, and low salary teams usually don't.

I just love Tampa and Calgary being used as examples of success nowadays. These were two doormat teams who've missed the playoffs 9 out of 11 years, and 7 out of 8 years respectively. Gee, we should all be so lucky for our teams to follow this route. I like Tampa, they're a good team, but they got incredibly lucky that they met an even bigger Cinderella in the Finals than they were. Had they met up with one of the experienced teams like Detroit or Colorado, they'd have lost just like every other recent unlikely Finals participant.

How many exceptions do you have to have, before the exceptions become regarded as the norm? Since the New York Rangers have missed the playoffs for 7 straight years, does that mean spending the most money equates to missing the playoffs?

Here is a link to an interesting study:

http://www.washingtonhockey.com/200203/features/sc3.htm

Check out its conclusions with regards to parity, salary caps, and the affects there on (and only up to 2002, not taking into account the Flames and Lightning):

Despite the complaints about free agency, small market teams, rising payrolls and such the league has been more competitive over the last 20 years than it has at any time in its history, based on this criterion. Looking at the standard deviations supports this claim...

The National Hockey League has produced a wide variety of Stanley Cup finalists as well as a very even league, overall, since the strike-shortened 1994/1995 season...

Despite claims of restrictions on team spending, the two leagues with serious caps and revenue sharing show the least competitive balance league wide. The NFL number is skewed high due to the relatively small number of games they play (16 per season), while MLB is skewed low due to their very long season (162 games), but the NHL and NBA both play 82 games and the difference between them is marked. The two leagues without caps and significant revenue sharing seem to produce more balanced competition than the leagues with cost-of-labor restrictions over the last 8 years. In addition, we saw that the restrictions did little if anything to improve competition in the NFL and may have actually hurt the NBA's pursuit of parity.

 

[Sammy*]

That's an assumption that really isn't born out by history. Take the New York Rangers, or AK Bars, or Calgary Flames, or Tampa Bay Lightning, or what have you.
.

God almighty, not this lameass argument again. Try doing an analysis of the Stanley Cup winners, those teams who made it to the final 4 & those who missed the playoffs, all over the last 8 years. Furthurmore, kindly tell me how TB is going to afford all those players when renogotiation time comes.Then come back when you have educated yourself & appologize for making this ridiculous argument.

 

[JohnnyReb]

God almighty, not this lameass argument again. Try doing an analysis of the Stanley Cup winners, those teams who made it to the final 4 & those who missed the playoffs, all over the last 8 years. Furthurmore, kindly tell me how TB is going to afford all those players when renogotiation time comes.Then come back when you have educated yourself & appologize for making this ridiculous argument.

Already done:

http://www.washingtonhockey.com/200203/features/sc3.htm

And to add to that:

* All 26 teams that have been in the league during the entire last ten years have made the playoffs at least three times over the past ten years.

*Two of the four teams added since the late 1990's have made the playoffs already.

* 24 of 30 teams in the league have advanced past the first round of the playoffs at least once.

* 20 of 30 teams have made it to the conference finals at least once.

* Over ten seasons the maximum number of teams that could make it to the Stanley Cup Finals is 20. Over the past decade 12 teams have been able to do it.

 

[AM]

that article

Already done:

http://www.washingtonhockey.com/200203/features/sc3.htm

And to add to that:

* All 26 teams that have been in the league during the entire last ten years have made the playoffs at least three times over the past ten years.

*Two of the four teams added since the late 1990's have made the playoffs already.

* 24 of 30 teams in the league have advanced past the first round of the playoffs at least once.

* 20 of 30 teams have made it to the conference finals at least once.

* Over ten seasons the maximum number of teams that could make it to the Stanley Cup Finals is 20. Over the past decade 12 teams have been able to do it.

Would be a good example of stats can prove anything.

For one he dosnt address a system which is failing and not at steady state, he assumes steady state!!! Big error.

For another he uses, success as indicated by competing for lord stanley, there are other more pertinent indicators, but he chooses to not look at those.

Some further major flaws...

compares between leagues.. MLB etc etc.... how these compare is open for major question.....

And thats my disagreements after scanning the article for about 2.3 minutes. I'm sure a rigorous treatment ala Messenger woud be as long as the original article.

 

[Cawz]

Already done:

http://www.washingtonhockey.com/200203/features/sc3.htm

I think this link was brought up about a month ago, and someone (Carl Racki I think) ripped open all the gaping holes in the article. It was a good thread for a change. Look it up if you want to see why the article is so flawed.

 

[Sammy*]

Already done:

http://www.washingtonhockey.com/200203/features/sc3.htm

And to add to that:

* All 26 teams that have been in the league during the entire last ten years have made the playoffs at least three times over the past ten years.

*Two of the four teams added since the late 1990's have made the playoffs already.

* 24 of 30 teams in the league have advanced past the first round of the playoffs at least once.

* 20 of 30 teams have made it to the conference finals at least once.

* Over ten seasons the maximum number of teams that could make it to the Stanley Cup Finals is 20. Over the past decade 12 teams have been able to do it.

Tell me, how many "small market" teams have won the Cup over the last 10 years?

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

"Profitable as a whole" is of little consolation to the teams that are losing money. If the Maple Leafs make $5 billion next year, and every other team loses money, would that be good?



How many exceptions do you have to have, before the exceptions become regarded as the norm? Since the New York Rangers have missed the playoffs for 7 straight years, does that mean spending the most money equates to missing the playoffs?

Here is a link to an interesting study:

http://www.washingtonhockey.com/200203/features/sc3.htm

Check out its conclusions with regards to parity, salary caps, and the affects there on (and only up to 2002, not taking into account the Flames and Lightning):

Despite the complaints about free agency, small market teams, rising payrolls and such the league has been more competitive over the last 20 years than it has at any time in its history, based on this criterion. Looking at the standard deviations supports this claim...

The National Hockey League has produced a wide variety of Stanley Cup finalists as well as a very even league, overall, since the strike-shortened 1994/1995 season...

Despite claims of restrictions on team spending, the two leagues with serious caps and revenue sharing show the least competitive balance league wide. The NFL number is skewed high due to the relatively small number of games they play (16 per season), while MLB is skewed low due to their very long season (162 games), but the NHL and NBA both play 82 games and the difference between them is marked. The two leagues without caps and significant revenue sharing seem to produce more balanced competition than the leagues with cost-of-labor restrictions over the last 8 years. In addition, we saw that the restrictions did little if anything to improve competition in the NFL and may have actually hurt the NBA's pursuit of parity.

Ah, the old "confuse them with a boring as hell link" dodge. I always enjoy that one, where someone posts a link throught to competely unscrupulous site that has very little credible information on it, but has a ton of graphs and really ong paragraphs that make the reader quickly close the window and succumb to "fear of being bored to death". The page in question is so much BS it isn't even funny.

We'll start with the first graph, entitled "Teams Salaries by Sport with Trendlines". Now not quite as good as anything by Picaso during his blue period this is a pretty picture. Unfortunately its a BS graph that does not explain a damn thing. All the teams' salaries are plotted on a graph and then a trend line is established for each league. Uh huh. And what does that mean exactly? That if you take a bunch of numbers and order them from high to low that a mathematical trend line can be established by averaging the progression? Earth shattering revelation there. We'll move on.

Next on the hit parade is a section called "Competitive Balance" This is where we learn how the NHL doesn't have a problem with competition. According to the author "More teams making the finals means more competitive balance, fewer means less." A rather simplistic view of things, especially when you consider that most teams realize that success is making the playoffs, and once there anything can happen, and that being a consistent playoff team is more important to not only the viability and profitability of a franchise, but also increase your odds of winning a championship (a stunning statistic that did not make this "report" was that teams NOT making the playoffs in any of the major league sports had zero chance of winning their respective championship).

Next the clown goes on to talk about deviation and compares pre-cap versus post cap. The author drops this bombshell on us as we read, "Larger numbers indicate that there is less balance because the winning percentages vary more greatly." He then reports that "the numbers contradict our expectations" and that there really is only a .0218% difference for the NFL (his baseline study). He then grasps at straws trying to point out yearly changes in the deviation and saying that points to imbalance. Yes, .0218% is a massive imbalance!

But have no fear, it gets better! He finally touches on baseball and drops this gem on us. "Despite the popular outcry against the unfairness of baseball, it is significantly more competitive league wide than basketball or football (or hockey, as we'll see in a minute)." Baseball is the most competitive sport out of all of the big four! Sure, tell that to anyone in the same division as the Yankees or Braves. Competive balance has been there for years! Don't worry though, the fact that the World Series Champion Florida Marlins immediately disintegrated into nothing because they became unaffordable does not say anything about competitive imbalance. It supports the author's case! The Marlins won and that's all that matters!

I could go on and on. This thing is way too easy to pick a part and it just clashes with common sense. Thanks for the entertainment.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Tell me, how many "small market" teams have won the Cup over the last 10 years?

So what's your definition of parity then? In your first post, it seemed to be "Stanley Cup winners, those teams who made it to the final 4 & those who missed the playoffs, all over the last 8 years."

Since the stats don't really support a non-parity argument using that definition, you're going with "small market Champions" as your definition of parity?

For the record, over the last 10 years two small market teams have won the Stanley Cup (New Jersey and Tampa), while three big market teams have won (Colorado, Dallas and Detroit).

 

[JohnnyReb]

... has very little credible information on it, but has a ton of graphs and really ong paragraphs that make the reader quickly close the window and succumb to "fear of being bored to death".

I succumbed to this very fear when looking at your post. Probably why I didn't read the rest of it.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

For the record, over the last 10 years two small market teams have won the Stanley Cup (New Jersey and Tampa), while three big market teams have won (Colorado, Dallas and Detroit).

How does New Jersey qualify as small market? The times they have won the Stanley Cup they were in the top 5 teams for salaries each and every time. Hardly a small market team struggling to get by.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

I succumbed to this very fear when looking at your post. Probably why I didn't read the rest of it.

I wish I could say we were even!

 

[Cawz]

I succumbed to this very fear when looking at your post. Probably why I didn't read the rest of it.

You should if you want to become more educated on the subject. You posted soemthing that is full of holes. If you dont want to see why, then you will continue having a very polarized view of the situation.

 

[Sammy*]

So what's your definition of parity then? In your first post, it seemed to be "Stanley Cup winners, those teams who made it to the final 4 & those who missed the playoffs, all over the last 8 years."

Since the stats don't really support a non-parity argument using that definition, you're going with "small market Champions" as your definition of parity?

For the record, over the last 10 years two small market teams have won the Stanley Cup (New Jersey and Tampa), while three big market teams have won (Colorado, Dallas and Detroit).

Give your head a shake Bud. Jersey not a small market team.A small market team has won the Cup once in ten years.
Furthurmore, do the analysis & come back when you have figured it out with respect to who makes the confrence finals, & who makes the playoffs.
I know it doesnt fit your paradigm, but for once , think outside that little box.

 

[Icey]

How does New Jersey qualify as small market? The times they have won the Stanley Cup they were in the top 5 teams for salaries each and every time. Hardly a small market team struggling to get by.

Perhaps someone needs to define what "small market team" means. People could be looking at the definition different. Does payroll define your market? Does attendance define your market or does revenue define you market? Or perhaps a combination of all 3? Is Columbus considered small market? San Jose? Ottawa?

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Perhaps someone needs to define what "small market team" means. People could be looking at the definition different. Does payroll define your market? Does attendance define your market or does revenue define you market? Or perhaps a combination of all 3? Is Columbus considered small market? San Jose? Ottawa?

Personally I think that a market is defined by many factors. These are the ones I consider when talking about market size.

* Traditional hockey market (yes or no).
* Existing fan base (season ticket base).
* Potential for fan base growth (metro-population).
* Corporate support.
* Metro corporate saturation.
* Media markets.
* Competition.
* Success versus failure.
* Ownership (individual, consortium, corporate).
* Budget (top third, middle third, bottom third).
* Revenues.

I think New Jersey gets a big nod as being at worst mid market and is more likely large market because of their budget and the market they are in. If they aren't its no one's fault but their own.

 

[PecaFan]

I pretty much equate salary with market size. If you're spending a huge amount on salary for your team, you're large market, regardless of population, number of local businesses, etc.

 

[thinkwild]

I'd equate salary with an owners willingness to pay. I think all the billionaires can afford to pay Colorado payrolls, if they had Colorado success, and the Colorado team to spend it on. The NHL proposals defined small market as one with less than 2.5 million televisions in its territory. Sounds about right.

If Ottawa, Columbus, Atlanta, San Jose, LA developed a team that had success, made the finals two years in a row, had their stars getting recognized and had fan growth. sellouts, playoff money, what would they want the system to allow them to pay their players in todays terms? $52Mil? The proper cap level?


I cant beleive you can dismiss Matt's study like that, it doesnt hold water. The differences may be small, but they still dont support, in fact refute, the claim. If you dont think its a fair proxy, devise a measure and see if the stats support it. I dont thikn they will whatever you come up with honestly. The Yanks are an anomoly. Baseball is fine outside of them, and whaddya gonna do, they spend. Doesnt make them invincible. Maybe they should raise their UFA age.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

=I cant beleive you can dismiss Matt's study like that, it doesnt hold water.

You're right, Matt's study doesn't hold water. Here's some facts in regards to the how the salary bands performed in reaching the playoffs.

2000-01

Salaries 1-10... 9 of 10 teams made the playoffs.
Salaries 11-20... 5 of 10 made the playoffs.
Salaries 21-30... 2 of 10 made the playoffs.

Salaries 1-16... 12 of 16 made the playoffs.

2001-02

Salaries 1-10... 7 of 10 teams made the playoffs.
Salaries 11-20... 7 of 10 made the playoffs.
Salaries 21-30... 2 of 10 made the playoffs.

Salaries 1-16... 11 of 16 made the playoffs.

2002-03

Salaries 1-10... 8 of 10 teams made the playoffs.
Salaries 11-20... 2 of 10 made the playoffs.
Salaries 21-30... 3 of 10 made the playoffs.

Salaries 1-16... 12 of 16 made the playoffs.

2003-04

Salaries 1-10... 6 of 10 teams made the playoffs.
Salaries 11-20... 8 of 10 made the playoffs.
Salaries 21-30... 2 of 10 made the playoffs.


Salaries 1-16... 11 of 16 made the playoffs.

So does being a big spender mean a big advantage in getting into the playoffs? Hell yes. It's obvious.

 

[thinkwild]

Any team that has the opportunity to develop a team thats successful and has playoff money and fan interest to maintain that team, will be able to keep their team. Winners spend. Spenders dont come become winners. Of course the best teams cost more. That would be what you would expect.

The goal of course is to win the Cup. Philly, NYR, Wash, Tor can spend for years and make the playoffs. And Tampa can lose for a few and then win for a few including a cup. Toronto would have had more playoff success using your stats.

 

[thinkwild]

Plus those numbers are skewed because they only represent one cycle from the start of a new system and a boatload of expansion teams that had to start off spending small. After the leagues teams mature, and we have been through a few cycles, I would still expect money teams make the playoffs more, but that all teams equally have a chance at being a money team.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Any team that has the opportunity to develop a team thats successful and has playoff money and fan interest to maintain that team, will be able to keep their team. Winners spend. Spenders dont come become winners. Of course the best teams cost more. That would be what you would expect.

The goal of course is to win the Cup. Philly, NYR, Wash, Tor can spend for years and make the playoffs. And Tampa can lose for a few and then win for a few including a cup. Toronto would have had more playoff success using your stats.

Playoff success doesn't mean anything because of the nature of the playoff tournament. As we have seen in the past, one hot goaltender can carry a team during a stretch and upset a few teams. That is not a good model to base organizational success on. Only a long term assessment will tell you how success to money spent is working. Based on your thinking Calgary's run last spring makes them a much more successful team than Ottawa has been over the past five years. I don't know many fans that would trade one of the top teams in the NHL for a trip to the payoffs for the first time in seven years and a return to the finals in 15 years.

If what you suggested were true then teams that experienced some playoff success one year would not miss the playoffs the next. As well, those teams that have a big budget should experience more sucess in the post season than those that do not. Unfortunately that doesn't hold water. Teams like Carolina, Anaheim, etc. have their run but watch their salary costs escalate immediately to the point of not being able to retain the team. They have to make tough choices which usually causes the departure of players that were key components to the success of the team. The economics don't make it easy to build onto that success without having extremely deep pockets.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Give your head a shake Bud. Jersey not a small market team.A small market team has won the Cup once in ten years.
Furthurmore, do the analysis & come back when you have figured it out with respect to who makes the confrence finals, & who makes the playoffs.
I know it doesnt fit your paradigm, but for once , think outside that little box.

I’m sorry, was there a definition of parity in there? I recall asking what your definition was, but I seemed to have missed it, what with all your implorations to “get edu-ma-kated, so you can agree with me.â€

I love how New Jersey is suddenly Big Market. Nobody ever thought that until this lockout happened.

New Jersey has a mediocre revenue stream, poor attendance for a perennial contender, minimal TV and radio ratings, and is dwarfed in media coverage and fan interest by the nearby Rangers, to say nothing of the Yankees, Mets, Giants, Jets, and Knicks. Population size alone doesn’t make it big market. If it did, Phoenix, and San Jose would be two of the bigger markets in the NHL.

I pretty much equate salary with market size. If you're spending a huge amount on salary for your team, you're large market, regardless of population, number of local businesses, etc.

So does that mean Washington is a big market, or small market? They went from high salary, to low salary. Are Boston and Chicago small markets? What about the Islanders? According to those who think New Jersey is a big market, the Islanders should be right up there with them, if not higher. But they don’t spend money, so does that mean they are small? Is LA, second biggest city in North America, a big market, small market, or mediocre market?

What you are really saying is that “market size is determined by the wealth of the owner and his willingness to spend it.†Anaheim is a bigger hockey market than Chicago, under this definition.

Teams like Carolina, Anaheim, etc. have their run but watch their salary costs escalate immediately to the point of not being able to retain the team. They have to make tough choices which usually causes the departure of players that were key components to the success of the team.

Neither of these examples is true. Carolina’s roster the year after their Cup run was essentially the same. They lost Martin Gelinas (to Calgary, oh the irony) and nobody else. Anaheim lost Oates and Kariya, but added Federov and Prospal. Kariya left not for lack of money, but because in one of the most spectacularly bad sports-agent decisions of all time he thought it would make him a UFA faster. Oates was deemed such an essential player that he remained unsigned until nearly 1/3 of the next season had passed, at which time he was signed by Edmonton (oh, more irony).

 

[Drury_Sakic]

Also consider guys that the Flames and the Ducks were both 1 win away from winning the Cup the past two seasons.. Granted, Tampa would not have won then, but then you would have had two small market clubs winning...


I also would consider NJ to be a mid-market team.... they have access to NY media... but they ARE in NJ......


Also consider.... the Cains, Washington, and Flordia have all made the Cup finals.... all 3 small market clubs...

Small market Clubs to make it to SCF in last 10 years:
Carolina
Washington
Florida
Tampa
Anahieme

Big Market Clubs:
Colorado
Detroit
Dallas
NJ

I might be missing one or two.. but thats a good shake IMO.. I would also argue that Colorado and NJ were NOT big market clubs the first time around when they won the cup...maybe not small market.. but... Colorado won in a new city that had lost hockey(maybe not to their own fault)...Colorado is not a media super-hotbed, and had the Broncos, Nuggets, and Rockies... NJ is in NJ.... They got the Rangers, Islanders, Giants, Mets, Yank's, and Jets to deal with..at the time of their first cup, were they a big market??

In the same argument... Dallas came into a small hockey market... I mean TEXAS.. for HOCKEY! They were not a small market when they won the cup...but If hockey can thrive in Texas, it can live anywhere...they built their market..


They BECAME big markets by winning.. and consistantly winning...