Rant of the day...

[Deebo]

How many deadlines have to pass before you get the hint that this thing isn't getting done any time soon?

What deadlines??

artifical ones from the hockey media who have nothing else to write about?

tell me what you think they are doing in 25+ hours of meetings every week for going on a month now?

starring at each other?
watching re-runs of the fresh prince?
playing no-limit texas hold'em?
getting a CBA done?

 

[London Knights]

All of the above. They are playing poker to determine which concessions each side will make and while doing this they are eating snickerdoodles and watching that hip kid from Philly strut his stuff in high class society as hilarity ensues. The staring comes from the poker playing.

 

[Spungo*]

Only 3 More Weeks Guys, Just 3 More Weeks! (Brian Burke)

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

This stuff is classic. You can't write comedy like this. In 3 weeks, we will be hearing, "just 4 more weeks guys, just 4 more weeks untill a deal is done. I can feel it." You guys are so damn gullible.

 

[octopi]

What deadlines??

artifical ones from the hockey media who have nothing else to write about?

tell me what you think they are doing in 25+ hours of meetings every week for going on a month now?

starring at each other?
watching re-runs of the fresh prince?
playing no-limit texas hold'em?
getting a CBA done?

What, BDSM isn't one of the options? Oh, wait, thats what they've being doing to the FANS. My mistake...

 

[octopi]

I'm using common sense and logic. You can only be told "2 more weeks" for so long untill you start to get the hint that things are not going as well as has been reported. All I'm saying is don't expect a July deal or an August deal, or even a September deal. This thing is going to drag on for quite a few months.

Agree with you 100%. These guys have had us going on "any day now" for so long, that the concept of time has lost all meaning.

 

[GirardIsStupid]

not to sound like a complete dick...but anyone else notice eklund's blog is down/gone? he he he This just happens to coincide with Larry Brooks' DKK comment.

 

[djhn579]

not to sound like a complete dick...but anyone else notice eklund's blog is down/gone? he he he This just happens to coincide with Larry Brooks' DKK comment.

Seems to be up now...

 

[GirardIsStupid]

Seems to be up now...

All i get is this: <meta name="MSSmartTag

 

[Spungo*]

Yeah, I heard Saskin, Bettman, Linden, and several reputable journalists from around the continent have said the deal will be reached within a few weeks. I don't care. SPUNGO SAYS IT'LL TAKE TIL OCTOBER. AND SPUNGO IS THE ULTIMATE TRUTH.

You average 14 posts per day over 2 years. How the hell?

 

[GirardIsStupid]

NHL turning back the clock to 1998-2000

By judging from what's rumoured to be in the new CBA, it appears similar to what team payrolls were in 1999:

http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm

Excluding the Rangers, Flyers and just formed expansion teams in Nashville and Atlanta, the disparities between the top and bottom appears to be 20 M (slightly higher than the 15 M disparity between the floor and the cap). The top teams have salaries hovering around 40 M with the bottom feeders having team salaries around 20 M.

Despite a much smaller payroll gap, it still appeared the large market clubs were most successful. Colorado, Detroit and Dallas were the three powers of the West while New Jersey and Toronto were quite successful in the East.

http://www.neutralzonehockey.com/9900.htm

So, how is a cap going to make small market teams challenge the high revenue clubs and not allow clubs to maintain a nucleus of good players given that similar circumstances existed in 1998-2000. But ah, the pro-owner fans will argue that more revenue sharing will allow many teams to spend up to the cap!

Wrong! There's been no talk of NFL type revenue sharing that'll allow small market clubs to compete with the big market teams. If this was the case, the big boys like the Maple Leafs wouldn't be spending their excess money on proven NHL coachs like Paul Maurice to work in the minors (assumably at a hefty price). All that I've heard is that there would be a luxury tax halfway between the cap and the floor. Judging from what I heard that's happening in baseball, that luxury tax money usually doesn't go towards the team. Rather, it goes in the back pocket of the owners. Moreover, a luxury tax will be a huge deterrent for many teams to spend over if its a 1:1 ratio. Heck, even baseball's luxury tax has slowed rising player costs:

Though baseball doesn't have a salary cap, the luxury tax has had roughly the same braking effect on player contracts, since most clubs won't spend above the trigger point...

http://www.boston.com/sports/hockey...e_dream/?page=2

The article also goes on to explain how difficult it is for the owners to share their revenues: Though every league does some form of revenue sharing among teams, it's a touchy subject. George Steinbrenner, whose Yankees paid out an estimated $88 million in revenue sharing and luxury taxes last year, has likened it to socialism. And the National Football League owners, who already share national revenues and gate receipts, are squabbling over the idea of sharing local revenues from luxury suites, TV and radio rights fees, sponsorships, and stadium advertising.

Despite a cap, it also appears the NHL won't have 30 healthy franchises as Gary Betmman proclaimed would happen. The Blues are having tax problems. The Penguins need a new arena badly. Nashville and Atlanta will still be struggling to survive in non-traditional markets.

IMO, the cap will allow small market clubs to have a better chance to retain their best players. There's no gaurantee this will happen though. The cap also allows the big market teams to rake in tons of dough. But it'll force the large market clubs to spend much more wisely and make them re-allocate their resources into player development...a luxury the small market clubs won't have. Is this a good thing or bad thing?

Fortunately, the cap system won't reward mediocrity as it does in the NFL (where revenue sharing keeps every team competitive financially). That was my main beef with a potential CBA and I'm glad this status quo will be maintained. To win, you still gotta trade well, draft well and add whatever parts you need through free agency (as exemplified by the sucess of the Avalanche, Red Wings and Devils). Moreover, there won't be as many star players changing addresses as happens in the NFL. This means a team that was built a good nucleus of young players should be able to retain them.

Unfortunately for the fans of the small market clubs, however, is that without significant revenue sharing, their teams will always be handicapped. This could become especially problematic when the UFA age is lowered to 28...thus allowing a really good player to become a free agent during his prime years.

Ridicule away...

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

The owners to a hardline stance and won. The players took a big gamble and lost by turning down a good deal in January. The owners won big time because not only did they get their way, they but a big giant crack in the NHLPA, whether the players admit to it or not.

 

[David Singleton]

By judging from what's rumoured to be in the new CBA, it appears similar to what team payrolls were in 1999:

http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm

Excluding the Rangers, Flyers and just formed expansion teams in Nashville and Atlanta, the disparities between the top and bottom appears to be 20 M (slightly higher than the 15 M disparity between the floor and the cap). The top teams have salaries hovering around 40 M with the bottom feeders having team salaries around 20 M.

Despite a much smaller payroll gap, it still appeared the large market clubs were most successful. Colorado, Detroit and Dallas were the three powers of the West while New Jersey and Toronto were quite successful in the East.

http://www.neutralzonehockey.com/9900.htm

So, how is a cap going to make small market teams challenge the high revenue clubs and not allow clubs to maintain a nucleus of good players given that similar circumstances existed in 1998-2000. But ah, the pro-owner fans will argue that more revenue sharing will allow many teams to spend up to the cap!

Wrong! There's been no talk of NFL type revenue sharing that'll allow small market clubs to compete with the big market teams. If this was the case, the big boys like the Maple Leafs wouldn't be spending their excess money on proven NHL coachs like Paul Maurice to work in the minors (assumably at a hefty price). All that I've heard is that there would be a luxury tax halfway between the cap and the floor. Judging from what I heard that's happening in baseball, that luxury tax money usually doesn't go towards the team. Rather, it goes in the back pocket of the owners. Moreover, a luxury tax will be a huge deterrent for many teams to spend over if its a 1:1 ratio. Heck, even baseball's luxury tax has slowed rising player costs:

Though baseball doesn't have a salary cap, the luxury tax has had roughly the same braking effect on player contracts, since most clubs won't spend above the trigger point...

http://www.boston.com/sports/hockey...e_dream/?page=2

The article also goes on to explain how difficult it is for the owners to share their revenues: Though every league does some form of revenue sharing among teams, it's a touchy subject. George Steinbrenner, whose Yankees paid out an estimated $88 million in revenue sharing and luxury taxes last year, has likened it to socialism. And the National Football League owners, who already share national revenues and gate receipts, are squabbling over the idea of sharing local revenues from luxury suites, TV and radio rights fees, sponsorships, and stadium advertising.

Despite a cap, it also appears the NHL won't have 30 healthy franchises as Gary Betmman proclaimed would happen. The Blues are having tax problems. The Penguins need a new arena badly. Nashville and Atlanta will still be struggling to survive in non-traditional markets.

IMO, the cap will allow small market clubs to have a better chance to retain their best players. There's no gaurantee this will happen though. The cap also allows the big market teams to rake in tons of dough. But it'll force the large market clubs to spend much more wisely and make them re-allocate their resources into player development...a luxury the small market clubs won't have. Is this a good thing or bad thing?

Fortunately, the cap system won't reward mediocrity as it does in the NFL (where revenue sharing keeps every team competitive financially). That was my main beef with a potential CBA and I'm glad this status quo will be maintained. To win, you still gotta trade well, draft well and add whatever parts you need through free agency (as exemplified by the sucess of the Avalanche, Red Wings and Devils). Moreover, there won't be as many star players changing addresses as happens in the NFL. This means a team that was built a good nucleus of young players should be able to retain them.

Unfortunately for the fans of the small market clubs, however, is that without significant revenue sharing, their teams will always be handicapped. This could become especially problematic when the UFA age is lowered to 28...thus allowing a really good player to become a free agent during his prime years.

Ridicule away...

No ridicule here, just discussion.

From my perspective, I don't expect all teams to spend up to the cap. I expect some teams- especially in the first two years- to spend up to the cap, but those will probably be restricted to about eight teams. Prior to the lockout, Nashville's total salary would have been around $28 - 30 million for the '04/'05 year. That is precisely the rumored luxury tax trigger point.

Even though the majority of teams lost money in '03/'04, I believe those teams realize that it will take at least two years before they make a profit due to the ramifications of proceeding with the lockout- even if they only spend to the salary floor (which I also believe will be lower next year along with the cap). I will work with the assumption that the goal of the CBA was to provide each team with a reasonable probability of making a profit each year on average, while also providing each team a reasonable chance at keeping some of their own FA and/or pursuing others' FAs.

As I mentioned earlier, I suspect that the large market teams will spend up to, or near, the hard cap- incurring the luxury tax. I also suspect that playoff borderline teams like Nashville will spend up to, or near, the luxury tax trigger point. This will allow those teams to only be about $7 million behind in payroll to those teams at the cap. That really isn't much for a team with good management and coaching staffs. They will essentially have equal rosters- moneywise. That's the most in which anyone can ask. Those teams that are still building will spend much closer to the salary floor. But eventually, they will have to make a move when they are close enough (like Nashville did when they acquired Steve Sullivan).

Many posters have mentioned Atlanta and Nashville as struggling with attendence. I can't deny Nashville's attendence problems, but I want to make these two points. In general, successful teams will draw fans- regardless of the sport. Everyone loves a winner. If a team has good management (and I believe Nashville has one of the strongest management teams from top to bottom), drafts well, and spends wisely, they should consisently succeed. When Nashville finally made the playoffs the building was packed with Nashville fans and the atmosphere was special. Assuming they maintain or improve their team, their fan base will grow which translates to additional revenue.

Now, due to the impact of the lock out, most teams will have to extend some sort of olive branch to the fans to bring the casual fans back and entice new fans. That means many may take a step, or two, back before going forward. That comes with the territory of a lock out and you must be prepared to endure those steps back financially while still moving forward on the ice (and I believe Nashville is).

To bring in the really big dollars though, the NHL has to take a page from the NFL with its strict governing of the officials to ensure calling the rulebook- regular season or not and its competition committee to continually update the rules. It also has to increase marketing. When all of that is done- the game becomes exciting and then people will want to watch on national television. That means additional revenue.

Even in the NFL, teams have local issues with the stadium, taxes, etc. (Saints, Colts, L.A.). That will never change. If the goal is to give every team a reasonable chance assuming good management, then the rumored CBA seems to address that. Hopefully rule changes and good marketing will get the ratings up and bring the additional revenue that a national television contract provides, but that is slightly secondary of the new CBA (although it could be a nice side benefit).

David

 

[Spungo*]

I forgot to laugh in all your faces on July 1. I'll be back to laugh in all your faces on July 4. Rememember July 4? Remember when a deal would be signed by July 4? Anyway, here is me laughing in your face for July 1.

 

[littleD]

I forgot to laugh in all your faces on July 1. I'll be back to laugh in all your faces on July 4. Rememember July 4? Remember when a deal would be signed by July 4? Anyway, here is me laughing in your face for July 1.

So, you're happy there was no deal on July 1? Are you a hockey fan, or just here to at people for no reason?

 

[Spungo*]

So, you're happy there was no deal on July 1? Are you a hockey fan, or just here to at people for no reason?

I'm a hockey fan, but I just love making some of the arrogant people on this board eat a big slice of my home made humble pie.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

I'm a hockey fan, but I just love making some of the arrogant people on this board eat a big slice of my home made humble pie.

Did you eat a hearty helping of your own pie following your assertion that teams played a full two minutes short handed regardless of goals against until the Oilers became too dominant.. You seem eager to taunt posters about being two weeks off on predictions regarding the lockout, which seems pretty insignificant in comparison to the decades off you are on that assertion..

 

[Spungo*]

Did you eat a hearty helping of your own pie following your assertion that teams played a full two minutes short handed regardless of goals against until the Oilers became too dominant.. You seem eager to taunt posters about being two weeks off on predictions regarding the lockout, which seems pretty insignificant in comparison to the decades off you are on that assertion..

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

Full 2 minute penalties were part of the game untill the Oilers became unstopable on the PP. The rule was changed basically due to one team. There is no reason a penalty should end after a goal is scored. Absolutely none. You get a 2 minute penalty, you serve 2 minutes. It's simple as that. You get a 5 minute penalty in todays NHL and you serve the full 5 minutes, regardless of how many goals are scored. Why should 2 minute penalties be different? Johnny Cluth N' Grab would think twice before hauling down a rushing forward if he had to spend the full2 in the box.

These are your very own words, my son. They are also entirely inaccurate. In your face. In your face In your face. In your face.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

You forgot:

Reported!

 

[crump]

Full 2 minute penalties were part of the game untill the Oilers became unstopable on the PP. The rule was changed basically due to one team. There is no reason a penalty should end after a goal is scored. Absolutely none. You get a 2 minute penalty, you serve 2 minutes. It's simple as that. You get a 5 minute penalty in todays NHL and you serve the full 5 minutes, regardless of how many goals are scored. Why should 2 minute penalties be different? Johnny Cluth N' Grab would think twice before hauling down a rushing forward if he had to spend the full2 in the box.

These are your very own words, my son. They are also entirely inaccurate. In your face. In your face In your face. In your face.

Actually it was the 1950's powerhouse Candiens that changed that rule.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

Actually it was the 1950's powerhouse Candiens that changed that rule.

Yeah, since Spunko gets so concerned with his end-zone dance over other posters being off by two weeks I felt his 3 decade error merited attention.

 

[Spungo*]

Yeah, since Spunko gets so concerned with his end-zone dance over other posters being off by two weeks I felt his 3 decade error merited attention.

I was wrong about the team and the time period. I admit that. Big deal. The gist of what I said was still true.

And I'm not concerned with posters being off by two weeks, you are totally missing the point. I'm concerned with people deriding my original prediction, then pretending like they didn't. Got it yet? Good.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I was wrong about the team and the time period. I admit that. Big deal. The gist of what I said was still true.

And I'm not concerned with posters being off by two weeks, you are totally missing the point. I'm concerned with people deriding my original prediction, then pretending like they didn't. Got it yet? Good.

I have read these exchanges of posts with mounting hilarity.

Spungo, if I might venture a guess, I think they are not deriding your original prediction so much as they are deriding you and your offputting, derisive tone about something which really is not of any substantive value to the board but which you seem to place an amazingly high value given your talk about "wins" and "losses" and humble pie and the like.

They seem to not care for your tone, not care what your "prediction" was, not care whether you were right, and in general not care for you. Many of the posters who crossed swords with you today were clearly yanking your chain while one of two things were going on: (1) you were thrashing about wildly in the throes of an imagined impugning of your prognostication skeellz, or (2) you were sitting there thinking YOU were yanking THEIR chains. If it is (2), you have been had. If it is (1), please go back and think about it a little in light of the above explanation and perhaps you can calm down a little.

Or not. Whatever.

Oh, and to save the trouble, I am reporting myself.

 

[Scoogs]

I was wrong about the team and the time period.

Its not the only time period you will be wrong about...

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

I was wrong about the team and the time period. I admit that. Big deal. The gist of what I said was still true.

And I'm not concerned with posters being off by two weeks, you are totally missing the point. I'm concerned with people deriding my original prediction, then pretending like they didn't. Got it yet? Good.

Then learn to be nice or go away, this is a place of love. I'm pretty sure the internet is the only place you've ever been able to play the "tough guy", but if you can't bring yourself to tone it down, take it someplace else..

I can't miss your "points", because I don't think you have any to make. I can, however, see how rude you insist upon being to the esteemed posters here, and that is how you define yourself..