Shame on Gretzky, Lemieux, predicts Brooks

[Seachd]

Saskin, who has seen all the books, seems to think Edmonton is making money and is a good investment. Not that had to believe really.

Yeah, right. You saw that too? That lie was so big it just barely got through his teeth. That certainly explains the lineup of thousands just itching to invest in them, or a lot of other NHL teams.

The Oilers have all sorts of lease agreements and expiring contracts to negotiate. They need to project poor right now. If they dont get what they want, they will regrettably have to come to you for ticket price increases. They wont want to do it, but they will have been forced into it by the greedy players. Im sure you'll understand.

If they don't get what they wan't, they'll cease to exist. Why do some people ignore the years of losses? One year with a slight profit doesn't mean much after losing tens of millions - especially with no indication that the future will be any better.

 

[coolguy21415]

Firstly, Brooks is off his rocker. He clearly doesn't understand the game in Canada, doesn't understand where the fan support lies, and has it in his head that the U.S. will beat Canada at hockey in a major event (World Cup, Olympics) fairly soon, even when odds are against that.

If ... Gretz coaches and Mario skates ... they will have turned their backs on the players. None of the Canadian players who 99 had crossed will play for him on team canada, nor will they still respect or play with 66. Plus they will have done a diservice to the game of hockey in taking part in a charade that would conclude with some ECHL clown with his name on the Cup.

How does Gretzky fulfilling his contractual obligations (read: doing his job) make him a scab? If he signs a coaching contract after his management one is up, then he has to coach. What happens if he doesn't? He gets fired. Being a coach doesn't make him a "union-killer". The spirit of the Stanley Cup isn't altered. The Cup is to be awarded to the best team in competition. If that best team has "ECHL clowns" on it, then so be it. As for a disservice to the game, I disagree since they're helping bring the game back. I don't care if the union folds, or the NHL folds, or whatever. I just want to see teams play, playoffs won, and the cup hoisted. (and if that's in Montreal, all the better )

You clowns need to get past your jealousy of the fact that the players make big salaries and look at things objectively. These guys are blue collar guys just like you and I who happen to be the best in the world at what they do. They're job is high pressure and their carreer is very short and they deserve to make as much as anyone is willing to pay them.

I agree with this, to an extent. I don't agree with the argument that their career is short. That is known by them going in. I personally don't understand how, in 2 years at average a player will make more than any "blue-collar" Canadian or U.S. citizen will make in their lifetime. (for those who don't know, that's 3.6 million $US. Average salary in the US is somewhere around $40k/year. It would take 90 years of work to earn that much.)
So someone works for two years, and can't cut it. They've just earned a lifetime worth of money, for being bad at what they do. I guess that's a problem with the entry-level contracts more than anything, but it's ridiculous. You might argue that they could suffer career ending injuries. I impose on you that it's a risk of the job. If you work in a mine, you risk the mine collapsing don't you? That's why the players are insured, and will collect insurance so long as they can't play from injury.

They should have to make smart business decisions and field a good hockey team.

The only point I agree with you about.

But, go ahead, trash the players and trash Larry Brooks (one of the few columnists who speaks the truth). Call me an idiot, but I'd rather be an idiot than be on the same side as Gary Bettman and Bill Wirtz

The owners don't want to be guaranteed money (though it does seem like that). They want to have the ability to compete, because success brings money. The problem with the current system, is that in the development cycle, the losses of development years greatly outnumber the profits of successful years. There's also expansion, soft markets, etc. I understand each of your points, I just don't think you've reasoned them out.

 

[K215215]

The owners don't want to be guaranteed money (though it does seem like that). They want to have the ability to compete, because success brings money. The problem with the current system, is that in the development cycle, the losses of development years greatly outnumber the profits of successful years. There's also expansion, soft markets, etc. I understand each of your points, I just don't think you've reasoned them out.

Over the last 3 years we have seen that the ability to compete does not depend on money...the ability to compete on ice has to do with competance in the front office. As for losses in developmental years, well, if you have a team salary of 45 mil+ in a developmental year, you deserve to lose money cause your GM is not doing his job correctly. As for expansion, if the system was so broken, how come there have been like 5 expansion teams in the last 7 years all paying well over 50 mil to play in this broken league. These owners threw down the 50 mil because they were assured that the union would be broken and a system would be put in place where everyone would make a ton of money. Trust me, I have reasoned all of my points out. Take a look at the history of dealings between the owners and the union and tell me who deserves the benefit of the doubt.

The thing about a market based system is that the players would live by the sword and die by the sword. You saw the cuts these guys were taking in salaries this offseason. All the owners have to do is not shell out big bucks for guys who scored 30 points. If the owners cant show any self control, they do not deserve to make money. The market has been steadily correcting itself. The changes the players propose would have saved the owners millions upon millions of dollars.

One more thing...what would be better for the owner of the lowly, poor, broke oilers? A system wwhere everyone is capped out at 35 mil, or a system with a luxery tax, where the Oil would recieve like 10 mil a year or more in shared revenue. And why would a team like the Rangers agree to a system where they could not take full advantage of their huge market...if they have the revenue to sustain a huge payroll, think of how much money they'll make if their player costs are capped at 35 mil.

 

[Seachd]

One more thing...what would be better for the owner of the lowly, poor, broke oilers? A system wwhere everyone is capped out at 35 mil, or a system with a luxery tax, where the Oil would recieve like 10 mil a year or more in shared revenue. And why would a team like the Rangers agree to a system where they could not take full advantage of their huge market...if they have the revenue to sustain a huge payroll, think of how much money they'll make if their player costs are capped at 35 mil.

If you think the Oilers would bring in an extra $10 million with a luxury tax, you're dreaming in technicolor.

The Oilers would be doing just fine if they weren't giving away so much of their pretty decent revenue in salaries. Yet they have to to stay competitive. Basically a no-win situation for everyone but the players.

 

[dawgbone]

Saskin, who has seen all the books, seems to think Edmonton is making money and is a good investment. Not that had to believe really.

He's seen all the books?

That's funny, the NHLPA refused the NHL's offer to go over the books... so when did they see Edmonton's?

And Naturally, he'd like to invest in the Oilers... short term. as long as the Canadian Dollar is hovering around $.80 US, and the Oilers payroll is around $34 mil and they are filling the stands, they can make a little money... they may not be able to keep any of their current players, but hey, they'll make $1-2mil every year.

Just so long as that Canadian $$$ doesn't go down again.

The Oilers also have some of the most expensive travel costs in the NHL... which is another thing that doesn't get brought up again. Not only do the owners pay the salary, but hey pay for travel costs, including charters and bus rentals, hotels, per diems, etc... that's a very solid chunk of money as well, all of which basically goes to the players in addition to their salary.

The Oilers have all sorts of lease agreements and expiring contracts to negotiate. They need to project poor right now. If they dont get what they want, they will regrettably have to come to you for ticket price increases. They wont want to do it, but they will have been forced into it by the greedy players. Im sure you'll understand.

The Oilers management has not once said that it's the fault of the greedy players. The Oilers have been projecting poor for years, so I'm not sure why them needing a new lease agreement means anything. It's not like they were a profitable entity in 1996 or so.

They've also resigned most of their players already, so there aren't many expiring contracts (and no major ones at that either).

 

[Sanderson]

Just to give some numbers, the NHLPA proposed a 10% luxury tax.

For ten teams to get $10 million each ($100 million), the other 20 teams would have to spend $50 million more than the threshold is (10% of $1000 million divided by 20). And that counts for every team.

Maybe a luxury tax could work, but there is no chance if they start with 10%.
More like 100% after $35 or $40 million.

 

[dawgbone]

Over the last 3 years we have seen that the ability to compete does not depend on money...the ability to compete on ice has to do with competance in the front office. As for losses in developmental years, well, if you have a team salary of 45 mil+ in a developmental year, you deserve to lose money cause your GM is not doing his job correctly.

Oh yeah... gotta love those Carolina and Anaheim seasons!

What does compete mean to you? One playoff run, followed by missing the playoffs? What a joke.

Competing does depend on money... any deer tick with any working brain cells can see this. If you can't develop your prospects and actually keep them when they get good (because of finances), doesn't not having money prevent you from competing?

How many teams in development had a payroll of $45+mil last year? Not many... and guess what? Even in a luxury tax/salary cap system, that team isn't going to make money.

As for expansion, if the system was so broken, how come there have been like 5 expansion teams in the last 7 years all paying well over 50 mil to play in this broken league. These owners threw down the 50 mil because they were assured that the union would be broken and a system would be put in place where everyone would make a ton of money. Trust me, I have reasoned all of my points out. Take a look at the history of dealings between the owners and the union and tell me who deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I think the hope for a T.V. deal was thought of before breaking the union... that's just common sense. You go from a regional league, to a true national one, and try for the NBA-type T.V. deal.

Even with salary caps and luxury taxes, not everyone is going to make money. It's still going to take some smart ownership and a very smart G.M.

But aside from that, why shouldn't these people be guaranteed to make money? It's pro sports, not an IT company. There is enough money for the owners and players all to make very good money... and there are enough smart people in the league to make it happen.

The thing about a market based system is that the players would live by the sword and die by the sword. You saw the cuts these guys were taking in salaries this offseason. All the owners have to do is not shell out big bucks for guys who scored 30 points. If the owners cant show any self control, they do not deserve to make money. The market has been steadily correcting itself. The changes the players propose would have saved the owners millions upon millions of dollars.

Live by the sword, die by the sword? You mean the free market where only players can go to arbitration? You mean the free market that guarantees a 10% raise? That's not a free market, and it's getting very irritating to listen to this talk about it being a free market. The current NHL is not a free market.

As for the market correcting itself, you've got to be kidding me... that's about the biggest mis-informed comment I have ever heard. The average salary still managed to go up, yet again. And don't you think this correction had something to do with the fact that the owners were expecting a huge change to the financial climate of the NHL, and simply wanted to see how it played out first?

Do you honestly beleive, that if 2 years ago they extended the agreement they just had another 10 years, that the same signings would have happened?

If you beleive that, I've got some wonderful "waterfront" property in Florida you can buy off me.

The problem is, unless you want to lose your 30 point player to another team for nothing, you have to pay him... because if you don't another team will. That is the problem. If you don't pay Lapointe the $5mil he wants, some other team will. It's pretty easy to say the owners should just stop spending... but in reality, it's illegal. The owners cannot unilaterally agree on a self-imposed spending limit (it's called collusion). They can't even discuss something like that. And with the giant disparity in revenues, there is always a richer team that can afford any player they want, which drives up the salaries for the smaller markets... so they either pay up, or lose thier best players.

One more thing...what would be better for the owner of the lowly, poor, broke oilers? A system wwhere everyone is capped out at 35 mil, or a system with a luxery tax, where the Oil would recieve like 10 mil a year or more in shared revenue. And why would a team like the Rangers agree to a system where they could not take full advantage of their huge market...if they have the revenue to sustain a huge payroll, think of how much money they'll make if their player costs are capped at 35 mil.

LOL... well this totally proved that your "Trust me, I have reasoned all of my points out" was as worthless as a wooden nickle. It's pretty obvious what is better for the Oilers. They barely scrape out a profit now from a $34 mil payroll, but with everyone capped at $35, they'd be able to afford a significantly better hockey team, which would make them more competetive (by allowing them to keep the players they have developed), and lead to possibly more revenue through playoff gates (which would increase their revenues).

The Luxury tax/Revenue sharing system would simply allow the Oilers to spend more... but in terms of improving their hockey club, does it help them? If they are receiving $10 mil in revenue sharing and luxury tax money, they can't apply all of it to player salary (obviously... and I'll answer your question... because it bumps their payroll up to $44mil, most likely making them ineligible for the luxury tax payments the next year). So the Oilers essentially get an additional $5mil for player salaries, which in the NHL is a bottom-tier first line centre... oops, unless of course the Rangers go and sign their 50 point player to a deal worth $5mil/season, which means every 50 point player on the Oilers wants $5mil/season.

It's essentially putting a band-aid over a volcano. Unless we are talking stiff tax penalties (which the players have already said they won't agree to), all it does is allow teams to make more money... but it doesn't allow a team to win a cup by building up their team through youth (you know, they way they did it in the olden days???).

As for the Rags... they would still be able to use their financial resources... but instead of shelling out money in salaries, they can hire the best doctors, scouts, coaches, buy the best equipment, locker-room facilities, etc...

 

[s7ark]

LOL... well this totally proved that your "Trust me, I have reasoned all of my points out" was as worthless as a wooden nickle. It's pretty obvious what is better for the Oilers. They barely scrape out a profit now from a $34 mil payroll, but with everyone capped at $35, they'd be able to afford a significantly better hockey team, which would make them more competetive (by allowing them to keep the players they have developed), and lead to possibly more revenue through playoff gates (which would increase their revenues).

The Luxury tax/Revenue sharing system would simply allow the Oilers to spend more... but in terms of improving their hockey club, does it help them? If they are receiving $10 mil in revenue sharing and luxury tax money, they can't apply all of it to player salary (obviously... and I'll answer your question... because it bumps their payroll up to $44mil, most likely making them ineligible for the luxury tax payments the next year). So the Oilers essentially get an additional $5mil for player salaries, which in the NHL is a bottom-tier first line centre... oops, unless of course the Rangers go and sign their 50 point player to a deal worth $5mil/season, which means every 50 point player on the Oilers wants $5mil/season.

It's essentially putting a band-aid over a volcano. Unless we are talking stiff tax penalties (which the players have already said they won't agree to), all it does is allow teams to make more money... but it doesn't allow a team to win a cup by building up their team through youth (you know, they way they did it in the olden days???).

As for the Rags... they would still be able to use their financial resources... but instead of shelling out money in salaries, they can hire the best doctors, scouts, coaches, buy the best equipment, locker-room facilities, etc...

What a great post!!! Kudos to you Dawgbone!!!! That explains the rational for a cap better then I have ever heard it done before. Well done

 

[dawgbone]

Just to give some numbers, the NHLPA proposed a 10% luxury tax.

For ten teams to get $10 million each ($100 million), the other 20 teams would have to spend $50 million more than the threshold is (10% of $1000 million divided by 20). And that counts for every team.

Maybe a luxury tax could work, but there is no chance if they start with 10%.
More like 100% after $35 or $40 million.

He did say revenue sharing as well... but if you factor in 50% of revenues to be shared, that's about $1.05billion (of the $2.1billion the NHL generated).

That's an average of $35mil/team.

Now, if your team had revenues of $50mil, you lose 25 mil(50%) to the revenue sharing, but gain back $35 mil, so you are up $10 mil on revenue sharing alone...

But only 5 teams make around $50mil (they range between $43-51mil). Most teams generate more than that amount, so that $10mil extra decreases).

The question is, how much does that actually help (with luxury tax penalties in and around 20%)?

The answer?

Not much. It'll make teams more profitable, as long as they still don't spend as much as the big boys do...

 

[K215215]

Oh yeah... gotta love those Carolina and Anaheim seasons!

What does compete mean to you? One playoff run, followed by missing the playoffs? What a joke.

Competing does depend on money... any deer tick with any working brain cells can see this. If you can't develop your prospects and actually keep them when they get good (because of finances), doesn't not having money prevent you from competing?

How many teams in development had a payroll of $45+mil last year? Not many... and guess what? Even in a luxury tax/salary cap system, that team isn't going to make money.



I think the hope for a T.V. deal was thought of before breaking the union... that's just common sense. You go from a regional league, to a true national one, and try for the NBA-type T.V. deal.

Even with salary caps and luxury taxes, not everyone is going to make money. It's still going to take some smart ownership and a very smart G.M.

But aside from that, why shouldn't these people be guaranteed to make money? It's pro sports, not an IT company. There is enough money for the owners and players all to make very good money... and there are enough smart people in the league to make it happen.



Live by the sword, die by the sword? You mean the free market where only players can go to arbitration? You mean the free market that guarantees a 10% raise? That's not a free market, and it's getting very irritating to listen to this talk about it being a free market. The current NHL is not a free market.

As for the market correcting itself, you've got to be kidding me... that's about the biggest mis-informed comment I have ever heard. The average salary still managed to go up, yet again. And don't you think this correction had something to do with the fact that the owners were expecting a huge change to the financial climate of the NHL, and simply wanted to see how it played out first?

Do you honestly beleive, that if 2 years ago they extended the agreement they just had another 10 years, that the same signings would have happened?

If you beleive that, I've got some wonderful "waterfront" property in Florida you can buy off me.

The problem is, unless you want to lose your 30 point player to another team for nothing, you have to pay him... because if you don't another team will. That is the problem. If you don't pay Lapointe the $5mil he wants, some other team will. It's pretty easy to say the owners should just stop spending... but in reality, it's illegal. The owners cannot unilaterally agree on a self-imposed spending limit (it's called collusion). They can't even discuss something like that. And with the giant disparity in revenues, there is always a richer team that can afford any player they want, which drives up the salaries for the smaller markets... so they either pay up, or lose thier best players.



LOL... well this totally proved that your "Trust me, I have reasoned all of my points out" was as worthless as a wooden nickle. It's pretty obvious what is better for the Oilers. They barely scrape out a profit now from a $34 mil payroll, but with everyone capped at $35, they'd be able to afford a significantly better hockey team, which would make them more competetive (by allowing them to keep the players they have developed), and lead to possibly more revenue through playoff gates (which would increase their revenues).

The Luxury tax/Revenue sharing system would simply allow the Oilers to spend more... but in terms of improving their hockey club, does it help them? If they are receiving $10 mil in revenue sharing and luxury tax money, they can't apply all of it to player salary (obviously... and I'll answer your question... because it bumps their payroll up to $44mil, most likely making them ineligible for the luxury tax payments the next year). So the Oilers essentially get an additional $5mil for player salaries, which in the NHL is a bottom-tier first line centre... oops, unless of course the Rangers go and sign their 50 point player to a deal worth $5mil/season, which means every 50 point player on the Oilers wants $5mil/season.

It's essentially putting a band-aid over a volcano. Unless we are talking stiff tax penalties (which the players have already said they won't agree to), all it does is allow teams to make more money... but it doesn't allow a team to win a cup by building up their team through youth (you know, they way they did it in the olden days???).

As for the Rags... they would still be able to use their financial resources... but instead of shelling out money in salaries, they can hire the best doctors, scouts, coaches, buy the best equipment, locker-room facilities, etc...

You must get your information from the NHLCBA site. Im not going to argue every point with you (in the words of Jay-Z, "mama said I shouldn't argue with fools, because from a far people won't be able to tell who is who"), but I will bring up a couple of points.

1. I never said that the current system should stay the same. You fix the rookie cap, make changes in the arbitration system, meaningful luxery tax, and the 5% rollback (among other things). These are the types of adjustments that can be made through negotiations, not unilateral implementation.

2. The NHL has the most restrictive system of FA of any league. NO OTHER LEAGUE allows a team to hold on to a player untill he is 32. If the rookie cap and arbitration are modified, poorer teams will be able to hold on to a player longer at lower price. Instead of Kovy or Thorton making 5mil a year in their first contracts, theyd make 1 mil a year and their salaries would increase gradually and slower.

3. If some other team wants to pay Martin LaPointe 5 Mil, then let them...its there money. Staying within a budget and properly valuing players does not amount to collusion.

4. Just because you own a team does not mean you should profit every year. Ask Cardinal, Clippers, Blackhawk, and Bengals fans.

5. Yeah, the owners were hoping for a TV deal. Because these shrewd business men saw ratings plummet year after year and figured that ABC was going to throw 500 mil at them.

BTW, if you still have that waterfront property for sale in florida, I have some legit investors that might me interested in it . They are highly ethical businessmen you might know, Bill Wirtz, Charlie Wong, Harry Sinden, Ed Snider, Comcast. Check out their history of business dealings and let me know if you trust them.

 

[Taranis_24]

Maybe it's two separate issues but I remember as response from Gretzky on the issue of becoming commissioner in response to Chelios's remarks. His comments in a TSN article were and I'm parapharazing, "Is that I have no desire to be commissioner that I stand behind Bettman and feel that he is doing a good job". Isn't htat in itself taking a stand? Or is he just towing the line with management? I don't know him personally but he doesn't strike me as the type that would do that.

 

[dawgbone]

You must get your information from the NHLCBA site. Im not going to argue every point with you (in the words of Jay-Z, "mama said I shouldn't argue with fools, because from a far people won't be able to tell who is who"), but I will bring up a couple of points.

1. I never said that the current system should stay the same. You fix the rookie cap, make changes in the arbitration system, meaningful luxery tax, and the 5% rollback (among other things). These are the types of adjustments that can be made through negotiations, not unilateral implementation.

Gee... how could I possibly misunderstand this statement:

The thing about a market based system is that the players would live by the sword and die by the sword. You saw the cuts these guys were taking in salaries this offseason. All the owners have to do is not shell out big bucks for guys who scored 30 points. If the owners cant show any self control, they do not deserve to make money. The market has been steadily correcting itself.

Sorry man, that statement sounds pretty much like thinking the system works.

The sticker is the meaningful luxury tax... 10% is not a meaningful tax, and the players would never agree to much of anything over 30%. I'd venture that 50% at $40 mil and 100% at $50 mil is a meaningful tax... but the players certainly won't accept that right now.

2. The NHL has the most restrictive system of FA of any league. NO OTHER LEAGUE allows a team to hold on to a player untill he is 32. If the rookie cap and arbitration are modified, poorer teams will be able to hold on to a player longer at lower price. Instead of Kovy or Thorton making 5mil a year in their first contracts, theyd make 1 mil a year and their salaries would increase gradually and slower.

Actually, it's 31... as for the most restrictive free agency system, it's also got the most lax entry level system, a very player-favourable arbitration system, guaranteed raises for the majority of the league every year of 10%, and an economic system where a team with $100 mil in revenues has an impact on the salaries a team with $50 mil in revenues spends.

3. If some other team wants to pay Martin LaPointe 5 Mil, then let them...its there money.

Isn't that the problem though? If the player has any value, someone will pay for it. If you won't, someone will, and then you have to find someone to replace him. Lapointe isn't the best example, because he is a UFA, but we've continually seen star players leave teams because of budget restraints... and they get snapped up by the haves.

Staying within a budget and properly valuing players does not amount to collusion.

True, but the Rangers and their $100mil in revenues are going to have a much higher budget that Minnesota and their $60mil... and there is the problem. In order for Minnesota to keep their Gaboriks, Dupuis, etc... they are going to have to fork over the same money the Rangers would pay for the same calibre of player.

Every team has a budget and sticks to it... but unfortunately, that's the problem... the budget differentials are far to great.

4. Just because you own a team does not mean you should profit every year. Ask Cardinal, Clippers, Blackhawk, and Bengals fans.

What year have the Bengals lost money? The Clippers don't lose money (according to Forbes and their owner, Donald Sterling).

Aside from gross mismanagement, or poorly constructed league economics, there is no reason a major north american pro sports franchise should not make a profit. It's utterly ignorant to think other wise. Sure, if there are controls in place, and you screw them up, it's your fault... Oddly enough, the Hawks and Cardinals fall under this category. The NFL has no franchises losing money, the NBA has a couple (the Sonics have a terrible lease deal which is killing them). MLB and NHL both have a significant number of teams losing money.

5. Yeah, the owners were hoping for a TV deal. Because these shrewd business men saw ratings plummet year after year and figured that ABC was going to throw 500 mil at them.

The NBA got one... despite having a much larger dip in T.V. ratings that the NHL has.

Another thing that needs to be addressed, because everyone loves to talk ratings when they talk about the NHL, is the amount of games televised. It's tough to build ratings and a T.V. fan base when games are never shown.

ESPN has cut the amount of games they broadcast in half since 1998... ABC was a joke when it came to televising games (they hardly ever did it). Not once has the 30 team league had a real shot with a National audience. But that never gets mentioned... which is a shame. Consistency is huge when it comes to television programming, and hockey hasn't had it in the States, and it's hurt it severely.

 

[gary69]

Oh yeah... gotta love those Carolina and Anaheim seasons!

What does compete mean to you? One playoff run, followed by missing the playoffs? What a joke.

Competing does depend on money... any deer tick with any working brain cells can see this. If you can't develop your prospects and actually keep them when they get good (because of finances), doesn't not having money prevent you from competing?

...

It's hard to follow the line of thinking for the people like you, who keep complaining about "competing"...

What does competing mean to you, please tell us what would be the ideal league like where everybody "competes" equally?

Just purely matchematically, almost half (14) teams are going to miss the playoffs every year, so if you say compete means every team makes playoffs about equally regularly, then the whole league would be full of Anaheims and Carolinas every year. How hard is it to understand that somebody has to have players not producing like they produced in the past and thus being "overpaid", many draft picks have to "fail" compared to others. I certainly prefer some sort of continuity regarding succesful teams, not an equally competitive league of yours.

In this ideal league of yours where everybody competes equally, apart from few teams who might actually keep a better than average team together for maybe even two or max three years, most of the teams will go from missing the playoffs to great playoff runs every other year. Yeah, you and your like could be proud of how competitive league is, but a true hockey fan who values good teams, would only see a watered down product with a league-wide mediocrity.

With a hard cap we might see this, especially if contacts are not guaranteed, people suffling all over the place all the time. The team performing poorly one season, gets rid of their dead weight and thus being well under cap, scoops the best teams, who having been good presumably just because they are near the cap limit or will be near the cap limit immediately after their success and cannot thus keep all their players by matching the offers from teams more under the cap limit.

If a fan doesn't want a league where every team is average and teams are torn apart every second year, he cannot side with the owners in their quest for a hard cap.

Money (budget, revenues) differences are a good way to ensure that we have a league which is interesting and has at least some good teams.

 

[Digger12]

Money (budget, revenues) differences are a good way to ensure that we have a league which is interesting and has at least some good teams.

So are you saying that NHL on ice success is directly proportional to how much money a team spends, and has less to do with competent management and quality drafting?

Gary Bettman sends his thanks.

 

[gary69]

So are you saying that NHL on ice success is directly proportional to how much money a team spends, and has less to do with competent management and quality drafting?

Gary Bettman sends his thanks.

Of course not money isn't all that counts, but I don't think that in a what is supposed to be a some sort of business (unfortunately it isn't a free market though) any artificial systems work much better than a money-driven system.

The option of spending money in an effort of trying to improve your team shouldn't be categorically taken away. Different strategies for different franchises in their pursuit for that elusive cup are part of the excitement.

 

[Digger12]

Of course not money isn't all that counts, but I don't think that in a what is supposed to be a some sort of business (unfortunately it isn't a free market though) any artificial systems work much better than a money-driven system.

The option of spending money in an effort of trying to improve your team shouldn't be categorically taken away. Different strategies for different franchises in their pursuit for that elusive cup are part of the excitement.

See, I agree with you here to an extent...I don't want all teams to be hobbled the same way, personally I'm quite fine with a luxury tax system or a NBA-like soft cap AS LONG AS IT HAS SOME TEETH TO IT...and by that, I mean a system a heck of a lot more aggressive than that feeble attempt at a proposal the NHLPA made.

However, a purely money-driven system in a sports league will NOT work long term IMHO, and it certainly doesn't guarantee great hockey. This current iteration of the NHL is more money-driven than it's ever been, yet I find the overall product more boring and rife with trapping teams than what I grew up with in the 80's, even with the huge influx of European talent it still seems like this league values shutouts over hat tricks.

 

[gary69]

See, I agree with you here to an extent...I don't want all teams to be hobbled the same way, personally I'm quite fine with a luxury tax system or a NBA-like soft cap AS LONG AS IT HAS SOME TEETH TO IT...and by that, I mean a system a heck of a lot more aggressive than that feeble attempt at a proposal the NHLPA made.

However, a purely money-driven system in a sports league will NOT work long term IMHO, and it certainly doesn't guarantee great hockey. This current iteration of the NHL is more money-driven than it's ever been, yet I find the overall product more boring and rife with trapping teams than what I grew up with in the 80's, even with the huge influx of European talent it still seems like this league values shutouts over hat tricks.

Unfortunately, we're not the ones negotiating here, since I think luxury tax would be a good compromise too...hope it comes to that.

Probably neither the NHLPA offer nor the NHL offer are not the final offers, the ones they would be able to live with, but the thing that they are not even talking to each other, that seems a bit strange strategy to me. Well, maybe they both honestly believe that they can get a better deal, if it is negotiated in a hurry under great pressure in a short period of time. Or maybe the reason is, that they have some other "secret" agenda and goals altogether...

But I believe a truly free market can work in sports also, of course no system can guarentee everybody's succesful or happy all the time. I can think of European soccer's Champions League as an example, it's pretty much free market, being the biggest spender doesn't guarantee winning the whole thing, and the standard of play and exciment is pretty good for average soccer fans of hundreds of teams hoping to gaining entry each year, plus for neutral fans also.

Although spending money to buy the best players probably increases a team's chances, but I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with that startegy, teams with less money to spend can outwit the rich by other means and adapting different strategies. I believe this could work for NHL also, although since this kind of free market is highly unlikely to happen in hockey, it's not really worth elaborating here.

As for the standard of play, I agree with you totally, I loved the 80's hockey, but I don't think it has a lot to do with CBA apart from that expansion fees might have encouraged to place NHL franchises into too many poor hockey markets. Thus too many non-NHL standard players in the league, resulting in hooking etc., which in turn is not called by the rule book, oversized goalie equipment...

This is my biggest worry, that whatever comes out as new CBA, the standard of play doesn't deteriorate to a league-wide mediocrity.