nedved93 said:
let's assume that the financials are accurate - would this not be more indicative of a revenue side problem than a cost problem?
i have another question though that i think is worth exploring: many fans of small market teams complain that they simply cannot compete with their large market brethren. the argument rests on the notion that more money implies a greater ability to acquire free agent players, thereby ensuring a more competitive on-ice product. implicit in that argument is a strong, almost definite causal relationship between how much a club spends on player salaries to that club's on-ice performance. in that vein, i wonder if my small-market friends can explain why tampa bay (payroll $34,065,379) beat calgary (payroll $36,402,575), who in turn beat san jose (payroll $34,455,000) to advance to the cup finals? explain why a team that was on the verge on bankruptcy, (ottawa, payroll $39,590,000) is widely considered a model NHL franchise? why is new jersey (payroll $48,931,658) considered by most to rival the new england patriots as being the most well-run professional sports franchise? how has minnesota's wild (payroll $27,200,500) achieved so much success in its brief existence? why is atlanta (payroll $28,547,500) on the verge of entering the "competitive" phase of the team development cycle? what of nashville (payroll $21,932,500)? how were they not only able to qualify for the playoffs but provide such stiff competition to detroit (payroll $77,856,109)? why have the rangers failed to make the playoffs in 7 years? why have toronto, philadelphia, and st.louis been unable to win championships, or even qualify for a cup finals appearance despite their inflated salary structures? and why is it almost an unwritten rule in the NHL that any team can beat any other team on any given night, regardless of their total payroll differential?
we know that large market teams drive up wage rates in the UFA market, that is indisputable. but i challenge the underlying assertion that the ability of a club to compete and even contend, is determined primarily by how much they spend (of course for clubs like pittsburg and buffalo that is certainly the case). if the goal is to allow ALL clubs to retain their talent, why isn't more emphasis placed on reforming the ELS, arbitration and qualifier systems, the primary drivers of NHL salary inflation? if the goal is to allow small-market clubs to compete with the large-market clubs in the UFA market, then why not embrace a system that harshly penalizes those large-market clubs who do spend recklessly by forcing them to have to funnel money directly to their small-market rivals? i don't for the life of me understand by this board doesn't openly embrace a hybrid system, or perhaps even one that places a cap on UFA spending?
Valid points IMO.
Response to your points.
1) IMO, you cannot segregate the revenue and cost as they are closely related. The point of the owners, (which you have touched upon in your 2nd point, is that, because of the increase of the cost of players, the revenue margin decreases, to a point where they can no longer to operate with such margin, which is at loss, according to their financials. It is not necessarily about the Revenue OR the cost; rather, its about the margin, which in terms is related to both revenue and cost as you know.
2) Sure, a very valid challenge to the assertion that owners cant ice a competative product on and/or off the ice as i am personally often puzzled by that, but here is my explaination.
Hockey is a team sport and individual talents play less of a factor than to say, the MLB, where you can field a group of 10 superstars and you will probably win the series. (Check the Yankees). But Hockey is different, (check the Rangers). Anybody can beat anybody. Check the 1980 US Olympic team, for example, they are the overwhelming underdog against russian superpower, and you know the story. Sure, all of those teams who have done well, (such as sharks, flames, bolts), but that is for now, and notice most of the major impact players on those teams are entering the last couple of years of their contract and they are young. They are energetic and they are cheap, for now. But the point of the owners is not about the RFA contracts being too high, its about the UFAs, who probably contributed the most greatly to the increase of the average salary in the NHL, where there are still hundreds of players who are making below average of 1.8M or below the 1 million mark.
The teams you mentioned, ATL, SJ, Flames, sure, they are competative at THIS POINT, BUT, if there is no change of CBA scenery, the chances of these impact players staying in Calgary, Atlanta, SJ are very slim as no way these teams can afford to keep all of their big guns. ATL for example, maybe they will force to make a decision to keep either ONE of the Heatley and Ilya.
3) Valid points and i actually agree with them. But, I still believe a cap is the essential and key point in any of the CBA, hard or soft cap. There are quite a few advantages of a cap to the NHL as a whole IMO.
a) Better product development in terms of GMs are actually trying hard to build a team, and rather, buy a team, and this would in term relates to better on ice management and probably off-ice management.
b) increased revenue through concession due to better managed teams icing more competative products with homegrown stars whom the team can actually sign even when he becomes an UFA
c) increased revenue in comm/tv deals due to increased support and ratings
d) because of the cap, (maybe similar to that of the NFL), teams have to release some of their own players who can then sign with other teams to balance the league competitiveness. This achieves nhl parity.
OR, you know what??? No cap? Fine, how about NO MORE GUARANTEED contract like those of the NFL??
I think that would definitely help this situation too!
These owners are just plain liers and would support slaverly if they could get it . Further, I do not care what you people think and I am going to say what I want when I want and the way I want.
