Small markets face big trouble

[MarkZackKarl]

This aspect of the deal is not bad for "small markets" persay. It just happens to be that the teams it is bad for right now are "small market teams": teams like Ottawa that are loaded up with a lot of good players in a similar age bracket.

One positive aspect of this is that it will force teams to have balanced lineups mixed with both young players and veterans, rather than loading up on a ton of guys all the same age and hoping to keep them all together for the long term, which will be impossible.

How is this a positive? I would rather have my team suck for 5 or 6 seasons, draft develop and trade for a bunch of younger players who then mature at the same time and lead to a great decade or more of excellent hockey than be .500 over 15 seasons.


I'd rather be really bad and then be elite over a period of time than be constantly mediocre.


Hoping to be the luckiest team, instead of the best team or one of the top 6 or 7 over several years, lessens the "accomplishment" quite significantly.

NOt onlyt hat, but if payrolls are all similar, then outside intangibles will play a big role for players. The mere fact that teams that draft talent will be incompetition to retain it during their prime years with other teams freely able to bid on their services with no penalties AUTOMATICALLY makes this CBA FAR WORSE for small markets.

No one has yet used any logic to explain how the upcoming system is better for teams like Ottawa or Buffalo than the previous system was. The Sens will go from elite and one of the best teams to average and hoping that we get lucky enough one year to beat another average team for the Average Cup. Woo hoo, great league you have going there.


Whats sad is the mostly idiotic fan base will think this system is "fairer" as team continuity is thrown to the wind.

Having 6 players turnover every year, including 'core' players, will destroy the NHL's legacy and tradition.

 

[boredmale]

Having 6 players turnover every year, including 'core' players, will destroy the NHL's legacy and tradition.

while this is a valid arguement, but to argue that i would say that the turnover rate in the NFL doesn't seem to hurt them. I like the fact that in the NFL any given team that aren't named the Arizona Cardinals can win any given year.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

while this is a valid arguement, but to argue that i would say that the turnover rate in the NFL doesn't seem to hurt them. I like the fact that in the NFL any given team that aren't named the Arizona Cardinals can win any given year.

Thats nice. Fortunately, I held the NHL to a higher standard (for some reason). I loved the way it was built and that excellence, not luck, was rewarded.

Now we'll suffer through endless mediocre seasons, knowing full well that we can only be good, and never great. We'll have to hope one year out of 25 we get lucky enough to win... or if we do manage the near impossible and have a good run for 3 years that we load up then cause bang back in the pack we go.

Ottawa wins in 2006, but we can't win again until 2028 I guess we have to give Chicago, Boston, New York, Montreal and Minnesota their Cup too.


Whats funny is the new system, although some smaller markets will win occasionally (maybe 10% of the Cups), the big markets will win the vast majority, orat least on average be more competitive.

AT least in the old CBA, market size had no correlation to whether you had a good team or not. Now it will.

The NHL will generate more revenues when the winners are consistenly found in Toronto, New York, Montreal and Los Angeles than Denver, Tampa Bay, Ottawa and Calgary.

Its business. Some teams gain and others lose. Not surprisingly, the teams that gain are the teams with more weight or more possibility of exposure.

And idiots thought this whole thing was gonna help the small markets!

 

[Tra La La]

while this is a valid arguement, but to argue that i would say that the turnover rate in the NFL doesn't seem to hurt them. I like the fact that in the NFL any given team that aren't named the Arizona Cardinals can win any given year.

NFL = BIG Time Revenue Sharing. Everyone Can afford the same.

 

[kingsfan]

How is this a positive? I would rather have my team suck for 5 or 6 seasons, draft develop and trade for a bunch of younger players who then mature at the same time and lead to a great decade or more of excellent hockey than be .500 over 15 seasons.


I'd rather be really bad and then be elite over a period of time than be constantly mediocre.


Hoping to be the luckiest team, instead of the best team or one of the top 6 or 7 over several years, lessens the "accomplishment" quite significantly.

NOt onlyt hat, but if payrolls are all similar, then outside intangibles will play a big role for players. The mere fact that teams that draft talent will be incompetition to retain it during their prime years with other teams freely able to bid on their services with no penalties AUTOMATICALLY makes this CBA FAR WORSE for small markets.

No one has yet used any logic to explain how the upcoming system is better for teams like Ottawa or Buffalo than the previous system was. The Sens will go from elite and one of the best teams to average and hoping that we get lucky enough one year to beat another average team for the Average Cup. Woo hoo, great league you have going there.


Whats sad is the mostly idiotic fan base will think this system is "fairer" as team continuity is thrown to the wind.

Having 6 players turnover every year, including 'core' players, will destroy the NHL's legacy and tradition.

Going by what you are saying here, it would mean that the NBA and NFL both suck and are an 'average league' going for an 'average cup'. I think that most fans would gladly take the NBA and especially NFL level of competition any day.

 

[AM]

The whole CBA...

How is this a positive? I would rather have my team suck for 5 or 6 seasons, draft develop and trade for a bunch of younger players who then mature at the same time and lead to a great decade or more of excellent hockey than be .500 over 15 seasons.


I'd rather be really bad and then be elite over a period of time than be constantly mediocre.


Hoping to be the luckiest team, instead of the best team or one of the top 6 or 7 over several years, lessens the "accomplishment" quite significantly.

NOt onlyt hat, but if payrolls are all similar, then outside intangibles will play a big role for players. The mere fact that teams that draft talent will be incompetition to retain it during their prime years with other teams freely able to bid on their services with no penalties AUTOMATICALLY makes this CBA FAR WORSE for small markets.

No one has yet used any logic to explain how the upcoming system is better for teams like Ottawa or Buffalo than the previous system was. The Sens will go from elite and one of the best teams to average and hoping that we get lucky enough one year to beat another average team for the Average Cup. Woo hoo, great league you have going there.


Whats sad is the mostly idiotic fan base will think this system is "fairer" as team continuity is thrown to the wind.

Having 6 players turnover every year, including 'core' players, will destroy the NHL's legacy and tradition.

should be written to make sure Ottawa has the best chance to win the cup!

Too bad they didnt move the franchise to timbucktoo when it went bellyup the first time.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Going by what you are saying here, it would mean that the NBA and NFL both suck and are an 'average league' going for an 'average cup'. I think that most fans would gladly take the NBA and especially NFL level of competition any day.

The NBA, general, sucks for the smaller markets, but at least it allows for teams to remain competitive over several seasons.

Looking at the last 15 - 20 years, we have champioins in Chicago, Houston, Detroit, Los Angeles and San Antonio. 1 small market (San Antonio), 2 mid markets (Houston, Detroit) and 2 huge markets (LA and Chicago).

That doesn't seem like too much of a "fair" league, although they do have some competitive smaller markets, they are always "a step behind".

The NBA benefits if on a consistent basis the biggest markets have competitive temas. Sure smaller markets like San Antonio win here and there, but the vast majority is in the upper 10 cities, population wise. Not surprsiing.

The NFL does suck. Skewing the schedule for weaker teams against weaker opponents, forcing SB champs to dismantle after one lucky season because of the cap, everything put on as a big spectacle "any given Sunday" ********. That isn't a league, its a lottery.

Hoping your team gets LUCKY one year is far less logical than hoping that it remains an elite team like it deserves because it is the best managed. The Patriots are an exception bcause their players are constantly taking paycuts and restructuring their deals to stay together.

As long as a system like the OLD cba exists in which teams have equality of opportunity given competent andp atient management, then it is fair. Anything else like lowering the UFA age drastically or putting the emphasis on Luck over consistency is a transparent cash grab by the owners to try and get the better teams in the bigger markets (more posibility of future revenues?) and to sell more "hope" and tickets so they don't suffer through extended periods of low revenues and rebuilding.

Sure this CBA may help out Melnyk by fixing costs and increasing the randomness (although I still don't get why Melnyk would support this CBA aside from increasing franchise values) but as a fan I want a product that I can be proud of and enjoy over and extended period. Not a McHockey Franchise that is pretty much interchangable with 13 other teams in the league in any given year.

Yuck.

 

[GSC2k2*]

How is a small market going to be offering $7.8 million when they didn't used to?
Where is all this money going to automatically appear for them for this level playing field? If these teams weren't spending $7.8 million in the past, what makes you think they will be able to do so in the future? The fact is lowered UFA ages hurt teams with less money, because unrestricted free agency is all about throwing money around.

Two words: revenue sharing.

 

[Flyguy_1ca]

Thats nice. Fortunately, I held the NHL to a higher standard (for some reason). I loved the way it was built and that excellence, not luck, was rewarded.

Now we'll suffer through endless mediocre seasons, knowing full well that we can only be good, and never great. We'll have to hope one year out of 25 we get lucky enough to win... or if we do manage the near impossible and have a good run for 3 years that we load up then cause bang back in the pack we go.

Ottawa wins in 2006, but we can't win again until 2028 I guess we have to give Chicago, Boston, New York, Montreal and Minnesota their Cup too.


Whats funny is the new system, although some smaller markets will win occasionally (maybe 10% of the Cups), the big markets will win the vast majority, orat least on average be more competitive.

AT least in the old CBA, market size had no correlation to whether you had a good team or not. Now it will.

The NHL will generate more revenues when the winners are consistenly found in Toronto, New York, Montreal and Los Angeles than Denver, Tampa Bay, Ottawa and Calgary.

Its business. Some teams gain and others lose. Not surprisingly, the teams that gain are the teams with more weight or more possibility of exposure.

And idiots thought this whole thing was gonna help the small markets!

Excellence was rewarded? Actually, money was rewarded. Didn't you ever stop and wonder why 80-90% of the consistently good teams of the last 10-15 years (since salaries took off) were in big rich markets? Colorado, Detroit, Philly, Dallas, Rangers (90's), Devils, etc. Teams like Winnipeg/Phoenix, Edmonton, Hartford/Carolina, Calgary etc...couldn't compete except for the occasional time when they caught lightning in a bottle and made a playoff run (only to miss the playoffs the next season).

Money never guaranteed rich teams would win the cup, but lack of money guaranteed poor teams couldn't consistently compete for the cup.

This new system is good for the smaller markets because teams like Edmonton can spend 25-35 million, which is not a stretch for them....and they don't have to compete against a team that is willing to spend 70-80 million (rangers, wings, flyers etc).

Sure, the low age of free agency means teams like Atlanta might lose Kovalchuk in a few years.....but the catch is..the team that signs him has to make room for him! So say Detroit signs him...that likely means they lost someone like Zetterberg/Datsyuk at least..if not more. Now Atlanta has freed up money to sign Zetterberg and/or Datsyuk....so they're not much if any worse....just different.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

should be written to make sure Ottawa has the best chance to win the cup!

Too bad they didnt move the franchise to timbucktoo when it went bellyup the first time.

The Senators bankruptcy had nothing to do with the CBA and everything to do with undercapitlization. Ottawa is quite a strong market for hockey. Better luck next time, smart guy.

 

[GSC2k2*]

How is this a positive? I would rather have my team suck for 5 or 6 seasons, draft develop and trade for a bunch of younger players who then mature at the same time and lead to a great decade or more of excellent hockey than be .500 over 15 seasons.


I'd rather be really bad and then be elite over a period of time than be constantly mediocre.


Hoping to be the luckiest team, instead of the best team or one of the top 6 or 7 over several years, lessens the "accomplishment" quite significantly.

NOt onlyt hat, but if payrolls are all similar, then outside intangibles will play a big role for players. The mere fact that teams that draft talent will be incompetition to retain it during their prime years with other teams freely able to bid on their services with no penalties AUTOMATICALLY makes this CBA FAR WORSE for small markets.

No one has yet used any logic to explain how the upcoming system is better for teams like Ottawa or Buffalo than the previous system was. The Sens will go from elite and one of the best teams to average and hoping that we get lucky enough one year to beat another average team for the Average Cup. Woo hoo, great league you have going there.


Whats sad is the mostly idiotic fan base will think this system is "fairer" as team continuity is thrown to the wind.

Having 6 players turnover every year, including 'core' players, will destroy the NHL's legacy and tradition.

Well, whatever will turn you off hockey, make you stop watching and stop being a nuisance of yourself on these boards with your opinions and annoying patter is okey dokey with me.

And I don't think I am alone in that sentiment.

You remain 0-fer in informed and productive posts.

 

[kingsfan]

The NBA, general, sucks for the smaller markets, but at least it allows for teams to remain competitive over several seasons.

Looking at the last 15 - 20 years, we have champioins in Chicago, Houston, Detroit, Los Angeles and San Antonio. 1 small market (San Antonio), 2 mid markets (Houston, Detroit) and 2 huge markets (LA and Chicago).

That doesn't seem like too much of a "fair" league, although they do have some competitive smaller markets, they are always "a step behind".

The NBA benefits if on a consistent basis the biggest markets have competitive temas. Sure smaller markets like San Antonio win here and there, but the vast majority is in the upper 10 cities, population wise. Not surprsiing.

The NFL does suck. Skewing the schedule for weaker teams against weaker opponents, forcing SB champs to dismantle after one lucky season because of the cap, everything put on as a big spectacle "any given Sunday" ********. That isn't a league, its a lottery.

Hoping your team gets LUCKY one year is far less logical than hoping that it remains an elite team like it deserves because it is the best managed. The Patriots are an exception bcause their players are constantly taking paycuts and restructuring their deals to stay together.

As long as a system like the OLD cba exists in which teams have equality of opportunity given competent andp atient management, then it is fair. Anything else like lowering the UFA age drastically or putting the emphasis on Luck over consistency is a transparent cash grab by the owners to try and get the better teams in the bigger markets (more posibility of future revenues?) and to sell more "hope" and tickets so they don't suffer through extended periods of low revenues and rebuilding.

Sure this CBA may help out Melnyk by fixing costs and increasing the randomness (although I still don't get why Melnyk would support this CBA aside from increasing franchise values) but as a fan I want a product that I can be proud of and enjoy over and extended period. Not a McHockey Franchise that is pretty much interchangable with 13 other teams in the league in any given year.

Yuck.

I didn't know 3 championships in 7 years was 'once in a while'. Might want to let Tim Duncan know how 'lucky' the Spurs are.

And I don't by this whole everyone's mediocore part. If anything, this will see what teams actually can scout, develop talent and know how to play the UFA market well to maximize bang for the buck (such as a team like NJ) and which teams can't (Carolina for example). In both the NFL and NBA, there are elite teams that stay there for more than a year or two. The patriots are one example in the NFL, like you pointed out. The 49ers were the top dog for a decent span and, if I'm not mistaken, they made the playoffs for something like 21 staright years before finally missing out like 3-4 years ago. The Cowboys are another semi-dynasty too. And Green bay, arguably the definition of small market, at least NFL wise, was one of the top teams for a number of years, and had back to back superbowl appearances. It's not like NFL teams go to the superbowl than go 8-8 the next year the majority of the time. There may never be any team seriously challenge the Canadians streak of five straight Cups ever again, but to suggest that each team will start the season basically even, is not true.

And the NFL's skewed schedule to pit weaker teams with easier opponents doesn;t really matter here since the NHL won;t be doing that.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Well, whatever will turn you off hockey, make you stop watching and stop being a nuisance of yourself on these boards with your opinions and annoying patter is okey dokey with me.

And I don't think I am alone in that sentiment.

You remain 0-fer in informed and productive posts.

Don't worry. I don't lose any sleep if a simpleton disagrees with me or continues to ignore facts and reasoning when making their decisions.


My posts are quite informed and are as close to reality as you can get. It is unfortunate that you can't be in the same category, gscarpenter.

 

[ktaylor57]

Yes, Ottawa will lose their a couple of their stars when they turn 27. What makes you think Colorado or Boston or any other team won't lose a couple players too?

So called 'dynasties' can still exist, it'll take great management/coaching now. And a few players that aren't in it for the money, obviously. Not a huge player budget. Even if there are no dynasties, what's wrong with a league where (almost) every team has a fair shot at the cup? The 'lucky year' excuse is bogus. If your team has one good year and can't keep all of its players together and won't shell out the money to get a quality FA or two to replace them, OH WELL!

These same people that are complaining that there'll be too much player movement and a real level playing field are probably the same ones that were complaining about how it's always Detroit and Colorado and Philadelphia and New Jersey being the contenders year after year.

 

[HF2002]

The Senators bankruptcy had nothing to do with the CBA and everything to do with undercapitlization. Ottawa is quite a strong market for hockey. Better luck next time, smart guy.

Bryden worked miracles. It's amazing he lasted as long as he did.

PS change that avatar - you're just reminding everyone that the Sens LOST in '03/'04 to the Maple Losers.

 

[ScottyBowman]

We heard a lot of complaining about small market teams losing a lot of money with payrolls in the range of $30 mil. What is this new cba going to do to help teams like the Predators who allegedly lost $10 mil with a $31 mil payroll or the Hurricanes who claim to be losing $10-15 mil with a payroll of $35 mil. I also don't see revenue sharing being anywhere near $10 mil per team to cover losses.

 

[rwilson99]

Looking at the last 15 - 20 years, we have champioins in Chicago, Houston, Detroit, Los Angeles and San Antonio. 1 small market (San Antonio), 2 mid markets (Houston, Detroit) and 2 huge markets (LA and Chicago)..

You just have to ignore the fact that Utah, Sacremento, Orlando, New Jersey and Indiana were all serious contenders for a number of those years.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

I didn't know 3 championships in 7 years was 'once in a while'. Might want to let Tim Duncan know how 'lucky' the Spurs are.

Looking over the last 20 years of the NBA:


Chicago Bulls- 6 championships
Los Angeles Lakers - 5 championships
Detroit Pistons- 3 championships
San Antonio Spurs- 3 championships
Houston Rockets - 2 championiships
Boston Celtics - 1 championship

I see one smaller market team on that list. Small market wins in the NBA last 20 years: 3/20 = 15%.

With 85% of the Wins coming from cities at or near the top 10 in population is hardly a coincidence. The NBA gives an illusion of fairness when in fact it is not really fair at all.

Looking over the last 20 years in the NHL, on the other hand:

Tampa Bay
New Jersey
Detroit
Colorado
Dallas
New York Rangers
Montreal
Pittsburgh
Edmonton
Calgary

10 champions in 20 years in the NHL. 6 champions in 20 years in the NBA. Not only that, but champions in the NHL include small market Calgary and Edmonton, small to mid market Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh and Denver (Colorado), Mid to large market Montreal Detroit and Dallas, and "large market" New Jersey (and we all know the reveneus they generate are hardly large market) and New York. Considering Jersey as amid market team is probably more fair, but I'll concede that the area has a large population.

And I don't by this whole everyone's mediocore part. If anything, this will see what teams actually can scout, develop talent and know how to play the UFA market well to maximize bang for the buck (such as a team like NJ) and which teams can't (Carolina for example). In both the NFL and NBA, there are elite teams that stay there for more than a year or two. The patriots are one example in the NFL, like you pointed out. The 49ers were the top dog for a decent span and, if I'm not mistaken, they made the playoffs for something like 21 staright years before finally missing out like 3-4 years ago. The Cowboys are another semi-dynasty too. And Green bay, arguably the definition of small market, at least NFL wise, was one of the top teams for a number of years, and had back to back superbowl appearances. It's not like NFL teams go to the superbowl than go 8-8 the next year the majority of the time. There may never be any team seriously challenge the Canadians streak of five straight Cups ever again, but to suggest that each team will start the season basically even, is not true.

They wont be all exactly the same every season, but this will all but elimintate elite teams (by elite i mean 5 or more seasons at or near the top). The elimination of these elite teams has to transfer over somewhere. All it will do is make the elite teams "good" or "very good" (but only for a short period) which will increase the nujbmer of good teams. This of course, for any one using a brain, means that if their team, seeing as they can only be good and not great, is on par with 12 other teams lets say in teh good category (the top 6 in each conference) then they will have LESS of a chance of winning than if their team was elite. I can understand where the fans come from from teams who are mismanaged and want an easy way out (kinda looking in your direction, Edmonton) but its not what its cracked up to be.

NFL teams can be "good" but they often look good simply because their competition is on avergae quite weak. SImilar to the OIlers of the 80s, although they were a great team, the competition around them is not even close to the level of competition that exists currently in the NHL or in the 90s. NOt coincidentally this coincided with the influx of European talent.

Higher scoring games, for the most part, are a ersult of more disparity, not parity. So any doofuses that believe that more equal teams will increase scoring need to realize that this is counter intuitive. The only way average scoring increases is with kooky rule changes and forced winners in games (shootouts). The parity will not be the reason for the goal scoring to go up.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

You just have to ignore the fact that Utah, Sacremento, Orlando, New Jersey and Indiana were all serious contenders for a number of those years.

How do you define serious contenders? Looking at regular season results?

If you look at playoffs and say "Well, Utah Orlando and Indiana all made the finals once!" Then to be fair you have to also say

"Well Carolina, Buffalo, Calgary Tampa Bay and Anaheim made the finals once!"

most people on this board try and shrug those finalists as flukes and thus the NBA teams that make the finals once can't be deemed "serious contenders"... unless of course you acknowledge that it wasn't just a fluke that Buffalo Caorlina and Calgary made the finals...

 

[Icey]

You honestly are delusional. Edmonton has announced they will have a 33 million dollar payroll this year. That's only 6 million less than Detroit. Last year the gap between Edmonton and Detroit was 45 MILLION DOLLARS!!!

2003-2004 gap between Edmonton and Detroit = 45 MILLION

2005-2006 gap between Edmonton and Detroit = 6 MILLION

Keep whining and bitc.hing about how bad this deal is for small markets. Some of you people from small markets live on a different planet.

If Edmonton couldn't make a go of it with a $30M payroll in 2003-04 then how do they expect to make a profit with a $33M payroll in 2005-06? Where has all this money suddenly come from? Not from revenue sharing because Edmonton will be receiving none according to everything I have read. Small market teams think that just because there is a salary cap that all the sudden they are going to become a successful team financially are going to be in for a rude awakening.

And all that smaller does is benifit the larger market teams. If a player is FA all that will happen is the amount he is offered by teams become a smaller gap. Perhaps the original team will be able to keep them, but what it means also is the larger market teams don't have to offer that player much more to lure them away.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Don't worry. I don't lose any sleep if a simpleton disagrees with me or continues to ignore facts and reasoning when making their decisions.


My posts are quite informed and are as close to reality as you can get. It is unfortunate that you can't be in the same category, gscarpenter.

...and another stellar effort.

As for us not being in the same category, young fella, I am pretty okay with that scenario; you would be best to stay in the flyweights and not get into the higher weight classes.

 

[Spungo*]

Thats nice. Fortunately, I held the NHL to a higher standard (for some reason). I loved the way it was built and that excellence, not luck, was rewarded.

Now we'll suffer through endless mediocre seasons, knowing full well that we can only be good, and never great. We'll have to hope one year out of 25 we get lucky enough to win... or if we do manage the near impossible and have a good run for 3 years that we load up then cause bang back in the pack we go.

Ottawa wins in 2006, but we can't win again until 2028 I guess we have to give Chicago, Boston, New York, Montreal and Minnesota their Cup too.

The New England Patriots say hi.

AT least in the old CBA, market size had no correlation to whether you had a good team or not.

That statement has been proven statistically wrong about 200 times on these boards. Do some research and save yourself the embarrassment of making ridiculous claims like that.

 

[HF2002]

...and another stellar effort.

As for us not being in the same category, young fella, I am pretty okay with that scenario; you would be best to stay in the flyweights and not get into the higher weight classes.

swish!

 

[Johnnybegood13]

How is a small market going to be offering $7.8 million when they didn't used to?
Where is all this money going to automatically appear for them for this level playing field? If these teams weren't spending $7.8 million in the past, what makes you think they will be able to do so in the future? The fact is lowered UFA ages hurt teams with less money, because unrestricted free agency is all about throwing money around.

Your going to be pissed when you finally come to grips that your Maple Leafs will help pay to keep these top players in other citys

 

[rwilson99]

How do you define serious contenders? Looking at regular season results?

If you look at playoffs and say "Well, Utah, Orlando and Indiana all made the finals once!" Then to be fair you have to also say

I'd say each of the teams have a 5 year period that is comparable to your Senators over the last 5 years in the glory years of the NHL pre-CBA.



In fact since they each made the final... they did better...