Small markets face big trouble

[kingsfan]

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.



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.

C'mon man. I'm not familiar with when the NBA went to a cap system, so I won;t dicuss that part of it, but if you are going to go at it about the 10 different champs in 20 years in the NHL, it's like discussing night and day. If the 1985 Edmonton Oilers were actually playing in 2004, that team would be sent flying to all corners of the NHL map because there is no way that the Oilers could have kept even half that team together. Why not discuss Cup champs since the last CBA, the one that caused all the financial ruin, came in? Since 1995, the cup champs are:

NJ (3x)
Det (3x)
Colorado (2x)
Dallas
T-Bay

That's one small market in 10 years. That's what? 10%? Even lower than your NBA model.

As for a run of 5 years 'at or near the top', what do you define as at or near the top? How many championship final appearances/victories does that include?

 

[SENSible1*]

PSSST...Someone please clue SSF into the fact that this new CBA promotes the Sens from mid sized market to big market--(or looked at another way, has brought the big markets down to mid market status). Enough people have already pointed out the foolishness of expecting Ottawa to be able to keep all its talent under the old CBA, but he continues to ignore that reality.

I'd just like him to begin to figure out that Ottawa now has EXACTLY THE SAME SPENDING POWER AS ANY OTHER TEAM IN THE LEAGUE. If they spend wisely, they'll have success. If they don't, then they'll get what they deserve.

I love their chances, given their new found status as a top spending team in the league and history of getting more bang for their buck.

 

[boredmale]

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.

the cap will help these teams somewhat by lowering players salaries.

A guy who used to make 10 million might only get 7-8 million
Somebody who used to make 8 million will only make 6 million
Somebody making 6 million will now get 4.5 million
and so on and so on.

How this helps lower end teams? Well it it makes it easier for them to field a competitve team that can be slightly cheaper. So instead of a 30 million dollar team of scrubs no other team wants, they can field a 25-28 million dollar team that has marketable players and a chance to make the playoffs every year(which will increase fan interest), and if they draft right they could be a contender at some point.

Sure in the big picture they will still be hindered against teams that go all out with the payroll, but putting a cap on stuff gives them a fighting chance when it comes to signing players and fielding a competative team.

 

[djhn579]

the cap will help these teams somewhat by lowering players salaries.

A guy who used to make 10 million might only get 7-8 million
Somebody who used to make 8 million will only make 6 million
Somebody making 6 million will now get 4.5 million
and so on and so on.

How this helps lower end teams it it makes it easier for them to field a cheaper team, so instead of a 30 million dollar team of scrubs no other team wants, they can field a 25-28 million dollar team that has a chance to make the playoffs every year(which will increase fan interest), and if they draft right they could be a contender at some point.

Also, if a lot of teams are spending to the limit and that brings the player costs over 54% of revenues, the team keeps a portion of the money put in escrow. On a team spending $28M on salaries, that could be up to $4.2M going back to the team.

And with the new focus on divisional rivalries, travel costs will be reduced somewhat, and there will be higher demand for tickets to many games. We won't know how much impact this will have just yet.

 

[Gary]

If you are dumb enough to believe that payroll differences meant anything under the old CBA, then you are the delusional one.

That 6 million will make a huge difference for Detroit, not to mention the fact that UFA's now are in their prime years. Ottawa will lose Chara Hossa Redden Havlat and Phillips over the next 3 years (or at least most of them) because older teams with lots of cap room like New York, Colorado and Boston (or teams with not a lot of players signed) can sign them away. Unless they all take signifcant discounts to stay in Ottawa, we will lose them.

This is far worse than the previous system where we had full control over all our players in their prime years, enabling us to win a presidents trophy in 2003 and at the same time being on the cusp of a Stanley Cup championship.

As a Sens fan I hope we win the Cup next year (duh) because it will be our last chance for quite some time (or at least our best chance). The dismantling of the Senators, and other mid market teams like Tampa San JOse and Vancouver, begins in the summer of 2006.

It would be nice if more fans actually used logic. Makes the discussions more interesting.

As a Diehard Bruins' fan...
I see exactly what you're saying and I agree 100%. There's nothing more I waited for-for years then to see the Bruins' build a dynasty. I think every fan has had the same dream. Now-It's not impossible-But it requires a FANTASTIC amount of luck/drafting/coaching/star alignment/etc. It's ALMOST impossible and to me that sucks, and sucks HUGE. I've spent the last 10 years hoping Jacobs would sell the team to someone who could make a difference (NOT that I think the Bruins were too cheap like most do-I think people like that are misinformed) It's just that management could never put all the pieces together. Heck last year the Bruins' looked awesome. In the 90's with some luck they could've won it. It was never a $$$ issue with me personally-But just not being able to find that extra piece they needed to put them over the top. Okay now on to my point. No dynasties or VERY FEW=SUCKS. I feel sorry for Sens fans. I truly do. They're doing everything right and then BANG! someone changes all the rules on them. BUT...I do think that the league will be more balanced cometitively and to me that means alot. That coupled with division rivals and conference rivals playing one another more should make more and more regular season games a TONNE more enjoyable. And being that the regular season is 3-4ish times longer then the playoffs...That's the one condolence I find.

 

[KL*]

In the old NHL those big name stars would bolt to Toronto, NY, Det, Colorado the first chance they got, whether its age 28 or age 31.

Don't lump Colorado in with Toronto, Det and NYR.

You should know by now that Colorado never signed big name FAs until Kariya/Selanne.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

No use trying to convince the morons, Invader Zim. They keep up with their fantasy and illogical ******** that somehow now letting the bigger teams access to players in their prime as opposed to past their prime, it will somehow help the small or mid market teams.

Lower UFA age means huge problems for smaller markets. End of story.

How about lower UFA age means huge problems for teams with a ton of talent, regardless of market side. Wasn't OTT's budget last year about $40M? I bet the fans stick in OTT, so it's likely that OTT will be close to the cap going forward. If that's the case, they have as good a chance as anyone else of keeping most of their talent. They'll have to make a couple of tough decisions, but that's why Muckler makes the big money.

 

[Resolute]

If you are dumb enough to believe that payroll differences meant anything under the old CBA, then you are the delusional one.

That 6 million will make a huge difference for Detroit, not to mention the fact that UFA's now are in their prime years. Ottawa will lose Chara Hossa Redden Havlat and Phillips over the next 3 years (or at least most of them) because older teams with lots of cap room like New York, Colorado and Boston (or teams with not a lot of players signed) can sign them away. Unless they all take signifcant discounts to stay in Ottawa, we will lose them.

This is far worse than the previous system where we had full control over all our players in their prime years, enabling us to win a presidents trophy in 2003 and at the same time being on the cusp of a Stanley Cup championship.

As a Sens fan I hope we win the Cup next year (duh) because it will be our last chance for quite some time (or at least our best chance). The dismantling of the Senators, and other mid market teams like Tampa San JOse and Vancouver, begins in the summer of 2006.

It would be nice if more fans actually used logic. Makes the discussions more interesting.

Wait, a $6 million payroll difference for Detroit will be huge in the new CBA, but one is delusional if he felt that the $45 million difference between the Oilers and Wings last season made a difference?

And you have the gall to question other's logic?


Oh, and if you are terrified that the Senators wont be able to compete after this year, then your problem isnt with the CBA, but with the incompetent management of your team.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

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.

Let's say EDM keeps their payroll at $30M. At worst, they will be going against a team with a payroll that 30% greater than their own. Compare that to the years when Dallas had 2-3 TIMES as much in payroll, and tell me that EDM isn't better off..

Why are thte larger market teams going to be able to "lure them away"? They won't be able to overspend by a significant amount like they have in years past. The Flyers or Stars (or insert $60+ payroll team here) won't be able to wip out the checkbook and blow someone away with a insane offer. And if they do, they are likely just tying their own hands and won't be able to build a sucessful team because too much salary will be tied up in one person.

 

[mmmBeer]

As a Diehard Bruins' fan...
I see exactly what you're saying and I agree 100%. There's nothing more I waited for-for years then to see the Bruins' build a dynasty. I think every fan has had the same dream. Now-It's not impossible-But it requires a FANTASTIC amount of luck/drafting/coaching/star alignment/etc. It's ALMOST impossible and to me that sucks, and sucks HUGE. I've spent the last 10 years hoping Jacobs would sell the team to someone who could make a difference (NOT that I think the Bruins were too cheap like most do-I think people like that are misinformed) It's just that management could never put all the pieces together. Heck last year the Bruins' looked awesome. In the 90's with some luck they could've won it. It was never a $$$ issue with me personally-But just not being able to find that extra piece they needed to put them over the top. Okay now on to my point. No dynasties or VERY FEW=SUCKS. I feel sorry for Sens fans. I truly do. They're doing everything right and then BANG! someone changes all the rules on them. BUT...I do think that the league will be more balanced cometitively and to me that means alot. That coupled with division rivals and conference rivals playing one another more should make more and more regular season games a TONNE more enjoyable. And being that the regular season is 3-4ish times longer then the playoffs...That's the one condolence I find.

I think it'll still be possible to put a mini-dynasty together, at least. The NHL's new CBA may not compare precisely to the NBA's or NFL's, but both those capped/low UFA leagues have teams with pretty good championship runs.

What will suck about the new CBA is that teams won't stay together forever, and you won't be able to compile a ridiculously talented roster, like the 80's Oilers or something - so it will mediocratize the league. In that sense, I agree with you, but the trade off is worth it since only a few teams had the resources to compile a team like that anyways.

 

[Resolute]

As for the joke of an article that started this discussion....

First of all, if you didnt know where it came from, you would know that it was from a Toronto paper simply on the fact that the writer had the gall to include Kaberle in a list with Iginla, Thornton and Lecavalier.

Well, that and the Toronto papers have been desperately trying to delude Torontonians into thinking that this deal is terrible for the small markets, and therefore great for the teams like the Leafs.

Except that logic dictates the reverse is true.

Iginla might be a free agent after next year? Putting aside the fact that he has stated several times in the last week that he wants a long term deal in Calgary, lets consider his situation:

Under the old CBA, after the playoff season he had in 03-04, Iginla would have been able to demand $9-10 million. Think the Flames were going to pay that long term? Uh-uh. Under the old CBA, Jarome Iginla would already be wearing a different jersey today. Instead, he is still a Flame for one more year at least, and we have as good a chance at signing him as anyone else does, especially given the new individual player cap.

This situation plays out for all of the small market players listed there. Very few of these guys were going to survive to 31 in those markets, so this argument is a red herring.

As for the faulty logic of a glut of UFA's on the market driving up salaries, others have already mentioned it many times, but if you have all of these great players on the market, salaries will go down, not up. Very basic supply and demand here. Not that one would expect a Toronto based writer to understand this principle.

 

[duckhead3198]

It would've been nice if this CBA had the same clause as the NBA where they have max langth term, and home teams can offer that extra year and maybe some extra money that other teams can't. That way maybe a FA would want to stay to make that extra guaranteed money for that one extra year.

As for why a player might want to ditch a small market to go to a big market even if the big market can't offer appreciably more money? if the nhl survives this lockout and markets itself well, a player can be lured by prospects of more endorsement dollars in a bigger market. a guy like iginla might make the same playing for calgary or new york, but new york can tell him that if he makes it big there, he can make even more in endorsements. big markets will still have some kind of advantage in this way, provided hockey does well.

 

[Mess]

As for the joke of an article that started this discussion....

First of all, if you didnt know where it came from, you would know that it was from a Toronto paper simply on the fact that the writer had the gall to include Kaberle in a list with Iginla, Thornton and Lecavalier.

Well, that and the Toronto papers have been desperately trying to delude Torontonians into thinking that this deal is terrible for the small markets, and therefore great for the teams like the Leafs.

Except that logic dictates the reverse is true.

How is this bad for the Leafs ??

They have 2 players under contract next year .. Mats Sundin their franchise player and Tucker .. (not counting the kids ,Stajan, Steen, Colaiacovo) .. That is a little over 8 mil in contracts ..

They have no young core players to lose ... You even admitted it yourself and mocked Kaberle for being on the list, but he is the one and only single player that falls under this UFA rules and should Leafs lose him, they can repalce him with the Redden's or Chara's when they go UFA spending etc

So If Leafs just sign their old vets Roberts, Newy, Domi, Leetch to get through next season they would be heading into next UFA with 30 mil + to spend and cap space..

Isn't that a great position .. Leafs old vet team turning over next year is the perfect position to be in from a UFA point of view ..

Then the point of glut of great young UFA players drives salaries down .. Isn't that great for a team Buying so they can afford even more then before ?

 

[PredFred]

Take a look at the Dallas Cowboys Dynasty to be that was picked apart year-after-year...

Now take a look at the New England Patriots who consistently field a better TEAM under the same capped conditions. This new "era" will put more emphasis on drafting, player growth, and filling lost holes with quality prospects than "buying" a team.

I don't think this is going to be all about $$$, it will be about good management of team resources. Geesh...all some of you guys know is doom and gloom.

 

[SJeasy]

Several points here need to be addressed.

First, endorsements are nice but certain markets also tend to have higher costs associated in terms of taxes. How much more must a player earn in endorsements, etc. to offset the higher price of playing in NY, Calif. or other high tax/cost location? Remember high cost markets can only offer the same total dollars as a Columbus, Dallas, etc. The differential can be as high as 10 to 20 percent.

Second, everyone seems to be concerned about "stars" on each team. It would seem that under the new CBA with the potential movement that you would want to put together a team, not a couple of stars and a lot of flunkies. If you do lose (injury, underperformance, free agency) the one or two who can demand the 20% max salary you are in trouble because now all your flunkies need to learn to play with the replacement. If you want to build a dynasty, wouldn't it be more intelligent to constuct a team of very good (second/third line) players with no one player being the "star".

Third, draft priorities will become more immediate and a well-rounded draft (defense and forwards balanced) each year will become mandatory for teams to remain competitive so that player movement will not destroy a team.

Fourth, I believe the most important part of being consistently competitive in the new league will be to have a well-defined and coached style of play.

Last, injury or underperformance by a star in capped environment should make all GM's think long and hard before offering a long-term max contract.

 

[GirardIsStupid]

Shouldn't alarm bells ring in the heads of small market fans when the newly designed free agency isn't endorsed by Lou Lamoriello.

 

[X8oD]

If the Senators lose players to UFA it wont be because of money.

It will be because the players are tired of losing when it counts and want to move to a franchise who provides the players needed to win when it counts the most. Yes, strentch out years of Failure till they're 31, just so they cant go anywhere. "Even though we never won, at least we've wiped away thier careers so they can't go elseware and win.. its the Ottawa way... Just be GOOD enough in the regular season.. then cry poor in the play-offs. And when players leave, they suck now anywho, so we can just wait till the next young guy we drafted comes up, and suck his life away for 10 years"

If all these players leave ottawa when they reach thier UFA age, we can all assume 1 thing... "The Sens lost again in the 1st or 2nd round"

Win a cup.. make it to the finals.. Make your players want to stay there because they see winning on the horizon. Detroit started signing free agents in 1999. They got players are less than market value because the team had a history of winning. That aspect WONT change with this CBA. Players will be willing to sign for less if they want a cup and see a shot on a better team to do so.

 

[crump]

One consequence is that teams like Ottawa(Hossa, Redden, Chara) and Tampa(Lecavalier, St. Louis, Richards(?)), are likely to be stripped of their top talent. They have spent last 5 years building up, but will be cut down now. Under former CBA their peak could have lasted longer since they could strong-arm their RFAs, and get boost from playoff revenues.

So, what's the big deal about landing Crosby? The winning team will only be able to keep him for a couple of his prime years.

True about the "One". It looks like Crosby won't get his wish to play in the NHL this year. If I draft him, I wait 1-2 seasons until he is truly ready to jump in with the big boys.

However, if he is scoring like Gretzky in training camp...by all means...

This whole big market-small argument is moot. Teams will now live and die with their management abilities...scouting prospects..contract structure...you want to mamimize your talent. There will be free agents galore in the 1-4 miliion range. most of those guys are interchangeable (assuming chemistry is right) Don't lock up those mid range guys for more than 2 years.

The only time you will not be able to fill holes is if you misjudge a contract and lose your real superstars...your franchise players.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Shouldn't alarm bells ring in the heads of small market fans when the newly designed free agency isn't endorsed by Lou Lamoriello.

I believe he has been simply silent (as have all the negotiating teams).

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

If you are dumb enough to believe that payroll differences meant anything under the old CBA, then you are the delusional one.

That 6 million will make a huge difference for Detroit, not to mention the fact that UFA's now are in their prime years. Ottawa will lose Chara Hossa Redden Havlat and Phillips over the next 3 years (or at least most of them) because older teams with lots of cap room like New York, Colorado and Boston (or teams with not a lot of players signed) can sign them away. Unless they all take signifcant discounts to stay in Ottawa, we will lose them.

This is far worse than the previous system where we had full control over all our players in their prime years, enabling us to win a presidents trophy in 2003 and at the same time being on the cusp of a Stanley Cup championship.

As a Sens fan I hope we win the Cup next year (duh) because it will be our last chance for quite some time (or at least our best chance). The dismantling of the Senators, and other mid market teams like Tampa San JOse and Vancouver, begins in the summer of 2006.

It would be nice if more fans actually used logic. Makes the discussions more interesting.

Logic? This from a guy is displays a dizzying lack of such when discussing anything, especially hockey. The only "negative" of the deal is the lowered free agency age. Now that is also a bonus because of how it opens up the market to ALL teams. In the past it has been the advantage of six teams because they could spend the others into oblivion. Now they have a limit on what they can spend and another 20 teams have been elevated into the same spending bracket. So while Ottawa may lose a player, which they would have done in the past anyways as players price themselves out of Ottawa's market (you remember that the market has to sustain the salary structure in question, and Ottawa could not sustain a salary structure at the levels you like to suggest), they are also able to afford to go shopping for other players to replace that player who left. Think about it Sparky. So Colorado cuts loose Sakic and Foote to ramp up at taking a shot at Iginla, that means two proven Stanley Cup winners are on the market for EVERYONE to bid on. Ottawa may lose Alfredsson or Hossa, but they can be replaced with Sakic or a player of similar ilk. You don't think that is a good thing? In the past players like Sakic were unattainable for teams outside of the big six. Now everyone will have a chance to sign them when their teams dump them for who is hot at the moment. That's the beauty of the system. You can retain your players, as everyone will be paying similar salaries, or you can flip them for another player.

Personally I don't see much movement of the stars. The guys who are franchise type players will not move around very much as their teams will make it worth their while to stay. The players I see moving around are the flavors of the week. The guys who get hot for a year or two or become something over night because of the overall talent level on their team. That's the way it has worked in the NFL and I suspect that's the way it will work in the NHL as well.

BTW Sparky, don't you think its time time to get rid of that stupid avatar? The Lightning won the 2004 Stanley Cup. The Flames were the team that faced them. Ottawa washed out early again. But hey, if you like reminding people of that fact all the time, who am I to argue! Oh, and can you also correct another error for us. Unless you are actually living in Mongolia you are not in the coldest capital in the world. You aren't even in the top five. If you want to be taken seriously, remove all obvious signs that you're not in touch with reality from your handle display.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Shouldn't alarm bells ring in the heads of small market fans when the newly designed free agency isn't endorsed by Lou Lamoriello.

No. New Jersey has not been small market for quite some time. Fat Lou knows that he will lose several players because of cap space, man of those likely going to small market teams with cap space. So why would a guy with an advantage come out and say anything positive about the deal? He wouldn't. If Darryl Sutter or Ken King says the deal is bad, I will worry then. But when Fat Lou comes out and say that the deal is bad, and his Devils were in the top 10 in Salaries last season, then I don't see a damn thing wrong with it.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

No. New Jersey has not been small market for quite some time. Fat Lou knows that he will lose several players because of cap space, man of those likely going to small market teams with cap space. So why would a guy with an advantage come out and say anything positive about the deal? He wouldn't. If Darryl Sutter or Ken King says the deal is bad, I will worry then. But when Fat Lou comes out and say that the deal is bad, and his Devils were in the top 10 in Salaries last season, then I don't see a damn thing wrong with it.

Ottawa generated almost 15 million more in revenues than New Jersey last season. So I guess Ottawa is not a small market after all... or that New Jersey is overrated as a market.

 

[Winger98]

It would've been nice if this CBA had the same clause as the NBA where they have max langth term, and home teams can offer that extra year and maybe some extra money that other teams can't. That way maybe a FA would want to stay to make that extra guaranteed money for that one extra year.

I was hoping for something similar to the Larry Bird rule, also (what you're referencing to in the NBA cba). If a way could have been found to curb teams building through UFA's but while still allowing teams to build and then maintain from within, it would have been a big win for fans.

 

[bert]

Ottawa will likely only lose one or two of its core players over the next little while. I truly think that most of a lineup of Spezza, Hossa, Havlat, Alfredsson, Fisher, Vermette, Chara, Redden, Phillips and Volchenkov can be held onto. That lineup can fit in a 39 million dollar payrole they might lose two of these players but they should be able to lock up the rest. I dont see alot of teams going out and spending the maximum on very many players. I dont think any more than 15 teams will be able to spend 39 million on the payrole and Ottawa is one of those teams its not that bad.

Yeah under the old cba Ottawa would have been able to hold onto all of these guys until they reached UFA status but I am not going to be so narrowminded to not think of whats better for the league on the whole. Sure its bad timing for the age of Ottawa's lineup but as sens fans we have one more year with the core and I just hope they can finally pull it off. On a side not as a sens fan seeing how they likely have one more year to be the favorites with Haseks increasing age I want to see them go for it.

Hossa is an RFA this summer so they can lock him up long term right now im not sure what this article is talking about. Chara also has two more years not one more year. Redden will be a UFA next year though.

I think the UFA age should be 28 not 27 but I just want to see hockey. I really dont like the idea of 25 year old ufa's though.

 

[futurcorerock]

I'm not seeing the pain on the small markets.

So, Calgary loses Jarome Iginla. Where would he go? He wouldn't go to Toronto because they're at the cap. Detroit? same for them.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Jarome Iginla of the CAROLINA HURRICANES

And to make up that cap space, the Calgary Flames have just announced the signing of free agent Martin St. Louis and managed to cough up some spare change to acquire Ilya Kovalchuk and Saku Koivu

Flames for the cup in 06!