Sportsnet: NHL includes stiff luxury tax in latest proposal

[AXN]

Good boys.

Now meet in the middle at $42.5-$45 million for the top of the ceiling and we're really getting going.

Its between 42.5 and 49 ansd 45 is the middle.

 

[Mess]

In the NFL it is. The NHL is a totally different animal.

Contract structures (non-guaranteed vs. guaranteed just to start in that category), vastly different national TV revenues, less revenue streams overall, etc, etc, etc. I could keep putting typing "etc" until the cows come home, there's a myriad of differences between the leagues.

Not to mention we don't know what the cap number/linkage number will be, what if any provisions will come along with that number to move up or down in the coming years, what the outcome will be to issues like arbitration and qualifying offers and so forth and so on.

Basically, we've only got about 50 pieces of a 500-piece puzzle (important ones definitely missing) and we don't have the box to tell us what it should look like. Right now, we're just going on pure speculation and/or assumption. Nothing more, that's the unfortunate reality (for all of us).

I know ..etc etc etc .. but it not stopping Bettman and the NHL Owners from wanting a Hard Cap system just like the NFL .. No big TV contract to divide up via revenue sharing for smaller market teams in a HUGE DISADVANTAGE to the NHL not advantage. The only place left to get Revenue Sharing money from is Big Market team fans to give to the poorer ones .. Forcing all teams to play by the same Hard Cap and then force fans in large markets to pay 2 and 3 times the amount for a ticket is the greatest injustice the NHL can do towards fans, so that it can keep the weak alive via Revenue Sharing ..

Non guaranteed contracts bite both ways .. If an NHL GM gives out a bad contract (defined as too much money for player return) he is stuck with that mistake and his team on the ice suffers. With Buyouts counting towards the Cap .. You are stuck. NO IR in the NHL as the NFL has so you can replace a player .. Injuries count towards a Cap .. No replacing injured players with another Star player available, call on you farm team to fill the spot.

Regardless of all that .. The topic here is that individual Salaries with in a Hard Cap are not restricted by a Hard Cap .. Just the total amount you can spend overall. Any contract given out in the NEW NHL can and will be used for comparison purposes and higher contracts will increase player costs ..,

 

[Drury_Sakic]

I think the best the PA could realisticly hope for is somewhere in the 40-42 range at this point.. with a stipualtion that it will rise to 45ish if revenues stay around the 2.1 billion mark after a few years..

Damage has been done to the league with the season canned... and while I think 45 was possible on Dooms Day... it is a reach now..

 

[AXN]

I think the best the PA could realisticly hope for is somewhere in the 40-42 range at this point.. with a stipualtion that it will rise to 45ish if revenues stay around the 2.1 billion mark after a few years..

Damage has been done to the league with the season canned... and while I think 45 was possible on Dooms Day... it is a reach now..

I personaly think the deal will be beter than the one last given.
Otherwise I don't think anyone will see hockey this year also.
Two years without seeing hockey is too much.

 

[NYIsles1*]

Forcing all teams to play by the same Hard Cap and then force fans in large markets to pay 2 and 3 times the amount for a ticket is the greatest injustice the NHL can do towards fans, so that it can keep the weak alive via Revenue Sharing ..

Big markets? No such thing in a small market sport like hockey.

Almost all the so-called big market fans paying top dollar still had their teams reportedly lose money. This is the greatest injustice because that system failed with no cap on salary or revenue sharing. Owners could not charge fans enough to keep up with salary any longer and began to take bigger losses, many in new buildings.

http://www.teammarketing.com/fci.cfm?page=fci_nhl_03-04.cfm

The Leafs charge the third highest ticket prices in the league. According to Forbes Toronto made only 14.1m profit and that's going to the second round of the playoffs.

The Wings have the highest avg ticket price and reportedly lost almost 20m last year. How do you blame co-called smaller markets for this?

Toronto as far back as 97-98-99 only made a small operating profit:
http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$reven_e.htm

Why do you think there is so much resistance with regard to revenue sharing? There
is very litte profit to share the the first place, even in Toronto who have as much impact on hockey in the US as the Blue Jays have on baseball.

 

[thinkwild]

Big markets? No such thing in a small market sport like hockey.

But of course there are big markets. Toronto, LA, Chi, NY, these are all still big markets, but in the NHL right now, their big marketness isn't translating into an advantage. Detroit seems only referred to as big market in hockey. Colorado suffered the indignity of the Sakic offer sheet, because they were considered a small market expansion franchise that wouldnt be able to afford to match. Every time Colorado is called big market, the case is made that winning provides the advantage, not market size. This is a remarkably fair outcome

Almost all the so-called big market fans paying top dollar still had their teams reportedly lose money. This is the greatest injustice because that system failed with no cap on salary or revenue sharing. Owners could not charge fans enough to keep up with salary any longer and began to take bigger losses, many in new buildings.

Couldnt charge enough to keep up? I guess thats a fair way of saying they overspent. It is interesting as you say that it seems that big money losers were predominantly large markets. StL, Det, NYR, Wash were all accused of having crazy rich owners overspending, but they are the ones now suffering all the losses. It seems the incentives are in place. What more do you need? Other teams losing money were NYI, NJ, and Pit, all teams awaiting new subsidized arenas. Together these 2 groups account for the majority of the losses. Seems to me the system is working. If the Rangers are spending $40mil over average, and are losing $40mil, hardly seems fair to call it a systemic problem.

Nonetheless, the players have accepted capping far lower than was previously allowed.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

The 49ers are the only team in the NFL that have managed their team as badly as you seem to think that every NHL team will manage theirs.

The problem with the 49ers is Denise DeBartolo's husband. The man has no football acumen, he's strictly a bottom line kind of person. He's ruined the legacy of the 49ers.

 

[mooseOAK*]

The problem with the 49ers is Denise DeBartolo's husband. The man has no football acumen, he's strictly a bottom line kind of person. He's ruined the legacy of the 49ers.

It didn't help that he inherited the salary cap problems created by the previous regime.

 

[NYIsles1*]

But of course there are big markets. Toronto, LA, Chi, NY, these are all still big markets, but in the NHL right now, their big marketness isn't translating into an advantage.

That's because hockey is far off the radar and a niche sport. Hockey is what it's ratings are which equal arena football. Do we consider the New York, Chicago or Los Angeles entry in arena football a big market sport teams. Hockey fans do not like reading that but this is how far the game has fallen in terms of perception.

Look at what Russ Conway wrote about Boston this week, who finished first in 2003-04:
http://www.ecnnews.com/cgi-bin/04/s/sstory-archive.pl?tue+fn-russnhl.0510
Even the Boston Bruins, one of the NHL's original six teams, is in a precarious position.

A healthy season-ticket base of about 14,800 in the late 1990s, including luxury suite and premium seats, is now under 5,000.

"I know we've taken a hit," admitted Bruins president Harry Sinden, though he wouldn't confirm the figure. "Last year was the first year we didn't take in enough to cover the losses."

Player costs for the Bruins during the 2003-2004 season were a club record $45 million, the 12th highest payroll in the 30-team NHL. Average home attendance per game actually increased over the previous season, to 15,377, with 13 sellouts including playoffs.

Detroit seems only referred to as big market in hockey. Colorado suffered the indignity of the Sakic offer sheet, because they were considered a small market expansion franchise that wouldnt be able to afford to match. Every time Colorado is called big market, the case is made that winning provides the advantage, not market size. This is a remarkably fair outcome

Actually the case can easily be made both Detroit and Colorado markets have been a by-product spending vs on-ice success. We have seen the Wings and Colorado Rockies struggle badly at the gate when they iced bad teams. What should not be forgotten is even with some success both teams now reportedly are losing money going to the playoffs.

It is interesting as you say that it seems that big money losers were predominantly large markets. StL, Det, NYR, Wash were all accused of having crazy rich owners overspending, but they are the ones now suffering all the losses. It seems the incentives are in place. What more do you need? Other teams losing money were NYI, NJ, and Pit, all teams awaiting new subsidized arenas. Together these 2 groups account for the majority of the losses.

Isles are financing their own renovation, like many teams want the land for development to generate profits they currently receive.

As for these numbers I'm writing nothing. These are the reported numbers in various publications.

Also it's not accurate to write only a select group of teams were responcible for all the losses. Nineteen teams reportedly lost money and many who are barely breaking even or losing money to operate cannot invest any more in their products like Edmonton, who simply hang on and trade away star players. A team like Calgary or Tampa finally made a modest profit or just broke even after years of losing significant revenue.

Seems to me the system is working. If the Rangers are spending $40mil over average, and are losing $40mil, hardly seems fair to call it a systemic problem.

The Ranger spend close to 80m and reported 40.9m. in losses. The Isles spend 40m and reportedly lose 20m. Detroit spend 80m and lose 20m. St Louis spends 50m and loses 30-40m. Florida with a low payroll claims 30m in losses. Washington is losing huge amounts of money in a new building. The Kings reportedly lost 40m a few years ago which led to the fan audit.

The only thing systematic about this is teams like Minnesota with a modest payroll produce a modest profit, so does Vancouver and Chicago and if I'm correct Columbus.

 

[thinkwild]

That's because hockey is far off the radar and a niche sport. Hockey is what it's ratings are which equal arena football. Do we consider the New York, Chicago or Los Angeles entry in arena football a big market sport teams. Hockey fans do not like reading that but this is how far the game has fallen in terms of perception.

So the big markets in the NHL dont have an advantage unless they develop a team properly just like a small market? Big markets dont have guaranteed success by spending? Then draw when losing allowing them to still spend more than every other team? Sounds good to me. So the problem is then that some teams win, get lots of playoff revenue?

Look at what Russ Conway wrote about Boston this week, who finished first in 2003-04:
http://www.ecnnews.com/cgi-bin/04/s/sstory-archive.pl?tue+fn-russnhl.0510
Even the Boston Bruins, one of the NHL's original six teams, is in a precarious position.

A healthy season-ticket base of about 14,800 in the late 1990s, including luxury suite and premium seats, is now under 5,000.

"I know we've taken a hit," admitted Bruins president Harry Sinden, though he wouldn't confirm the figure. "Last year was the first year we didn't take in enough to cover the losses."

Yeah, if only ther ewas a salary cap, they could of told the fans look we cant sign Allison and Guerin and stay under the cap and still screw Illitch with the Lapointe offer. And fans would say, oh, ok, we'll still come then. Its not your fault.

Actually the case can easily be made both Detroit and Colorado markets have been a by-product spending vs on-ice success. We have seen the Wings and Colorado Rockies struggle badly at the gate when they iced bad teams.


What should not be forgotten is even with some success both teams now reportedly are losing money going to the playoffs.

I dont think you can make that case. The revenue to spend is obviously largely a product of the success they patiently developed. If Colorado was like Ottawa now, they would have signed 4 of their players to $10mil contracts? hard to believe.

But this is the point. Even teams you are trying to call large market, you admit have to win first to spend. Otherwise they lose money like now when they are still spending as if they are making the finals every year but are losing out on up to $20mil in revenue when they lose in the first round. Maybe if they could just afford to spend on some UFAs they would get missing piece. Too bad they arent big market anymore now that they are losing.

Also it's not accurate to write only a select group of teams were responcible for all the losses. Nineteen teams reportedly lost money and many who are barely breaking even or losing money to operate cannot invest any more in their products like Edmonton, who simply hang on and trade away star players. A team like Calgary or Tampa finally made a modest profit or just broke even after years of losing significant revenue.

According to the PA, 6 teams were responsible or 75% of the losses. Teams either awaiting new arena's, or were big spenders without winning. There's no proof Calgary spent years losing significant money. If 11 teams made money, and 6 of the 19 losing money accounted for 75% of the losses, and non-cba salary related losses but management decision making losses, and the players reset salaries 25% lower and offered a cap, why no deal yet?

The Ranger spend close to 80m and reported 40.9m. in losses. The Isles spend 40m and reportedly lose 20m. Detroit spend 80m and lose 20m. St Louis spends 50m and loses 30-40m. Florida with a low payroll claims 30m in losses. Washington is losing huge amounts of money in a new building. The Kings reportedly lost 40m a few years ago which led to the fan audit.

The only thing systematic about this is teams like Minnesota with a modest payroll produce a modest profit, so does Vancouver and Chicago and if I'm correct Columbus.

The Rangers spent $80mil and lost $40mil. Well that sound sright to me. I would expect in a well functioning system, this should be the case. They should of lost that money with their payroll and success. Good. The system is working. IF the only consequence of spending is foolishly is that they lose money, ther eis no incentive not to lose money?

The Isles are losing $20mil because oif salaries? In their new arena, will those salaries cause the same losses?

Detroit spent $80mil and lost $20mil? Good. The system is working. I can think of some good advice for the Wings. Were they losing that money in their cup winning years? Or is it because they are no longer a championship team although they continue to spend like one.

Florida is losing $30mil? Are they an NHL market or not. I think they could be. They have a great opportunity to develop a championship team. They are doing it the right way. They dont need money, they need time and development. And perhaps revenue sharing assistance until they develop their market. They obviously dont get help from a cap, but revenue sharing would help until they do generate average revenues. Or will they never be able to do that? If not, seems a differnt type of problem that salary related CBA.

 

[danaluvsthekings]

1) UFA are not elegible as comparisons in arbitration ... so Kasperitus has no effect
2) any GM who can be swayed by an agent saying "Kasper or Yashin" make this much so my player should be paid relative ... . deserves to pay the contract.

seriously, you think anyone would take an agent seriously comparing his player to Yashin in contract talks ?

dr

How can you honestly think that what players around the league make doesn't have an effect on a certain team when its time to sign their player? The summer of 2000, the Kings are working on a contract extension with Rob Blake. Blake was asking for about $7.5-8 million a season. The Kings were offering in the $6.5-7 mil range. Chris Pronger wins the Norris and the Hart Trophy and the Blues reward him with his deal for I believe it was $9.5 mil a season, setting the market for a Norris Trophy winning defenseman. Blake and his agent see what Pronger is getting and now come back to the Kings asking for $9 million a season. Where before they were reasonably close on an offer, they are now at least $2 million apart on a contract and this eventually leads to LA trading Blake because they decide they can't afford to pay him what he's asking for. Blake got his $9 mil + from the Avs because that's what the market was for defensemen of Blake's caliber. Then Lidstrom looks at what Blake and Pronger are making and says, I want that much as well.

The Kasparaitis signing set the market for what defensive defensemen get. He got his $5 mil a season, so Foote got that from the Avs, the Kings had to offer Norstrom $4 mil to keep him from deciding to become a UFA, so then Aaron Miller went to them and said that if you offered Norstrom 4 years and $14.5 mil, I want something similar.

If each contract signing didn't have an effect on other signings around the league, why was everyone upset about the PA internal site where agents and players can compare stats and salaries? Maybe its because signings of players with similar stats do actually have an effect on the market.

 

[V for Voodoo]

What crucial parts of the team did Ottawa lose? Poor Sensible makes no sense

Wow Thunderstruck is Sensible? Never knew that. Makes sense.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

How can you honestly think that what players around the league make doesn't have an effect on a certain team when its time to sign their player?

Because teams always have a choice to not pay the market rate if they choose not to.

The summer of 2000, the Kings are working on a contract extension with Rob Blake. Blake was asking for about $7.5-8 million a season. The Kings were offering in the $6.5-7 mil range. Chris Pronger wins the Norris and the Hart Trophy and the Blues reward him with his deal for I believe it was $9.5 mil a season, setting the market for a Norris Trophy winning defenseman. Blake and his agent see what Pronger is getting and now come back to the Kings asking for $9 million a season.

and whats wrong with that ? the LAK had a choice to not pay it and they made their choice not to. and in the meantime got an excellent trade in return for Blake. and in a salary capped NHL, LAK may have gotten ZERO for him, since hardly any team would have cap space even to trade for him.

Where before they were reasonably close on an offer, they are now at least $2 million apart on a contract and this eventually leads to LA trading Blake because they decide they can't afford to pay him what he's asking for.

If LAK had agreed to 7.5m when Blake asked for it, they wouldnt have had to pay him 9m when the market shifted. they didnt, they took the risk. if Pronger had signed for 6m, then it would have been Blake who misread the market.

Blake got his $9 mil + from the Avs because that's what the market was for defensemen of Blake's caliber.

ahh, see you do get it.

The Kasparaitis signing set the market for what defensive defensemen get. He got his $5 mil a season, so Foote got that from the Avs, the Kings had to offer Norstrom $4 mil to keep him from deciding to become a UFA, so then Aaron Miller went to them and said that if you offered Norstrom 4 years and $14.5 mil, I want something similar.

all choices made by those clubs. NJD decided to not pay Malakhov that much when he asked for it. COL decided to not offer Kaper that much when he asked for it.

If each contract signing didn't have an effect on other signings around the league, why was everyone upset about the PA internal site where agents and players can compare stats and salaries? Maybe its because signings of players with similar stats do actually have an effect on the market.

the PA's job is to help increase the value of the contracts in the NHL, hence they provide those resources. but they dont hold guns to GM's heads. the good teams know which players to sign and which players to walk away from. COL and NJD have walked away from more high value contracts than just about any one else, it hasnt hurt them much.

do you think the players should just sign whatever the GM offers and not excersize their human right to negotiate value for their services ? does Rob Blake tell you how much you are allowed to ask for from your employer ?

i couldnt care less if another team offered one of the best players on my team 100 billion dollars per shift, thats the players human right to accept it if its offered and to negotiate for it if thats how much he feels he should be paid to play hockey.

dr

 

[thinkwild]

Its not like LA lost Blake for nothing. They used the system to get some value for him. If his salary put them over a cap, they would have to dump for nothing. But when there is a $50mil cap, how could they afford tp do it anyway. Your worry has already been adressed, n'est-ce pas?

The site that an agent who was supposed to be looking out for the best interests of the players leaked contained confidential information on negotiating strategies. There was no magic mathematical formula that was leaked. Players and agents can compare salaries by looking at the PA site just like you and I can.

 

[danaluvsthekings]

ahh, see you do get it.
dr

Ok, as I said about the Avs signing Blake to the $9 mil per because that's what the market rate was. Not what the Avs could afford. What do you think sets the market rate? Was it the Avs saying "we could afford to pay him $9 mil" or was it Blake and his agent looking at what Pronger got, deciding he wasn't worth the $7.5 mil he had been asking for, he was worth more, and he was going to ask for $9 mil? Blake didn't suddenly decide he was lowballing himself and he wanted $9 mil a year. And sure, LA got a great deal back in the trade for him. But I wasn't talking about what they got for him in a trade or whether in a cap situation teams wouldn't be able to trade for him at all. I was just using it as a situation that shows contracts aren't negotiated without the influence of what else happens in the league. As for LA not signing Blake to $7.5 mil when he asked for it, you don't agree to the first numbers presented in a negotiation.

Sure teams have the choice to not pay the market rate, but that also means they're not likely to keep the player. Look at the Ziggy Palffy situation last summer. The Kings had offered Palffy a 3 year contract for $19.5 mil. Palffy declined it, as he had the right to do, and chose to become a free agent. When no one offered him anything more than the $19.5 mil he went back to the Kings because their offer didn't look so bad now. However the Kings saw that no one else had offered Palffy that and took the offer off the table and only offered him $5.5 mil a year. Obviously LA felt they could offer $19.5 mil and afford it otherwise they wouldn't have made the offer. But once they saw that the market for players of Palffy's caliber last summer was not $6.5 mil because of the lockout situation and no one was signing free agents they lowered the offer. Not because they were pissed Palffy didn't take their original offer, but because they found out they'd really be overpaying since the market was not there. If someone had offered Palffy $6 mil a year, do you think the Kings would have pulled their offer and replaced it with one of $5.5 mil if they wanted to keep him?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Ok, as I said about the Avs signing Blake to the $9 mil per because that's what the market rate was. Not what the Avs could afford.

Well, isnt that silly of COL then. If they cant afford, then they shouldnt be offering it.

What do you think sets the market rate?

A buyer and seller having a meeting of the mind.

Was it the Avs saying "we could afford to pay him $9 mil" or was it Blake and his agent looking at what Pronger got, deciding he wasn't worth the $7.5 mil he had been asking for, he was worth more, and he was going to ask for $9 mil? Blake didn't suddenly decide he was lowballing himself and he wanted $9 mil a year. And sure, LA got a great deal back in the trade for him. But I wasn't talking about what they got for him in a trade or whether in a cap situation teams wouldn't be able to trade for him at all. I was just using it as a situation that shows contracts aren't negotiated without the influence of what else happens in the league. As for LA not signing Blake to $7.5 mil when he asked for it, you don't agree to the first numbers presented in a negotiation.

Sure teams have the choice to not pay the market rate, but that also means they're not likely to keep the player. Look at the Ziggy Palffy situation last summer. The Kings had offered Palffy a 3 year contract for $19.5 mil. Palffy declined it, as he had the right to do, and chose to become a free agent. When no one offered him anything more than the $19.5 mil he went back to the Kings because their offer didn't look so bad now. However the Kings saw that no one else had offered Palffy that and took the offer off the table and only offered him $5.5 mil a year. Obviously LA felt they could offer $19.5 mil and afford it otherwise they wouldn't have made the offer. But once they saw that the market for players of Palffy's caliber last summer was not $6.5 mil because of the lockout situation and no one was signing free agents they lowered the offer. Not because they were pissed Palffy didn't take their original offer, but because they found out they'd really be overpaying since the market was not there. If someone had offered Palffy $6 mil a year, do you think the Kings would have pulled their offer and replaced it with one of $5.5 mil if they wanted to keep him?

see you do get it ... if LAK had taken Blakes first offer, they might have signed him for less than market value. If Palffy had taken LAK's first offer, he would have signed for more than market value.

In both examples, one side misread the market, or simply mis timed the market, and it passed them by. Thats life and it works both ways, i see no problem with this. Or do you think LAK should simply have the right to set the rate and not have to negotiate ? The player has a human right to not play hockey for less than 10 billion dollars a second if thats what he wants to ask for (doesnt mean he will get it, thats the teams right to not agree). Does Rob Blake tell you how much you should earn at your job ?

DR

 

[mooseOAK*]

Because teams always have a choice to not pay the market rate if they choose not to.

You must be a big Dollar Bill Wirtz fan.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

You must be a big Dollar Bill Wirtz fan.

 

[mooseOAK*]

I don't think that it is that difficult to figure out.

I don't know which your team is but would you applaud them if they let all their players go rather than pay market price? The people supporting the players seem to think that the best solution to control spending is that no team should sign anyone at any time, which doesn't work in th real world.

 

[Mess]

I don't think that it is that difficult to figure out.

I don't know which your team is but would you applaud them if they let all their players go rather than pay market price? The people supporting the players seem to think that the best solution to control spending is that no team should sign anyone at any time, which doesn't work in th real world.

I don't know which your team is ??

Look at his avatar for a hint to your question !!!!!!!

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I don't think that it is that difficult to figure out.

I don't know which your team is but would you applaud them if they let all their players go rather than pay market price? The people supporting the players seem to think that the best solution to control spending is that no team should sign anyone at any time, which doesn't work in th real world.

my team let many high priced guys leave ..

Pavel Bure
Alex Mogilny
Mark Messier
Andrew Cassels

to name a few.

My "other" team would not have the best winger on the planet if there was a cap in the last CBA nor would they have their #1 dman either. How would DAL have taken on Neiuwendyk (for Iginla) if there was a cap ? Or how would COL have taken on Fleury (for Regehr) if there was a cap ?

even if CGY wanted to pay those two (fleury and neiuewendyk), they probably would have lost them for nothing as free agents because even CGY would have not had room under a cap.

who says dont sign anyone ? i simply say dont complain if the player can make more elsewhere and chooses to. no one tells you how much YOU are allowed to make (other than the party you are negotiating with).

dr

 

[mooseOAK*]

I don't know which your team is ??

Look at his avatar for a hint to your question !!!!!!!

Switch that to , I don't care who his team is.

 

[mooseOAK*]

my team let many high priced guys leave ..

Pavel Bure
Alex Mogilny
Mark Messier
Andrew Cassels

to name a few.

My "other" team would not have the best winger on the planet if there was a cap in the last CBA nor would they have their #1 dman either. How would DAL have taken on Neiuwendyk (for Iginla) if there was a cap ? Or how would COL have taken on Fleury (for Regehr) if there was a cap ?

even if CGY wanted to pay those two (fleury and neiuewendyk), they probably would have lost them for nothing as free agents because even CGY would have not had room under a cap.

who says dont sign anyone ? i simply say dont complain if the player can make more elsewhere and chooses to. no one tells you how much YOU are allowed to make (other than the party you are negotiating with).

dr

Uh, your team also signed all those guys to expensive contracts at one point or two. Did you complain about it at the time and call your owner stupid? Didn't think so.

It is impossible to list all the possibilities that would happen if there was a cap years ago so let's not bother.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Uh, your team also signed all those guys to expensive contracts at one point or two. Did you complain about it at the time and call your owner stupid? Didn't think so..

actually, except for Messier, they all left because the Canucks didnt want to give them raises.

It is impossible to list all the possibilities that would happen if there was a cap years ago so let's not bother.

right, because it would shoot the "cap is the saviour" theory full of holes. fact is, CGY has Iginla and Regehr and is better off for both those deals.

dr

 

[WC Handy*]

moose... don't even waste your time. If he actually believes that small market teams are better off without a cap, then let him live in his own little world. We'll all have a laugh at his expense in a few years when what's obvious to the rest of us becomes obvious to him also.