This is why bettman does not want a luxury tax

[Bring Back Bucky]

What do you think it means? It means if the Oilers had not traded away the assets from the Championship team they would have nobody today. When was the last time a team won without producing talent?

Never.



I agree. So why did Oiler fans whine with every trade? They whined when Weight was obtained as a prospect and they whined when they traded him for prospects. They whined about every trade in between.



Well, I think he is decent, but okay. The Oilers have produced zero good players under this CBA. None. Zip. Nada.

So how come Oiler fans blame the CBA instead of their management for their mediocrity?

Tom

Tom, you're a mature guy. Can't believe I would argue with a genius like you. Now I understand, there is something wrong with the Oilers turning their past assets into current ones. I wasn't aware that other teams developed theirs out of thin air. Last I checked, teams acquire players via draft, trade, and free agency.

That's right, Tommy, the Oilers have produced zero players in a decade. Statements like that and your broken record "Oilers fans are whiners" prove that you are a pretty smart and savvy guy. Kind of like you are a poopy-pants who lives with his parents and the Sedin twins both wet the bed . Oh, look, n ow we are both savvy and witty. .

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

involved in investment" and "Why should owners be garanteed profits ?" type of argument. Well there is risk involved and owners are not garanteed profits.

But, a cap or luxury tax would not eliminate risk and owners are allowed to make changes to their buisness if it's losing money. And that's just what they're doing !

we were not talking about a cap or luxury tax, the context was refering to a roll back. you were claiming they would just rise again and i was asking why management shouldnt be held responsible for that ?

dr

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

No. That's exactly the type of thinking that leads to high inflation. If revenues double league-wise, then yes, I'll concede that payroll should double, league-wise. Team revenues fluctuate and except for marginal players, salaries only inflate. By your logic, payroll should be halved if revenues are halved. Players taking paycuts ... now that would be the day !

This is completely wrongheaded. The league wide revenues mean nothing.

The Canucks are getting more expensive because the players were acquired when they were young, not very good and cheap. Because these players realized their potential, the team is very good. It has to get more expensive.

If the players had not realized their potential the team would still suck, revenues would still suck and the players wouldn't be getting more expensive. The players are worth more because they have gotten way better. They are generating more revenues to pay for themselves.

Payroll should certainly be halved if revenues are halved. That is done with a combination of pay cuts and trades. The fans are announcing that they do not want to watch a bunch of overpaid bums lose.

Tom

 

[Orange]

we were not talking about a cap or luxury tax, the context was refering to a roll back. you were claiming they would just rise again and i was asking why management shouldnt be held responsible for that ?

Well, they are responsible. So are the players. The current situation is due to agreed upon terms of the last CBA. The fact that the owners didn't have foresight enough to see they would get screwed by the rules set forth to regulate the market doesn't mean they have to make the same mistake all over again.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Well, they are responsible. So are the players. The current situation is due to agreed upon terms of the last CBA. The fact that the owners didn't have foresight enough to see they would get screwed by the rules set forth to regulate the market doesn't mean they have to make the same mistake all over again.

ok and if the players let the owners reset it by 10%, why cant we then expect the owners to not let it rise again ? and if it does, doesnt that prove the owners WANT to pay the money to the players, why should we care at that point ?

dr

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Now I understand, there is something wrong with the Oilers turning their past assets into current ones.

No, there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, I defended every sale as the right hockey move when they were made. They were moving assets like Doug Weight - a guy who was never going to be part of a Stanley Cup Champion in Edmonton - for players who might help them become Champions.

It was Oiler fans who told me that I was wrong. I was informed that the only reason the Oilers were making these trades is because they could not afford the players. I was informed that Edmonton had no chance because they could not afford NHL salaries. In reality, Edmonton had no chance because they were worse than the Rangers at producing talent. When I point that out, Edmonton fans put down their hankies long enough to call me names. Fair enough.

I wasn't aware that other teams developed theirs out of thin air. Last I checked, teams acquire players via draft, trade, and free agency.

The draft is developing talent out of thin air. Every team gets the rights to several players each year. They don't have to give up other assets to get them and they don't have to outbid anyone for them. Every single team that does well, has done well at the draft table. It is a necessary condition for success.

That's right, Tommy, the Oilers have produced zero players in a decade.

So how come you think the Oilers were on the verge of a breakout when they traded Doug Weight? So why do you think the old CBA was somehow unfair to the poor Oilers? Do you really want a CBA that allows a team that produces zero players in a decade to succeed? Is that what Bettman promised when Oiler fans gave him a standing ovation?

Tom

 

[Orange]

The Canucks are getting more expensive because the players were acquired when they were young, not very good and cheap. Because these players realized their potential, the team is very good. It has to get more expensive.

Alright up to here.

If the players had not realized their potential the team would still suck, revenues would still suck and the players wouldn't be getting more expensive. The players are worth more because they have gotten way better. They are generating more revenues to pay for themselves.

This is all nice and dandy, but oversimplified. There is one key issue that you grossly overlook. Revenues and salaries are not growing at the same rate. In the current situation, salaries are growing much faster than revenues.

Another issue you avert is the fact that players negociate it terms of personal stats rather than team stats. Players will want raises with or without increases in revenues.

Payroll should certainly be halved if revenues are halved. That is done with a combination of pay cuts and trades. The fans are announcing that they do not want to watch a bunch of overpaid bums lose.

In this case, what should be and reality are very far appart ! Players that take pay cuts are not the ones that eat up the bulk of the salary. It's not a tool available to GMs. Players will hold out or ask for trades before they take a pay cut ... A GM's nightmare. The other solution ? Trade. Just great. You have to trade away talent and get half value just because you couldn't pay him in a highly inflatory market ! Go competiveness !

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

No, there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, I defended every sale as the right hockey move when they were made. They were moving assets like Doug Weight - a guy who was never going to be part of a Stanley Cup Champion in Edmonton - for players who might help them become Champions.

It was Oiler fans who told me that I was wrong. I was informed that the only reason the Oilers were making these trades is because they could not afford the players. I was informed that Edmonton had no chance because they could not afford NHL salaries. In reality, Edmonton had no chance because they were worse than the Rangers at producing talent. When I point that out, Edmonton fans put down their hankies long enough to call me names. Fair enough.



The draft is developing talent out of thin air. Every team gets the rights to several players each year. They don't have to give up other assets to get them and they don't have to outbid anyone for them. Every single team that does well, has done well at the draft table. It is a necessary condition for success.



So how come you think the Oilers were on the verge of a breakout when they traded Doug Weight? So why do you think the old CBA was somehow unfair to the poor Oilers? Do you really want a CBA that allows a team that produces zero players in a decade to succeed? Is that what Bettman promised when Oiler fans gave him a standing ovation?

Tom

Tommy, boy, that zero player thing is getting too tired for me. You don't merit anymore response from this cat. Enjoy the 23 hours a day you spend in this forum.

 

[Orange]

ok and if the players let the owners reset it by 10%, why cant we then expect the owners to not let it rise again ? and if it does, doesnt that prove the owners WANT to pay the money to the players, why should we care at that point ?

Owners (or shouldn't we say GMs?) are bound by the current market price. They can't ignore that fact when giving out a contract. They have to be competitive. But the current market, as defined by the CBA, is highly inflatory. To say that GMs willingly choose to give out high paying contracts is wrong in many ways. When players are not happy, they just hold out. GM's don't have tools to fight that. No actually, they have one ... lockout !

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

GM's don't have tools to fight that. No actually, they have one ... lockout !

if only teams would have such convictions when its time to negotiate player contracts.

why dont they just have these kinds of balls at player contract time ?

on one hand, fans claim they will support replacement players, so why would the teams fearing telling fans "player x" asked for too much money and in his place we signed someone else ?

isnt that better than just shutting the whole thing down for the sake of only a few relevant contracts.

dr

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

This is all nice and dandy, but oversimplified. There is one key issue that you grossly overlook. Revenues and salaries are not growing at the same rate. In the current situation, salaries are growing much faster than revenues.

Who says? I haven't seen any convincing evidence of this. It doesn't matter at the individual team level anyway. There is a time lag. The revenues come first, then the player salaries go up. If the revenues don't roll in, the salaries don't go up.

Another issue you avert is the fact that players negociate it terms of personal stats rather than team stats. Players will want raises with or without increases in revenues.

Of course they do. It wasn't Doug Weight's fault Edmonton didn't draft anyone. He did realize his potential but he did not have enough company to make the team any good. That's why it makes both hockey sense and economic sense to trade him. He's got value.

In this case, what should be and reality are very far appart ! Players that take pay cuts are not the ones that eat up the bulk of the salary. It's not a tool available to GMs. Players will hold out or ask for trades before they take a pay cut ... A GM's nightmare. The other solution ? Trade. Just great. You have to trade away talent and get half value just because you couldn't pay him in a highly inflatory market ! Go competiveness !

You don't get half value. The Canucks sucked despite a very high payroll. The fans stopped going. The fans demanded change. The Canucks traded McLean, Gelinas, Linden, Bure and Mogilny. They let Lumme and Messier go as free agents. They got rid of everyone expensive. The only players they kept were Naslund and Ohlund.

In return the Canucks got a pile of trash, plus McCabe, Bertuzzi, Jovanovski, and Morrison. Add those guys to a raft of draft picks and the Canucks were cheap, young and lousy instead of expensive, old and lousy.

What's wrong with that?

Tom

 

[Orange]

if only teams would have such convictions when its time to negotiate player contracts.

why dont they just have these kinds of balls at player contract time ?

Well, there's no simple answer. We've talked a lot about the owners since the lockout, but the fact remains that it's the GMs that take the hockey related decisions. Owners want two things : return on their investment and a competitive team. GMs are the ones supposed to get the results. Playing hardball with a player hurts the team's competitiveness, something the owners don't want. Giving up too much means less profits, also something owners don't want. It's no simple dilema.

Also, hardballing players when he's a fan favorite is almost impossible. There will be presure from fans to sign a given player. Trading these players are rarely an option. But the salary that they get will influence every other salary in the league. The last resort option is to regulate how much a salary can rise. And that's what the owners are trying to do with the current CBA negotiations (if we can call it that).

 

[YellHockey*]

. Now I understand, there is something wrong with the Oilers turning their past assets into current ones. I wasn't aware that other teams developed theirs out of thin air. Last I checked, teams acquire players via draft, trade, and free agency.

Now I know why Oilers fans are so bitter at the old CBA. They wanted to be able to build a winner by signing free agents. Kinda like what the Rangers try to do.

Since they don't want to trade for players and had proven they couldn't draft players, they wanted a system where they could sign players. How else was Edmonton going to get a Stanley Cup winner ?

 

[Canadian Time]

Tommy, boy, that zero player thing is getting too tired for me.

But he's right!, quit dismissing this fact. I've never seen anything like the Oilers fanbase in my life of watching sports (I'm going to guess this is twice as long as you've been alive).

Lowe can say anything, no matter how ridiculous, and it's taken as gospel first by the media and then the fans. Kevin Lowe has the best gig in sports: If he does well, he's a genious on a small budget, if he chokes...well it's not his fault you see, it's the CBA.

Lowe told us that Isbister was the next Bertuzzi...and the media lapped it up. Every year Lowe tells us that the most recent prospect crop is the best he's ever seen, we're getting home ice advantage in the playoffs for sure. Brownlee and his ilk repeat it over and over and Oilers fans become insufferable again. When it doesn't happen....if only we didn't have to trade those players away.

How about Oates or Dopita? Best player not in the NHL Lowe told us about Dopita. Lowe tells us with a straight face after a loss that he would rather play "Oiler hockey" then the trap the other team was playing, even though his team can trap like any other.

Stop believing this guy. Should I blame the media?

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

But he's right!, quit dismissing this fact. I've never seen anything like the Oilers fanbase in my life of watching sports (I'm going to guess this is twice as long as you've been alive).

Lowe can say anything, no matter how ridiculous, and it's taken as gospel first by the media and then the fans. Kevin Lowe has the best gig in sports: If he does well, he's a genious on a small budget, if he chokes...well it's not his fault you see, it's the CBA.

Lowe told us that Isbister was the next Bertuzzi...and the media lapped it up. Every year Lowe tells us that the most recent prospect crop is the best he's ever seen, we're getting home ice advantage in the playoffs for sure. Brownlee and his ilk repeat it over and over and Oilers fans become insufferable again. When it doesn't happen....if only we didn't have to trade those players away.

How about Oates or Dopita? Best player not in the NHL Lowe told us about Dopita. Lowe tells us with a straight face after a loss that he would rather play "Oiler hockey" then the trap the other team was playing, even though his team can trap like any other.

Stop believing this guy. Should I blame the media?

You are twisting my perception and insulting every Oiler fan alive. We are not drones worshipping Kevin Lowe. WHat you need to stop doing is indicating the team hasn't developed a SINGLE PLAYER because that is simply asinine and takes away any credibility that might exist in what you have to say.


By the way, that "twice as long as you've been alive" comment is bush-league. Physician, heal thyself, a little bit of manners goes a long way.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

Now I know why Oilers fans are so bitter at the old CBA. They wanted to be able to build a winner by signing free agents. Kinda like what the Rangers try to do.

Since they don't want to trade for players and had proven they couldn't draft players, they wanted a system where they could sign players. How else was Edmonton going to get a Stanley Cup winner ?

Nice posting. Is that supposed to make sense or have any relation to my post??
Oilers have 5 of those banners. What other team has as many in the time the Oilers have been in the league?? I always forget that one...

 

[YellHockey*]

You are twisting my perception and insulting every Oiler fan alive. We are not drones worshipping Kevin Lowe. WHat you need to stop doing is indicating the team hasn't developed a SINGLE PLAYER because that is simply asinine and takes away any credibility that might exist in what you have to say.

They've drafted how many good players during the past CBA?

You might not be drones worshipping Lowe but many Oiler fans appear to be sheep, willing to believe anything management throws out to pass the buck.

Why have the Oilers been mediocre?

"It's the Canadian dollar!"
"It's the CBA!"
"It's the trap!"
"It's the Rangers and Red Wings!"

No. It's the management.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

They've drafted how many good players during the past CBA?

You might not be drones worshipping Lowe but many Oiler fans appear to be sheep, willing to believe anything management throws out to pass the buck.

Why have the Oilers been mediocre?

"It's the Canadian dollar!"
"It's the CBA!"
"It's the trap!"
"It's the Rangers and Red Wings!"

No. It's the management.

Are you arguing with yourself??? How do you believe you know anything about how Oilers fans think. Those are MEDIA chants you are droning, as well. Stop blaming everything on the Oilers. And the Oilers have done some reasonable drafting following a miserable run toward the end by Sather. No one denies that, and yes, Oiler HOCKEY fans are enthused by Lynch, Hemsky, Semenov, Stoll, DesLauriers, Horcoff, Shremp amongst other draft choices. The Oilers have also remained relatively competitive throughout the last CBA, and got no draft homeruns like Lecavelier. You all seem to think you can belittle the Oilers because they didn't draft their whole team. Neither did Tampa Bay, not by a longshot.

 

[YellHockey*]

Are you arguing with yourself???

I believe I was arguing with you. Try to pay attention here.

How do you believe you know anything about how Oilers fans think.

Because I've read their opinions on numerous discussion boards?

Those are MEDIA chants you are droning, as well.

And the fans just eat them right up.

Stop blaming everything on the Oilers.

I'm not actually blaming the Oilers, I'm blaming their fans. Why should upper management try and assemble a competant management team when they can just make up excuses instead?

And the Oilers have done some reasonable drafting following a miserable run toward the end by Sather. No one denies that, and yes, Oiler HOCKEY fans are enthused by Lynch, Hemsky, Semenov, Stoll, DesLauriers, Horcoff, Shremp amongst other draft choices.

So what? What have they proven other then that they might be good players at some point? Or they could be the 2k versions of Steve Kelly and Jason Bonsignore.

The Oilers have also remained relatively competitive throughout the last CBA, and got no draft homeruns like Lecavelier.

They were lucky that Calgary and Vancouver had bad management during much of the old CBA as well. Who were they really better then? Expansion teams and Calgary.

You all seem to think you can belittle the Oilers because they didn't draft their whole team. Neither did Tampa Bay, not by a longshot.

So what? Tampa fans haven't been whining for five years about the unfairness of the CBA.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Stop blaming everything on the Oilers.

Nobody blamed anything on the Oilers. All anyone has said is that they are the authors of their own misfortune. It has nothing to do with the CBA.

And the Oilers have done some reasonable drafting following a miserable run toward the end by Sather. No one denies that, and yes, Oiler HOCKEY fans are enthused by Lynch, Hemsky, Semenov, Stoll, DesLauriers, Horcoff, Shremp amongst other draft choices.

You could be right. We'll see. If these guys prove to be worth the excitement, the Oilers will improve. If not, they won't.

The Oilers have also remained relatively competitive throughout the last CBA, and got no draft homeruns like Lecavelier.

True. They managed this trick by recycling their best players, one by one. It was a good strategy given lousy results at the draft table. It was certainly a better strategy than not trading Weight, Guerin et al.

You all seem to think you can belittle the Oilers because they didn't draft their whole team. Neither did Tampa Bay, not by a longshot.

It doesn't matter whether they drafted their whole team or not. All that matters is that they acquire real assets in the draft. Stuff that you can play or deal. In the same period the Oilers were finding Tom Poti, the Lightning found Langkow, Kubina, Mara, Lecavalier, Richards, Afanasenkov and Svitov. They don't do that and they aren't a winner today.

Tom

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

I believe I was arguing with you. Try to pay attention here.





Sorry, saucy trolls sometimes confuse me, and your rant wasn't making much sense. I'll try better next time. I believe we would find that many of today's currently successful teams, i.e. Sens, Lightning had a poorer record during that cba than the oilers. Got rewarded with some pretty high picks if I'm not mistaken... I'm sure you've got enough time on your hands to do the research...

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

Nobody blamed anything on the Oilers. All anyone has said is that they are the authors of their own misfortune. It has nothing to do with the CBA.



Sorry Tommy, I tried to argue with you earlier, but you insisted the Oilers had developed zip nada no none zero players in the last cba. And I think even your average Flames fan would admit that you had gotten pretty darned silly & sophomoric by the time you were typing that . That, coupled with the fact you called Oiler fans whiners like you were a broken record, suggested to me that you didn't know how to act like big boy. That's why I suggested earlier that I wouldn't be dragging my hind back down to your level. Sorry if I wasn't clear at that time

 

[PecaFan]

Until the Oilers build anything but mediocrity, it's whining to blame the CBA.

This is hilarious. A Canucks fan ripping on Edmonton. The Canucks are the *epitome* of pathetic and mediocre. A team that's in a dogfight with Carolina/Hartford for the title of worst career franchise in the NHL (recent expansion teams exempted naturally).

Guess how many times the mediocre Oilers have made the playoffs in the last eight years? *Six* How many playoff series have they won? *Two*.

How many times have the Canucks made the playoffs in that time? Only *four*. And with only *one* playoff win. Which was a fluke anyways, because half of St. Louis got all sick or injured.

The Canucks at their best are equal to the Oilers at their worst, and with none of the success.

 

[YellHockey*]

This is hilarious. A Canucks fan ripping on Edmonton. The Canucks are the *epitome* of pathetic and mediocre.

No. It's a Canucks fan ripping on Edmonton's whining, not their performance.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

The cap isn't coming whether the NHL likes it or not. There will not be a hard cap.

The owners cannot guarantee a cap. There is no avenue available to them that will force the players to accept a cap.

The players can guarantee there will not be a cap. If the players do not want a cap, they can decertify the PA and any thought of a hard cap becomes history.

The players have the control? The players own the league, own the franchises and own the buildings? Sorry sir, but I think you are sadly mistaken if you think the players are in the catbird seat. The league can do much more than the players can. They are the ones who have the billionaires on their side that sign the paychecks to begin with. Here's a couple of scenarios that the league can do what they like.

1) Break the union. Come fall they bring in replacement players and pay them what they like. They can make an offer to anyone from the NHLPA that they can come and play, earn a fair salary, and wait as the journeymen come back, which is the majority of the union. The ultra expensive players can stay out, or go play in Europe, but the game will go on without them.

2) Fold the league and start over. Call it NHL2 or what wever you want, the league could cut their losses, pack it in and start all over. Draft players, rename franchises, the whole nine yards. At that point they can institute their own rules and players will be free to come back to work and earn a fair wage. There is no players association and the league could easily make itself a union free zone, or a right to work industry.

What is needed to do al of this? Money. The owners have it, the players don't. They can make a new league work, and the players are left to twist in the wind. The players have it great, and they will get a terrible wakeup call at some point in the near future. The economy just cannot sustain what the players expect.