Why can't Goodenow just understand?
- Thread starter S.S. Giggy
- Start date
- Status
Johnnybegood13
Registered User
- Jul 11, 2003
- 8,718
- 982
Do you dream this stuff up in your sleep?Russian Fan said:
If an NFL team can't make the postseason it is directly the fault of management...the same cannot be said about the NHL right now.to say Edmonton,Montreal and others suck because of bad management is crazy! fact is they simply don't have the funds to keep the stars that they developed or can't afford to sign any.
How good would the Oilers be today if they had Weight,Guerin and Joseph in the lineup? i suspect a betting man would predict at least a lock for a playoff spot instead of fighting for the last 2 spots.
This years Flames finally got into the playoffs after 7 years because the young players came together and two star players played like gods....under the current CBA,a team like the Flames will lose half of their core in the next 3 years because of salaries and be right back to the "rebuilding" stage.
Your posts only prove one thing...your a fan of a large market team and could care less about having a strong league for the future!!
T@T said:
That's garbage. Montreal is the second biggest hockey market in Canada and the third biggest just announced they've made $45m over the past two years. They can keep any stars they want. They've just got to start producing some besides Theodore.
As for Edmonton, how can any team with as bad a record at drafting as the Oilers had in the 90's be successful under any CBA? Colorado has gotten rid of more talent then Edmonton has but they 've been successful because they've been able to draft great players.
Ottawa has been able to be successful while in a market the same size as Edmonton. Why have they been able to do it? Because instead of drafting Michel Riesen and Jani Rita, they drafted Hossa and Havlat.
PecaFan said:
So instead of a few really good teams, lets have 30 Anaheim's and Carolina's. One team wins every year not because they are the best, but because someone has to.
The Stanley Cup is the most important sports trophy because of its history. If you allow a bunch of unworhty teams win it every year through an artificial system, that history is devalued. Look at the SuperBowl. Is Tampa Bay of 2002 as good as the 49'ers of 1982? No way, but 100 years from now, people will look at the SuperBowl winners and conclude they were.
Roughneck
Registered User
hunter1909 said:
This was simple? What are you trying to say?
All I can say is, turn to another sport then. I watch hockey because I love the game, not just to cheer on my favorite team. My team was drowning for 7 years and it managed to become competetive. Get rid of the Oilers, means more lottery money for the Flames.
shveik
Registered User
T@T said:Do you dream this stuff up in your sleep?
If an NFL team can't make the postseason it is directly the fault of management...the same cannot be said about the NHL right now.to say Edmonton,Montreal and others suck because of bad management is crazy! fact is they simply don't have the funds to keep the stars that they developed or can't afford to sign any.
How good would the Oilers be today if they had Weight,Guerin and Joseph in the lineup? i suspect a betting man would predict at least a lock for a playoff spot instead of fighting for the last 2 spots.
How about a small market team like Ottawa? Or Minnesota (by the way, Minnesota is making a profit of 20mil a year, they do have the money, but choose to operate in a frugal mode) ? If they can be successful, why can't Edmonton?
And I do not think you can call Montreal a "small market team".
Oilers, Flames and Montreal all suffered from bad management for a number of years. More so in case of Montreal, as they do have more money than the other two teams. But both Montreal and Calgary are improving, and did well in the last playoffs. Oilers should be able to do the same.
PecaFan
Registered User
Russian Fan said:
Those lists are *nowhere* even close to comparable.
First off, as bruwinz said, way more NHL teams make the playoffs than the NFL. Secondly, that NHL list *way* more spread out than the NHL. 13 teams have either 2 or 3 appearances, as opposed to *four* NHL teams. Or put another way, almost twice as many NFL teams managed it at least twice as opposed to the NHL, despite there being less spots.
Finally, the concept of "final four" doesn't match across leagues. In the NHL, final four means half way to winning the Cup. In the NFL, that's only true for wild card teams, a division winner only has to win one game, and they make the final four.
Russian Fan said:
It's funny how you can look at things so clearly and yet come up with such a strange answer.
The example of the NHL shows that wealthier teams have the edge.
The example of the NFL show that skilled coaching, good drafting, and great players will give you the edge.
Other examples would be the Oilers, Islanders and Habs.
See how simple it is? There will always be teams that suck because they don't have the where withal to manage the franchise properly (see the Vancouver Canucks). In the opposite corner you will have teams like the Devils, who can succeed against all odds by constantly hitting the right notes.
Evening out the financial field won't make every team equally successful, and dynasties will still develop. The just won't be limited to the richest teams. Which is great for all hockey fans, because Edmonton or Nashville fans can always know they stand a chance given the right coaching, drafting and team systems.
If hockey never becomes popular in some of the southern markets, then no problem. Cost certainty would allow other Canadian cities to get back into the league again.
The thing you seem to ignore the most is actually being realistic about the future given how player salaries have inflated in recent years. Last year was somewhat of an anomaly in that the looming lockout made teams behave other than they normally would have.
quat said:
Except that all of that coaching and management gets you 2-3 of contendership before your team is broken up in the NFL.
You mention the Isles, Habs and Oilers. How long do you think any of them could've stayed together under a cap? (and please don't lamely respond that the Oilers lost Gretzky anyway. That's not the question I asked.)
Brent Burns Beard
Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
- Feb 27, 2002
- 5,594
- 580
PecaFan said:
AGAIN ..
i dont get this ... Final Four after almost 100 games and out of a field of 30 and you say its nothing ? its a hell of an achievment in the NHL. Again, what do you think would be fair ? One cup win per team every 30 years ? 30 different finalists every 15 years ? Im simplying pointing out that more than half the league was within striking distance of the holy grail in the last 10 years. What is it you think would be a fair representation ?
me2
Go ahead foot
DementedReality said:
I wouldn't mind a league where a bottom half team has a decent chance of winning every few years. 10 zip before Tampa? 20 zip before Tampa? How many bottom half salary teams have won it in the last 30 years? Sure 2nd is close but close only counts in handgrenades. Its Stanley Cup 1 or Stanley Cup 0 at the end of the year for every team, you win it or you don't. Calgary don't get 1/2 a Stanley Cup for coming second. They don't hand out Stanley Cup-lites to the losers.
Brent Burns Beard
Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
- Feb 27, 2002
- 5,594
- 580
me2
Go ahead foot
DementedReality said:
No, just a league were payroll isn't a key player. Where brains triumphs over fiscal brawn. If someone can build a dynasty under a cap and win 5 straight cups then
more power to them, because they've earned it.DementedReality said:
What is really interesting is that even with the salaries going crazy, IMO the NHL is more competitive than before. That's right, more competitive. The old guard of Detroit, Colorado, NJ and Dallas don't look so invincible now. Now any number of teams can win. Sure, I want the NHL to be more balanced but I don't want every team to be the same. There is a difference between parity and equal terms of competitiveness. I think something should be done with salaries but in terms of the NHL and being competitive, I think it's better now. I remember in the 1980's where only a few select teams could win the cup. That increased a little in the 1990's and it's increasing even more in 2000's.
And as far as only a few teams winning the cup, ironically if you go back to the 1980's and before...few differing teams won the cup as compared to now. For example
1990 Edmonton beat Boston
1989 Calgary beat Montreal
1988 Edmonton beat Boston
1987 Edmonton beat Philadelphia
1986 Montreal beat Calgary
1985 Edmonton beat Philadelphia
1984 Edmonton beat NYI
1983 NYI beat Edmonton
1982 NYI beat Vancouver
1981 NYI beat Minnesota
1980 NYI beat Philadelphia
1979 Montreal beat someone. NYR or Boston
1978 Montreal
1977 Montreal
1976 Montreal
1975 Philadelphia beat Buffalo
1974 Philadelphia beat Boston
1972 Boston
1971 Montreal
1970 Boston beat St.Louis
Brent Burns Beard
Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
- Feb 27, 2002
- 5,594
- 580
me2 said:
so then you should have no problem with today's NHL. last i looked teams like STL, PHI, TOR, and NYR arent doing as good as OTT, VAN and TBY. last i looked WSH spent a boatload of money and didnt do jack all.
this lock out isnt about competitive balance, last i heard the owners were claiming they couldnt turn a profit and thats the reason they are taking these measures.
next.
dr
DementedReality said:
Exactly. Owners may talk about competitive balance but they really care about the money (can't say I blame them). I don't see why people don't understand. he NHL is MORE competitive now then it has been for a while. Certainly as competitive as I have ever seen in (watching since the mid-1980's).
Think about it. If owners really cared about competive balance all along then why was there no fuss in the 1980's? Edmonton had the cup 5 times in 7 years. And before them, the Islanders had it four times. And right before them the Canadiens had it four times straight. I remember the 1980's. Only a select few teams had a realisitic shot at the Stanley Cup. I was a Red Wing fan then and the Norris and Smythe divisions made up one conference. Basicially it was either Calgary or Edmonton going through from the Campbell Conference throughout the ENTIRE 1980's. The Norris division was an absolute joke. The playoff Norris division winner got the right....to lose and mostly likely get their butt kicked by the Oilers or Flames. But why no owners going crazy over that? Easy, salaries were low and owners made money.
In the 1980's only New York (I), Edmonton, Calgary or Montreal won
1990's it was Pittsburgh, New York (R), New Jersey, Colorado, Detroit and Dallas
2000's so far it's Colorado, Detroit, New Jersey and Tampa
In this decade there have already been 4 different Stanley Cup Winners. That has already matched the 80's.
hockeytown9321 said:
Well... as long as they did I suppose. You are assuming there will be a constant movement throughout the league and I'm not certain that will be the case. The fact is that those teams essentially did work under a cap of sorts in that money just wasn't spent on players, as the owners were no doubt loath to let them have any financial voice what so ever.
Personally I think there is every chance that teams will end up staying as a unit longer, as there will no longer be the big cash incentive to move. Why move from the Wings where you've had a lot of success, your family is living and has some connection to, just to earn a slightly higher salary.
I could be wrong, but there is no proof that players will only be around for a year at a time. The NFL's team size and non-guaranteed contracts makes it a difficult comparison. Anyhow, we will know for sure in five to ten years.
DementedReality said:
I don't think anyone on these boards has been saying the owners have been fiscally responsible. There's countless examples like the one you posted here to prove that they are ultimately responsible for what the league has become. The players should be thanking them for the great ride, knowing that unless they carry a (large?), portion of the burden of fixing the league, then it will go down the toilet. Pointing the finger at who is to blame doesn't always help to fix the problem.
Players should still be free to make extremely large amounts of money for the game they play that fans want to see. They are responsible for saving owners from their own folly as it were. For what the game has given them, it shouldn't be too much to ask.
garry1221
Registered User
DementedReality said:
i dont' believe that's what he said at all, if you'd take a look at the whole post, or at least post the whole thing instead of just the one piece that you agree with maybe you'd see it too... not meant as an attack, just reread it and it sounded a little harsh so im putting this before editing it
me2 said:
what you failed to take note of in your post was the brains over fiscal brawn, which would have a big impact IMO
payroll shouldn't be a key player yet for the last decade it's been THE key in many cases, IMO no one can say wheter or not there will be dynasty's able to be formed for the simple fact that no one knows how the cba is going to pan out, cap or no cap or whatever the two sides decide, so rather than setting your feet in cement and saying im not moving just take a seat and see where things go ( last statement not pointed at you DR, just getting everything out that's in my mind at this time )
bottom line is that younger players coming up are having big seasons and then looking at an overpaid player such as lapointe and saying im this much better than he is so i should be making x million more than him, thus leading to the out of control salaries that we have today, the league wants some tie between revenue and payroll, which isn't a horrible thing... if the players thought about it hard enough it just means they've got the opportunity to make more than expected if the winds blow right... granted they could make less should the status quo stay as is
the owners on the other hand want to make a profit, is that such a crime? after all this isn't little league where a company sponsors you with uniforms and such... yeah to most owners it could be said to be a 'toy', however if they want a toy they should go to a toy store, not a national sports league
me2
Go ahead foot
If there is a cap I wouldn't mind contracts negotiated on value not on previous contract value. Get rid of mandatory wage increases and qualifying offers. To me those lead to inflationary problems. They force teams to make offers that are unjustified, either too low or too high. If a player peaks at 24 he should get paid like it then, if he's burnt out by 28 his contract should be lower. Teams need the flexibility to pay the players what they deserve.
The ideas in the current CBA, that players are screwed over when young and over compensated when old, just hasn't been working. Instead of players' salaries peaking at $10m/y they might peak at $6-7m but for longer.
The ideas in the current CBA, that players are screwed over when young and over compensated when old, just hasn't been working. Instead of players' salaries peaking at $10m/y they might peak at $6-7m but for longer.
Brent Burns Beard
Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
- Feb 27, 2002
- 5,594
- 580
me2 said:
do you pay attention ? teams have 100% flexability with the current CBA. if a guy is overpaid by QO, then they dont have to QO him.
how flipping hard is that to execute ?
dr
DementedReality said:
? ? ! 100% flexability? Now? What about the automatic 10% raise everytime a contract ends before UFA or the player walks?
me2
Go ahead foot
DementedReality said:
I don't think you understand the consequences of what you are talking about. I think you need to sit down and work out where your policies actually lead sometimes.
The current situation leads to massive blowouts in salary at older ages and it flows through, the rampant salary escalation is proof of that.If a older player is 30% overpaid that could be $1.5m /y. If a young player is 30% overpaid that could be $250K. If teams went around dumping their best young talent over $250K they wouldn't have a hope. They can't go and get more prospects from the NHL fairy godmother to replace them. "Oh NHL Fairy Godmother, I released all of my prospects to save $1m, and I must have some new ones so I can go to the Stanley Cup Ball."
That is exactly what you are suggesting, you should think these things through a bit better.
Last edited:
Brent Burns Beard
Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
- Feb 27, 2002
- 5,594
- 580
quat said:
and do you not pay attention ? only players making less than the league negotiated average salary are entitled to a 10% increase.
secondly, if you dont want the player to leave as UFA, that means he is WORTH the QO. If he isnt, why QO him, just use the money to sign someone else or promote a young cheaper guy ?
Its called "using the system" and if more GM's had the balls and savy to do that, we wouldnt be where we are today.
dr
Brent Burns Beard
Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
- Feb 27, 2002
- 5,594
- 580
me2 said:
then that means the player is worth the money if the team can not afford to release him over such a *measly amount*.
give me a few real examples of a player who is 30% overpaid at 1.5m that the team cannot afford to release.
DR
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
HC Dynamo Pardubice @ Ocelari Trinec - Pardubice leads series 3-2Wagers: 1Staked: $15.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Tappara Tampere @ Pelicans Lahti - Tappara leads series 2-1Wagers: 1Staked: $15.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Eisbaren Berlin @ Pinguins Bremerhaven - Eisbaren Berlin leads series 3-1Wagers: 1Staked: $15.00Event closes- Updated: