Why So Many Support the Owners

[Trottier]

That's such a fallacy.
Yes, the Lightning caught lightning in a bottle and won the Cup. Care to wager their chances of doing it again anytime soon?

The Stanley Cup is in Tampa Bay. "Caught lightning in a bottle"? Way to diminish the accomplishments of a team, an organization. Just a fluke, eh? Until your team wins one.

Don't even start with that kind of garbage analogy.

Yep, winning Cups are garbage...

Why do you think Pheonix had to unload Khabiboulin to Tampa?! Think it had anything to do with his contract demands? Just maybe?!

...While meanwhile keeping players and not winning Cups is important! Why do you think NJD had to "unload" Mogilny's contract? And Holik's? Yet they still kept winning. But that doesn't fit into your, er, rationale.

And don't forget that Tampa foolishly gave Brad Richards a huge pay raise that angered many other teams with similar restricted free agents who then pointed to his contract as a basis for comparison.

TB was "foolish" to pay handsomely a player who they:

a) drafted
b) developed; and
c) saw lead them to a Cup!

Nah. They should have let him walk...or better yet, be forced to let him walk under an artificial cap! Yep, garbage.

Let's see what the Lightning look like in 3 years under the current system!

Like 29 other hardcap-repressed teams in the "Parity Shangra-la" some call for! But guess what? Even if they are not Cup Champs in three years, they won one, this year. THEY EARNED IT. And hard as some fans of lesser teams may whine, one can never diminish that accomplishment, or take it away, try as some fools do.

 

[Kings16]

Your analogy is garbage

Look, you tried to make it sound like Tampa is a poor team that can't keep up with the high spenders - yet was able to win a Cup. Everyone knows that's BS. They stupidly signed Richards to a big raise when he had NO bargaining power as a restricted free agent. Tampa is a clear example of teams A & B in the example described. Not C.

The reality is that there are a lot of poor teams that no matter how well they are managed and how well they draft and develop players will never be able to hold on to their players or win a Cup - unless they make a 1 time miracle run. I hate hearing people point to Calgary as a shining example of a low budget team going to the Cup. What about all the previous years they couldn't even make the playoffs? And now look where they stand, 1 year later. They couldn't hold onto to their #1 centre - who signed as an UFA in LA. And now they are in tough trying to sign Iginla.

 

[silver_made*]

it is the fans who lose out here. bettman and goodenow may be fighting for their respective rich boys, but they leave those doughnut-fest meetings in their bmw's while joe shmoe busts his ass at the plant to come home to a great game of nothing.

at the end of the day, whether these two groups of morons come up with an agreement or not, it is the fans who lose.

i wonder if i am the only fan who truly fears the collapse of the nhl.

owners: you idiots put yourself in this mess
players: you and your agents have certainly contributed to the problem, you should feel obligated to help clean up. bobby holik with an annual salary of $10 mill/yr.? yeah, yeah, nyr is a stupid money factory and we should all get whatever we can whenever we can get it, but how can you live with yourself? don't overpaid idiots like yourself, martin lapointe, and bill guerin get that no one goes to watch you guys? dson't you realize that once a marginal player like you demands a fat salary that you screw up the salary structure and thus kill small-market teams. yes, you should clean up TOO.

 

[Kaiped Krusader]

Chileiceman pretty much hit the nail on the head. The owners are losing money. That's why I'm on their side in this. They deserve to make a little money on their investments too - assuming there's a market for the product, which I have no doubt there is. Even by the sunniest estimates (Forbes magazine's) they lost $90 million last year alone. By Arthur Leavitt's estimates, the number was more like $260 million.

It's staggering to think of how much the players make when league revenues are so tiny. I don't have a problem with a hockey player making $10 million a year in principle, but the market obviously isn't there to sustain that long term. Hell, I wish guys like Lidstrom, Forsberg, and other elite players could earn A-Rod money, but the revenues simply aren't there and the union needs to step back, take a deep breath, and realize that they're the ones who need to be making serious, serious concessions in this battle. Their proposal last week showed they at least acknowledge what's going on financially today.

 

[Sammy*]

Team A - NY Rangers (of old),
Team B - Philadelphia Flyers, Toronto Maple Leafs
Team C - Tampa Bay Lightning, Stanley Cup Champions

Funny how you dont use the years of Colorado, Dertroit, Jersey or Dallas winning the Cup though (only 9 of the last 10 years).
No surprise there though.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

Funny how you dont use the years of Colorado, Dertroit or Jersey winning the Cup though.
No surprise there though.

new jersey is a large market team

 

[Trottier]

Funny how you dont use the years of Colorado, Dertroit or Jersey winning the Cup though.
No surprise there though.

What's "surprising", sport?

Try reading (a bit more carefully second time around), the original post. It suggested that teams that do not spend the most cannot compete. The purpose of my original post was to disprove that generalization. Get it? Or would you like it repeated?

While we're at it genius, explain Colorado (invested heavily in retaining their own players) and New Jersey (as they won, player's value increased and the team's payroll rose proportionately). What exactly is "wrong" with that?

I realize that such a reply may require multiple sentences, but give it your best shot.

Look, you tried to make it sound like Tampa is a poor team that can't keep up with the high spenders - yet was able to win a Cup.

Your misinterpretation. I didn't try to make anything "sound like" anything. What I stated (and am repeating here for you) is this: TB won a Cup without spending extravagently on the $10M players that were cited in the original post in this thread. But that's "garbage".

They stupidly signed Richards to a big raise when he had NO bargaining power as a restricted free agent. Tampa is a clear example of teams A & B in the example described. Not C.

Make up your mind! TB is stupid for rewarding the Conn Smyth Trophy winner(!), but Calgary (below) is lamented for not resigning Conroy. Talk about having it both ways. Pick an argument!

The reality is that there are a lot of poor teams that no matter how well they are managed and how well they draft and develop players will never be able to hold on to their players or win a Cup - unless they make a 1 time miracle run. I hate hearing people point to Calgary as a shining example of a low budget team going to the Cup. What about all the previous years they couldn't even make the playoffs? And now look where they stand, 1 year later. They couldn't hold onto to their #1 centre - who signed as an UFA in LA. And now they are in tough trying to sign Iginla.

And Calgary then went out and shrewdly acquired a center (Langkow) who is arguably superior to Conroy. Good teams (well managed teams) are resourceful and find a way. The rest - and particularly their fans - find excuses.

Funny how you and the rest of the hardcapologists "hate hearing about" examples of teams that manage to compete without big budgets. Let's see now:

TB ('04)- "fluke"
Calgary ('04) - "lucky"
Anaheim ('03) - "lightning in a bottle"
Carolina ('02) - "fortunate"
Sabres ('99) - "one-hit wonders"
Caps ('98) - "miracle".

Funny thing is, minimizing the accomplishments of these teams presupposes that teams that compete for the Cup on an annual basis are/should be the norm! Yet those very same teams (Wings, Avs, Devils) are held up as the reason why we must go to a hardcap and engineer parity in this league! Again, make up your mind!

No one here is suggesting that $$$ is not required to retain good players over the long haul. And fiscal parity (a more equal sharing of league revenues among teams) is understandable to a point. And no one is suggesting that three teams with significant budgets have not been perennial contenders for a decade now. (Three teams that incidentally have also drafted, developed and traded more effectively than most other teams.) But so what? More than three teams with big budgets have not been serious contenders during that same time period. Meanwhile, smaller budget teams (above) have competed for the Cup.

But those were all "miracles". Funny. The NHL, according to some, have nearly "a miracle team" a season. That's parity and leaguewide competition by any other name.

 

[SENSible1*]

I think both the players and owners are totally justified in their respective stances, but I think the owners are currently in the stronger bargaining position.

The salient point.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

I'm sick of hearing about how the owners can't control themselves. It all comes down to 5 or 6 owners who have the money driving up the prices for every other player in the league. Team A signs player A for 10 million, Team B signs player B for 10 million, Team C either has to sign player C for 10 million or lose him. Team C can control himself, Team A and B make it impossible for Team C to compete on an equal footing. I wouldn't expect someone who calls themselves "Son of Steinbrenner" to understand this though.

If you really are the "Son of Steinbrenner", I really hate what your father has done to MLB as well. Thanks for sponsoring the boards though.

what has mr steinbrenner done to baseball? invest the the profits his team makes back in the team? the horror

if the nhl can't make something out of the players proposal last week than there is no hope for nhl hockey.

its funny that the people that are supporting the owners are the same people that will be without teams in a few years.

do you think the buffalo sabers are going to survive a one or two year work stoppage? what else is going on at hsbs arena when there is no hockey lets take a look.
a monster truck rally, yanni and the harlem globetrotters. :lol

 

[sabresfan65]

What's "surprising", sport?

Try reading (a bit more carefully second time around), the original post. It suggested that teams that do not spend the most cannot compete. The purpose of my original post was to disprove that generalization. Get it? Or would you like it repeated?

While we're at it genius, explain Colorado (invested heavily in retaining their own players) and New Jersey (as they won, player's value increased and the team's payroll rose proportionately). What exactly is "wrong" with that?

I realize that such a reply may require multiple sentences, but give it your best shot.

I never said that small market clubs couldn't compete, I stated that the large market clubs drive up the prices of the mid to high talent players such that they must then divest themselves of their teams stars and semi-stars. Not that they couldn't compete.

 

[Trottier]

I never said that small market clubs couldn't compete, I stated that the large market clubs drive up the prices of the mid to high talent players such that they must then divest themselves of their teams stars and semi-stars. Not that they couldn't compete.

But didn't you state:

"Team A and B make it impossible for Team C to compete on an equal footing."

Look, I'm just debating your premise, not you personally. And, there is no disagreement here that when one player is signed to a ridiculous contract it often raises the stakes for the next player signing. And, admittedly, a small number of large payroll teams do succeed regularly, while some small(er) payroll franchises don't.

But that is a huge oversimplification, and one that has been perpetrated here as fact for some time. For there are numerous examples of teams that have spent lavishly and unwisely and have no results to show for it (NYR, St. Louis, Philly, Toronto) - as in one Final appearance between all of them in the last decade. Meanwhile, as noted in an above post, numerous smaller budget teams have played into June. Are they annual contenders? No, but that does not detract from the main point: lack of money is a barrier to sustaining longer-term success. But it is not a barrier to competing for a Cup.

 

[sabresfan65]

what has mr steinbrenner done to baseball? invest the the profits his team makes back in the team? the horror

if the nhl can't make something out of the players proposal last week than there is no hope for nhl hockey.

its funny that the people that are supporting the owners are the same people that will be without teams in a few years.

do you think the buffalo sabers are going to survive a one or two year work stoppage? what else is going on at hsbs arena when there is no hockey lets take a look.
a monster truck rally, yanni and the harlem globetrotters. :lol

I understand what Mr. Steinbrenner does and I would probably do the same if I was in his position, but I still don't like what it has done to the competative balance of the game. While throwing money at it doesn't win him the series every year, he is there every year. And don't give me some Yankee homer crap about building the team through the minors and the draft. Yes they drafted Jeter, Posada, Williams and Rivera but they threw money at the majority of the rest who were drafted and brought along by other teams. Forcing other teams to let them go because the couldn't compete with the Yankees for them. This is all very similar to what has happened in the NHL. A few teams throw large sums of money at a few players and it drives the salaries up so that the small market clubs have to make non-hockey decisions about their personel. The Rangers make hockey decisions, what do we think would be the best for the team. Many other teams have to add monetary decisions along with hockey decisions.

As for what I would do if there is a year or two stoppage, I would look forward to the end when the Sabres resume. The thing you don't realize is that without a new marketplace the Sabres would have gone under. Their current owner only bought the team under the assumption that a new CBA would bring fiscal sanity back into the NHL. So if it takes 2 years to get it right, get it right. They are not going to tear down the HSBC Arena due to 2 years of a lockout. It and I will be there when the NHL and the Sabres return!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sammy*]

What's "surprising", sport?

Try reading (a bit more carefully second time around), the original post. It suggested that teams that do not spend the most cannot compete. The purpose of my original post was to disprove that generalization. Get it? Or would you like it repeated?

While we're at it genius, explain Colorado (invested heavily in retaining their own players) and New Jersey (as they won, player's value increased and the team's payroll rose proportionately). What exactly is "wrong" with that?

I realize that such a reply may require multiple sentences, but give it your best shot.

Hey genius, whats Colorados payroll when they "reinvested"? . How bout Detroits? How bout Dallas?. Care to take a spin as to where thir payrolls ranked.
Any clown can tell you there are always exceptions to the rule but only the most thick wont acknowledge that for the most part, having access to a huge payroll gives you a huge leg up on everyone else. A simple analysis (I know thats kinda hard) bares that out when one examines the teams who go to the final 4 & 8 & who win the Cup. May be your just one of those guys who figured Carolina wasnt 'lightning in a bottle".
Oh, & by the way, when Jersey won in 02/03 they had the 8th largest payroll.

 

[EaGLE1]

Look at my avatar. Need i say more?

 

[sabresfan65]

But didn't you state:

"Team A and B make it impossible for Team C to compete on an equal footing."

Look, I'm just debating your premise, not you personally. And, there is no disagreement here that when one player is signed to a ridiculous contract it often raises the stakes for the next player signing. And, admittedly, a small number of large payroll teams do succeed regularly, while some small(er) payroll franchises don't.

But that is a huge oversimplification, and one that has been perpetrated here as fact for some time. For there are numerous examples of teams that have spent lavishly and unwisely and have no results to show for it (NYR, St. Louis, Philly, Toronto) - as in one Final appearance between all of them in the last decade. Meanwhile, as noted in an above post, numerous smaller budget teams have played into June. Are they annual contenders? No, but that does not detract from the main point: lack of money is a barrier to sustaining longer-term success. But it is not a barrier to competing for a Cup.

The problem is they are not able to compete on an equal footing. The deck is stacked against them before they start. If they have success, then the players get too expensive for them to keep so that success is fleeting. Those players leave and they have to start over again and fall all the way to the bottom.

This is a league and all teams in the league should have the same rules and that includes payroll. Every team should have to balance the same set of variables to compete and be successful. Right now a limited number of teams have less variable that they must balance. While that doesn't guarentee success, it gives them a competative balance that shouldn't exist in a LEAGUE- A group of individual teams fighting for a common goal under a common set of rules. The only way to make this happen is through a cap. Good, bad or indifferent. I see no other way.

 

[Sammy*]

The problem is they are not able to compete on an equal footing. The deck is stacked against them before they start. If they have success, then the players get too expensive for them to keep so that success is fleeting. Those players leave and they have to start over again and fall all the way to the bottom.

This is a league and all teams in the league should have the same rules and that includes payroll. Every team should have to balance the same set of variables to compete and be successful. Right now a limited number of teams have less variable that they must balance. While that doesn't guarentee success, it gives them a competative balance that shouldn't exist in a LEAGUE- A group of individual teams fighting for a common goal under a common set of rules. The only way to make this happen is through a cap. Good, bad or indifferent. I see no other way.

I dont think its right or fair that they have "equal footing" . But I dont think that its healthy for the league that unless you get very, very fortunate on a number of levels (see Anaheim, Calgary, Carolina) in any particular year , the fans know the jig is up before the puck is dropped in each & every year. Its not so much in any particular year you know you likely have no chance (thats true in every sport), its just with the current economics you know that you will likely never have a chance. I really think its difficult for people who are not fans of teams in that position to appreciate the feeling of helplessness that those fans have. Because of all of this, I really think in the long term that it is unhealthy for the league as a whole to carry on with the same economic structure they have.

 

[David]

Let's simplify things...

First and foremost, let's be absolutely clear that ALL THIS is nothing more than a fight for MONEY by two greedy parties with absolutely no regard for the goose that lays the golden egg.

And to that end, I can't believe that the PA would be stupid enough to hold out for very much longer...if they do, then the season is lost...and at this point, I don't think that too many fans would be surprised if there is no season.

If there is no season, then it soon becomes lawful for the owners to use replacement players...if there are lawful replacement players, then the members of the PA has to come crawling back under WHATEVER the new NHL decides to pay them (even if it's $10/hour)...but of course they always have the option of not playing in NHL or not playing all together! Geez...that salary cap would probably look real good...by then...

So you be the judge. Dumb jocks!

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

What's "surprising", sport?

Try reading (a bit more carefully second time around), the original post. It suggested that teams that do not spend the most cannot compete. The purpose of my original post was to disprove that generalization. Get it? Or would you like it repeated?

While we're at it genius, explain Colorado (invested heavily in retaining their own players) and New Jersey (as they won, player's value increased and the team's payroll rose proportionately). What exactly is "wrong" with that?

I realize that such a reply may require multiple sentences, but give it your best shot.

teams in (a) and (b) category should includes NYR, Phi, Det, Tor, NJ, Dal, Col, StL
teams in (c) should include Edm, Cgy, Buf, Pit, Pho
while people like to point to the NYR and claim spending dont equal cup, you cant argue with the success the big spenders get, while the lack of it from the small market side.
as for colorado, when they win the cup they have blake, bourque and roy, not really their "own" player. sure, they traded for them, but the fact they have the money to resign them have ALOT to do with why they were able to get them in the beginning.

 

[Sinurgy]

Speaking of "original posts", how about we drop the A,B,C arguments and give some thought out input on my comments about why people back the owners...you know...THE original post. Sorry I'm not trying to start more bickering, just want to hear some opinions on what I originally posted is all.

 

[PecaFan]

The Stanley Cup is in Tampa Bay. "Caught lightning in a bottle"? Way to diminish the accomplishments of a team, an organization. Just a fluke, eh? Until your team wins one.

Um, yeah. Did you not notice the Lightning missed the playoffs for six out of seven years, and nine years out of eleven before this Cup? Did you not notice how they managed to pick up the Hart, Art Ross, and Pearson trophy winner for literally *nothing*, and are paying peanuts? Or how about the *extremely* short term move in trading away their 1st round pick to Philly for Fedotenko? Not to mention one of the best goalies in the league falling into your lap because of a contract squabble.

Tampa deserves their Cup. They won it fair and square, made some excellent moves along with some extremely risky ones that all worked out.

But spare us this "everyone can do that" crap. The Tampa model is unreproducible.

 

[PecaFan]

TB ('04)- "fluke"
Calgary ('04) - "lucky"
Anaheim ('03) - "lightning in a bottle"
Carolina ('02) - "fortunate"
Sabres ('99) - "one-hit wonders"
Caps ('98) - "miracle".

I really wish you'd learn to quote properly. Putting your text in bold in the middle of someone else's post makes it extremely difficult to respond to you. You can't be bothered to cut and paste properly, so you make the other person do it for you. It's rude.

Tampa - Made the playoffs 3 times in last 10 years. All the stars aligned, and won the Cup.

Calgary - Made the playoffs 3 times in 10 years. Hadn't won a playoff series in *15* years before this year.

Anaheim - Made the playoffs 3 times in 10 years.

Carolina - Made the playoffs 3 times in 10 years.

Sabres - Made the playoffs 6 times in 10 years. But money problems meant they couldn't keep their players, and haven't made the playoffs for three years in a row.

Caps - Made the playoffs 6 times in 10 years. But now officially the worst team in hockey, and if they can manage to miss the playoffs for the next six years straight, just might be able to start duplicating the "Tampa model".

These are your big successes? The only one who did anything was Tampa. The other's won *squat*. One miracle run each in the middle of years of failure doesn't change the basic results. They're not competing year in and year out.

For there are numerous examples of teams that have spent lavishly and unwisely and have no results to show for it (NYR, St. Louis, Philly, Toronto) - as in one Final appearance between all of them in the last decade.

You seem to think that those teams haven't had success. St. Louis has played 16 playoff rounds in the past 10 years. Toronto 15. Philly 21. The only teams that have more are Detroit, Colorado, and Jersey.

Playing 2 or three rounds of playoff hockey each year for 10 years is far more successful than making the finals once, and missing the playoffs the rest of the time.

 

[SENSible1*]

Great post PecaFan.

 

[misterjaggers]

I really wish you'd learn to quote properly. Putting your text in bold in the middle of someone else's post makes it extremely difficult to respond to you. You can't be bothered to cut and paste properly, so you make the other person do it for you. It's rude.

Tampa - Made the playoffs 3 times in last 10 years. All the stars aligned, and won the Cup.

Calgary - Made the playoffs 3 times in 10 years. Hadn't won a playoff series in *15* years before this year.

Anaheim - Made the playoffs 3 times in 10 years.

Carolina - Made the playoffs 3 times in 10 years.

Sabres - Made the playoffs 6 times in 10 years. But money problems meant they couldn't keep their players, and haven't made the playoffs for three years in a row.

Caps - Made the playoffs 6 times in 10 years. But now officially the worst team in hockey, and if they can manage to miss the playoffs for the next six years straight, just might be able to start duplicating the "Tampa model".

These are your big successes? The only one who did anything was Tampa. The other's won *squat*. One miracle run each in the middle of years of failure doesn't change the basic results. They're not competing year in and year out.



You seem to think that those teams haven't had success. St. Louis has played 16 playoff rounds in the past 10 years. Toronto 15. Philly 21. The only teams that have more are Detroit, Colorado, and Jersey.

Playing 2 or three rounds of playoff hockey each year for 10 years is far more successful than making the finals once, and missing the playoffs the rest of the time.

Of course, more teams (as a percentage of all the teams) make the playoffs in the NHL than any other major sports league. If it was like MLB, some of the NHL teams would be lucky to appear in the playoffs once every ten years.

 

[I.am.ca]

Wow. That's a stretch.

The owners don't care about fixing the league and making hockey better.

They've made hockey worse over the past decade. Both on the ice and off the ice.

They care about the value of their franchise.
Which, in most cases, is pretty darned good.

Both are to blame, Owners for signing the players with the amount they have and the players that sign the big contract to suddenly disappear.

But are people not going to blame the agents?

 

[joechip]

new jersey is a large market team

Well, a payroll of $60+ million and Mr. Steinbrenner's pockets certainly make it so.

Ta,