Why So Many Support the Owners

[Alfie#11]

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.

Tampa joined the league in 1992-93. They were only in their third season after expansion at the beginning of your 10 year period.Tampa also had ownership issues which disrupted the stability of the franchise.They have a nice core and could make the playoffs 7 or 8 times in the next 10 years.

Calgary made awful trades and drafted poorly. The 15 year no playoff win could is not totally related to money. The Flames of the late 80s to mid 90s were very strong teams with many stars. They just didn't win.

Anaheim joined the league in 1993-94. They were one year old when your 10 year period began. Anaheim was never a small market team. They usually ran budgets higher than the league average. For example, the finished last in 2000-01 despite a payroll that was $5.2 million higher than league average. Last season with a $54.4 million payroll they missed the playoffs. Crappy management not money is the issue in Anaheim.

Carolina is the inept Whalers franchise. Prior to moving to Carolina they last made the playoffs in 1991-92. Look at the draft record, it's not good. Carolina has also had competitive payrolls. It's not money here.

Buffalo was all Hasek. Rucinsky was right in calling them mediocre. With Hasek plenty of playoff dates, 13 rounds in 6 years. That would be right up there with Toronto and St.Louis if they had kept him for 10 years. Hasek wanted out to win a Cup, not for more money. Buffalo hasn't set the world on fire at the draft table and hasn't found a real gem of a trade since Satan.

The Caps put themselves in the position they're in. They were a solid team with an average payroll. Then starting in 2001-02 they add big payroll in Jagr and friends. They miss the playoffs two of the last three years with payrolls well over league average. So with a bloated payroll and a bad team they decided to blow it up and start again. Washington was the author of thier own demise.

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.

St.Louis has made the playoffs every year since 1980. Success is nothing new for them. If you want to talk about them as a big spender you are talking about 2001-02 and beyond. Before that point the Blues were pretty much an average payroll team. Then they added Weight and Tkazcuk (sp?) and the payroll shot up. In the three years of $57 million and up payroll, the Blues have played in 4 playoff series. The three seasons previous to the payroll increase, the Blues competed in 6 playoff series.

The Leafs budget was in line with league average until 2000-01. Then it blew up. Seven of the fifteen Leaf playoff series were played in the years preceeding that payroll expansion. Other than goaltending, the Leafs haven't really bought their team. Sundin, Kaberle, McCabe, Tucker...none of those guys were "bought" from a small market team. Roberts and Nieuwendyk signed very fair UFA deals. If they want to add expensive role players like Reichel and Renberg or burned out vets like Nolan - fine. It's not making them any better.

I guess where I disagree is the idea that payroll equals success.

Ottawa has played in 12 playoff series in the last 10 years with a payroll always under league average. If they had won a couple of series from the Leafs, they would have played more playoff series than Toronto.

Buffalo played in 13 series over the last 10 years on a modest budget.

The Rangers have missed the playoffs how many years in a row again?

Vancouver has made the playoffs 4 years in a row with a less than league average payroll.

San Jose cut $13 million from payroll and went from missing the playoffs to 2nd place in the Western conference.

The beasts of the decade, New Jersey, only really broke away from the league average payroll once (2002-03).

Teams that have good players win and then payroll has to increase or players have to be dealt. That's what happened in Philly (LeClair, Desjardins etc.), Dallas (Modano, Zubov etc.), and Colorado (Forsberg, Sakic etc.). The team won and players got more money. While those teams have added some other players, the teams weren't bought.

The system could be considered broken if teams could just spend money and create a winner. The Rangers, Florida (Bure), Phoenix (Amonte) and Washington (Jagr) have proven that isn't the case. You can also spend a lot of money and spin your wheels, ala St.Louis or Toronto.

The system could also be considered broken if a poorer team could do everything right and still get stuck in the bottom of the standings. I think that Ottawa, Buffalo, New Jersey, Vancouver and others disprove that.

 

[thinkwild]

So with a bloated payroll and a bad team they decided to blow it up and start again. Washington was the author of thier own demise.

Great post Alfie#11. And I think when we talk about Washington's demise, we should recognize that is a normal, valid part of the cycle they went through. Nothing to be ashamed of, and nothing to be feared or ridiculed. They tried, failed, and made the smart hockey decision. Time to start all over. Like Pittsburgh, NYR, Wash, there comes a point where now you're just spending money and your time has past. Dal, Det, Col could all soon find themselves in this spot. Even though they have some good prospects, they still have to prove to be winners. And if Dal and Col start being an 8th-9th palce team a couple of years in a competitive league, while Phoenix and Atlanta are enjoying freat success, they will be trading places.

 

[Sinurgy]

Tampa joined the league in 1992-93. They were only in their third season after expansion at the beginning of your 10 year period.Tampa also had ownership issues which disrupted the stability of the franchise.They have a nice core and could make the playoffs 7 or 8 times in the next 10 years.

Calgary made awful trades and drafted poorly. The 15 year no playoff win could is not totally related to money. The Flames of the late 80s to mid 90s were very strong teams with many stars. They just didn't win.

Anaheim joined the league in 1993-94. They were one year old when your 10 year period began. Anaheim was never a small market team. They usually ran budgets higher than the league average. For example, the finished last in 2000-01 despite a payroll that was $5.2 million higher than league average. Last season with a $54.4 million payroll they missed the playoffs. Crappy management not money is the issue in Anaheim.

Carolina is the inept Whalers franchise. Prior to moving to Carolina they last made the playoffs in 1991-92. Look at the draft record, it's not good. Carolina has also had competitive payrolls. It's not money here.

Buffalo was all Hasek. Rucinsky was right in calling them mediocre. With Hasek plenty of playoff dates, 13 rounds in 6 years. That would be right up there with Toronto and St.Louis if they had kept him for 10 years. Hasek wanted out to win a Cup, not for more money. Buffalo hasn't set the world on fire at the draft table and hasn't found a real gem of a trade since Satan.

The Caps put themselves in the position they're in. They were a solid team with an average payroll. Then starting in 2001-02 they add big payroll in Jagr and friends. They miss the playoffs two of the last three years with payrolls well over league average. So with a bloated payroll and a bad team they decided to blow it up and start again. Washington was the author of thier own demise.





St.Louis has made the playoffs every year since 1980. Success is nothing new for them. If you want to talk about them as a big spender you are talking about 2001-02 and beyond. Before that point the Blues were pretty much an average payroll team. Then they added Weight and Tkazcuk (sp?) and the payroll shot up. In the three years of $57 million and up payroll, the Blues have played in 4 playoff series. The three seasons previous to the payroll increase, the Blues competed in 6 playoff series.

The Leafs budget was in line with league average until 2000-01. Then it blew up. Seven of the fifteen Leaf playoff series were played in the years preceeding that payroll expansion. Other than goaltending, the Leafs haven't really bought their team. Sundin, Kaberle, McCabe, Tucker...none of those guys were "bought" from a small market team. Roberts and Nieuwendyk signed very fair UFA deals. If they want to add expensive role players like Reichel and Renberg or burned out vets like Nolan - fine. It's not making them any better.

I guess where I disagree is the idea that payroll equals success.

Ottawa has played in 12 playoff series in the last 10 years with a payroll always under league average. If they had won a couple of series from the Leafs, they would have played more playoff series than Toronto.

Buffalo played in 13 series over the last 10 years on a modest budget.

The Rangers have missed the playoffs how many years in a row again?

Vancouver has made the playoffs 4 years in a row with a less than league average payroll.

San Jose cut $13 million from payroll and went from missing the playoffs to 2nd place in the Western conference.

The beasts of the decade, New Jersey, only really broke away from the league average payroll once (2002-03).

Teams that have good players win and then payroll has to increase or players have to be dealt. That's what happened in Philly (LeClair, Desjardins etc.), Dallas (Modano, Zubov etc.), and Colorado (Forsberg, Sakic etc.). The team won and players got more money. While those teams have added some other players, the teams weren't bought.

The system could be considered broken if teams could just spend money and create a winner. The Rangers, Florida (Bure), Phoenix (Amonte) and Washington (Jagr) have proven that isn't the case. You can also spend a lot of money and spin your wheels, ala St.Louis or Toronto.

The system could also be considered broken if a poorer team could do everything right and still get stuck in the bottom of the standings. I think that Ottawa, Buffalo, New Jersey, Vancouver and others disprove that.

I don't agree with everything you stated but definitely a well thought out post. Curious if you have any thoughts on the original post that started this thread?

 

[Go Flames Go*]

I suppour the owners because there needs to be restraints in all major sports just like real life, these players are on cloud 9 right now and need to be brought back to reality. They have it the best out of every league in the major sports. Plus I will not suppourt a group who say **** THE FANS because he cannot play hockey or give a honest effort while collecting a large salary. It is the players who have made the league worse, they are the ones with the agents who drive up salaries, and sit out, or ask for trades or more money, the ones that don't honour contracts. Some of the worst athletes in pro sports.

 

[quat]

I guess where I disagree is the idea that payroll equals success.

.

So there is someone on these boards that is saying that a high payroll equals success?

Your long and interesting post really does prove that you can take any selection of facts and make them support just about anything.

Money spent wisely on a well run team equals success. I'll take Brian Burkes opinion on the shape of the league over yours.

 

[PecaFan]

Calgary made awful trades and drafted poorly.
<snip>

You spent a long time for nothing there. All you did was say *why* those various teams haven't been successful.

Which was exactly my point. I never said lack of money made those teams unsuccesful, I said "stop holding them up as examples of low budget success, because they're not".

St.Louis has made the playoffs every year since 1980. Success is nothing new for them. If you want to talk about them as a big spender you are talking about 2001-02 and beyond.

The Leafs budget was in line with league average until 2000-01.

Vancouver has made the playoffs 4 years in a row with a less than league average payroll.

The beasts of the decade, New Jersey, only really broke away from the league average payroll once (2002-03).

Some of your basic facts here are just outright wrong. For example, Toronto was a top 7 payroll in 95/96. New Jersey was right behind them. St. Louis top 5. These teams didn't just start paying out money, they've been near the top for quite some time.

Vancouver happened to get good before the players were due contract wise. Now, note that Vancouver is now one of the teams that would have to pay millions to the low salary teams according to the PA offer.

The system could also be considered broken if a poorer team could do everything right and still get stuck in the bottom of the standings. I think that Ottawa, Buffalo, New Jersey, Vancouver and others disprove that.

Vancouver and Jersey aren't poor teams and shouldn't be on this list. Buffalo to me is a product of the best goaltender in modern times carrying them on his back. No Hasek, no success.

Ottawa? Well frankly, they haven't done anything. I think they're a perfect example of a team that money held back. With deeper pockets, they would have won at least one Cup during the past five years or so when they've been very good.

One of the things that bugs me when this argument comes up is the "Look, here's an exception!" stuff. Nobody is saying "Money *guarantees* success." So pointing out the Rangers is useless.

It's a correlation. Yes, there are a few data points off the trend line. But that doesn't eliminate the correlation.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

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

You just made his case for him. Guess what. Now that the Lightning, an organization who took the time and patience to build a team capable of winning the Stanley Cup, have attained some success and have star players, they are about to be subject to the formula put forward. Imagine what Martin St. Louis is going to cost because of the assinine salaries paid by the Rangers, Flyers and Leafs. Imagine what its going to cost to get Lecavalier and Richards under contract. The exact scenario that was brought up is going to kill Tampa and push them to the bottom of the league again.

The teams that show that they can draft well, develop players well, and make smart trades, are the teams that should be reaping the rewards in the NHL. The teams that are run by dullards who wouldn't know a hockey player if Gordie Howe kicked them in the nutsack are the ones that should be suffering. The Torontos and New Yorks of the league are the teams that need to be reigned in. I'm sure that everyone is familiar with a couple of sayings that their folks or grand parents like to use. Money doesn't solve everything and the only things worth having are those you work for should have new meaning to those associated with the NHL. The teams that actually work hard to develop an organization that is worth a damn are the ones we should be lobbying for. That is what old time hockey is all about and is what makes the game so interesting to follow. This is where the fans should be turning their focus and venting their spleens in defense of the game.