5 things that annoy me about the NHLPA (and supporters)

[Johnnybegood13]

so ... how come CGY cant afford to pay its best players if it had a dozen or so rounds of playoff success to build from (like COL did before it had to pay 40m to 4 players).

dr

The Aves share their arena which is a big saving,and you forget the 30+% difference in the Dollar the last 10 years.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Didn't Edmonton have many rounds of playoff success before they couldn't afford to keep Gretzky, Messier, Fuhr and the rest of their to players?

talk to peter pocklington who decided to pocket all the money he made, including 15m from selling #99.

dr

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

How conveniant that you leave out teams like NJD, DET and COL. I know you have said that they built their team "the right way", but that still doesn`t change the fact that they have extremely high payrolls. .

i lfet them out because they dont beliong with that group. those three teams have high payrolls because they have great teams that they developed/

why shouldmt they have high payrolls ? they have had dozens of rounds of playoff money to draw from and have earned the right to carry a high payroll.

dr

 

[Papadice]

The problem with the current CBA is only a select few teams can build a team "the right way" as you call it. Do you think Calgary could pay Forsberg, Sakic and Blake? Or Edmonton could pay Brodeur, Stevens and Neidermeyer? How about Montreal holding on to Yzerman, Lidstrom and Shanahan? Right now Ottawa is "building the right way" but do you honestly think that they can hold on to the likes of Hossa, Redden, Havlat, Spezza and Chara in a couple of years if nothing changes?

Very true... You take a lineup like that, and place it on Detroit, Toronto, Colorado or NYRangers and that lineup stays together for years under the current CBA... you take that lineup and place it on Pittsburgh, Carolina, Anaheim, Nashville or Florida and as soon as they come up for contract renewals they will be traded away for cheaper players...

 

[Papadice]

This is in response to those fans who think the appearances of anaheim, calgary, carolina and washington in the cup finals as opposed to toronto, rangers, philly and st. louis is an accurate measure of competitiveness.

Its quite simple. 1 year of 'success' (not really cuz they all didn't win the cup) doesn't mean a team is competitive. I wouldn't call these teams exceptions either. Every year you will have a team who over achieves their expected capability.

If you ask yourself today, who over the last 5-10 years have legitimately COMPETITIVE clubs... ie.. clubs who win consistently... clubs who make the playoffs consistently.. being competitive isn't who makes the the stanley cup finals because only 2 teams can accomplish that every year. Measure the level of competitiveness by the 16 teams that make the playoffs. Then judge which teams are competitive.

The CBA isn't working right now because making the playoffs once every 7 years (like calgary did) is not the definition of competitive.

If you look at the numbers, higher salary clubs have a better chance of making the post-season (and thats where you get your big bucks in terms of playoff revenues).

So stop using these comparisons of lower salary clubs attaining more success than high salary clubs because it is not true.

The only exception I see in this 'big' salary structure is the fact that the Rangers can't even make the playoffs. They are the anomaly.

When you see low salary teams making the playoffs more often than high salary teams then come to me with ur arguement about the league's status.

Thank you... Saved me some typing ...

Do you think it's any coincidence that teams such as Carolina, Anaheim and Minnesota, the year after they had good playoff runs had serious trouble competing, to the point where they weren't even playoff bound teams... At the same time, although teams like Toronto, Dallas, Detroit, Colorado, New Jersey and Philadelphia don't necessarily make the cup finals every year, they all can be counted on (for the most part) to be in the playoffs every year... sure there's the Rangers too, but that's a situation based on a team that has been built horribly...

 

[Papadice]

how come the market of Denver, Colorado can support the cost of a winning team and markets like Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta can not ?

COL and DET can afford their players because before they got super expensive, they had dozens of playrounds as revenue to continue the investment in those players.

the reason EDM has to trade Weight is because htey didnt win with him and therefore could not support his level of salary.

seems right to me.

dr

despite Colorado having 3 other professional sports teams (Nuggets, Rockies, Broncos), Denver is an excellent hockey market... they sellout every game and there is lots of money to invest in the team... sure the US dollar helps too when compared to Calgary/Edmonton... Calgary and Edmonton are great hockey markets too, but for you to compare the financial abilitites of cities like Calgary and Edmonton to that of Colorado, and say the difference is only based on playoff revenue, that's just short sited... Sure the playoff revenue is a HUGE help to them, but they have a much better arena situation, guaranteed they sell out every single night and the US dollar to help... Denver might not be a "big market" team, but they are certainly "bigger market" than Calgary and Edmonton... maybe not fan wise, but corporate money wise...

 

[dawgbone]

how come the market of Denver, Colorado can support the cost of a winning team and markets like Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta can not ?

The Income per capita of Denver Colorado, is $40,000 per year (USD), and the income per capita of the municipality of Edmonton is $28,000 (CDN).

Guess what that means?

Colorado charges almost double the average ticket price compared to Edmonton... and considering both teams have close to 100% capacity, it's double the revenue (not factoring in the extra seats in the pepsi centre as well).

COL and DET can afford their players because before they got super expensive, they had dozens of playrounds as revenue to continue the investment in those players.

lol... sure. What about the Rangers, Flyers, Blues, Leafs, etc..? They certainly didn't have dozens of playoff rounds, especially not just before the salary sky-rocket of a few years ago.

the reason EDM has to trade Weight is because htey didnt win with him and therefore could not support his level of salary.

seems right to me.

dr

Isn't that the problem though? They upset top teams 2 years in a row and made it into the 2nd round. They lost Joseph to money and Guerin to money, just as both were becoming excellent NHL players. Then they lost Weight for the same reasons.

They didn't win with these guys because

a) it takes a little bit of time

and

b) they were losing these players just as they were starting to play their best hockey.

It would have been different if Weight was 34 and the Oilers weren't winning with him, or if Guerin was 35... but they were 30 and 29 respectively. If you can't even afford to keep the players you are developing, there is something wrong.

 

[dawgbone]

i lfet them out because they dont beliong with that group. those three teams have high payrolls because they have great teams that they developed/

why shouldmt they have high payrolls ? they have had dozens of rounds of playoff money to draw from and have earned the right to carry a high payroll.

dr

And why do they have dozens of rounds of playoff money?

Because they could afford to keep their teams together, which allowed them to consistantly remain competetive.

The Leafs were a terrible team in 96-97 and 97-98... according to your theory, they shouldn't have been able to sign Joseph at the end of the 98 season, as well as give Sundin a big contract, because they hadn't done well in the playoffs the past few seasons.

 

[YellHockey*]

The Aves share their arena which is a big saving,and you forget the 30+% difference in the Dollar the last 10 years.

How does sharing an arena save the Avs money? Its profitable for the arena but it doesn't mean a thing for the Avs.

 

[chriss_co]

That's your problem right there, you actually think Calgary's problems the last 7 years are a result of the CBA. The Flames have been quite possibly the worst franchise in the league at drafting, developing players and trading for the last decade.

Finally, Sutter seems to have pointed the ship in the right direction. A new CBA can't help inept mangement. If it can, it shouldn't. The Flames have not been able to develop hardly any young players for a decade. That has nothing to do with the definition of competition. Flames management has blamed their incompetance on the CBA and the media and fans have gone along with it.

The CBA prevented Calgary from keeping their higher profile players from the early 90's. So... Fleury was scrapped.. Roberts scrapped.... Nieuwendyk (who was traded for Iggy)... MacInnis gone.

Losing Fleury was the beginning of the downfall of the Flames. Rather than trading Fleury for other big name players, we had to dish him off for 'affordable' players and draft picks/prospects.

Yes, the CBA isn't the entire problem for Calgary because there was huge mismanagement on our side. HOWEVER, the CBA and the canadian dollar certainly did not make it easy to get out.

Calgary was suppose to go through a rebuilding phase. But we could never hold on to budding stars on our team. I'm talking about Bure, who was having his best season every, Housley.... heck, we had igor kravchuk but his $2 million dollar salary was too much so he was gone

Calgary could never keep a solid core of players together because the CBA didn't allow it. If we wanted to trade for players, they had to be cheaper or else they would only be in town until their contract was up. Here is another place where the CBA capped Calgary at a lower level. We could never go out and trade for a big money player to turn things around. We had to develop them ourselves, which means you better have the resources to fund an excellent scouting team.

Of course, you ask how is it that Calgary can afford to keep Iggy and Turek then? Well, there is no guarantee that we could keep Iggy any longer than this year or next. Turek only managed to secure his position after he decided to restructure his contract.

And we may have already seen the dismantling of the 2004 flames with Conroy leaving for LA at a ridiculous contract. I can guarantee you that McAmmond's contract is a huge reason that he was not resigned. Oliwa wanted more money than the Flames could afford (Iggy's and Kipper's contract take up everything).

The Flames maxed out their revenues last year and they only made a small profit. What does that tell you??!

Are you telling me that only teams that make it deep into the 2nd round are allowed to make money cuz thats what it took for the Flames to make money. In that case, only 8 teams are allowed to make money? Furthermore, the Flames had a modest team salary at $38ish million US.

 

[YellHockey*]

Losing Fleury was the beginning of the downfall of the Flames. Rather than trading Fleury for other big name players, we had to dish him off for 'affordable' players and draft picks/prospects.

No. The downfall of the Flames caused Fleury to be traded. The Flames hadn't been able to bring a good young player into the lineup since Fleury. How are they supposed to get better when they can't do that?

Yes, the CBA isn't the entire problem for Calgary because there was huge mismanagement on our side. HOWEVER, the CBA and the canadian dollar certainly did not make it easy to get out.

How could a different CBA and a different dollar have made a difference? Instead of crying about being a small market Canadian team they'd be the Phoenix Cardinals or Cincinnati Bengals of the NHL.

Calgary was suppose to go through a rebuilding phase. But we could never hold on to budding stars on our team. I'm talking about Bure, who was having his best season every, Housley.... heck, we had igor kravchuk but his $2 million dollar salary was too much so he was gone

That's pretty freaking funny. Bure, Housely and Kravchuk as your "budding stars". Kravchuk was such a budding star that he was given up by Ottawa for NOTHING. Housely was 30 years old before he played for the Flames. Bure is a player who can put up good numbers on bad teams but doesn't do much for good teams.

Calgary could never keep a solid core of players together because the CBA didn't allow it. If we wanted to trade for players, they had to be cheaper or else they would only be in town until their contract was up. Here is another place where the CBA capped Calgary at a lower level. We could never go out and trade for a big money player to turn things around. We had to develop them ourselves, which means you better have the resources to fund an excellent scouting team.

You mean you couldn't be the Rangers. You couldn't spend big money on a bad team. Every team has the opportunity to draft a solid core. The Flames just drafted Mattssons and Dingmans instead of decent NHLers.

And we may have already seen the dismantling of the 2004 flames with Conroy leaving for LA at a ridiculous contract. I can guarantee you that McAmmond's contract is a huge reason that he was not resigned. Oliwa wanted more money than the Flames could afford (Iggy's and Kipper's contract take up everything).

And that is worse then the Devils losing Mogilny, Holik, etc? Or Colorado losing Klemm, De Vries, etc?

 

[Canadian Time]

The Flames maxed out their revenues last year and they only made a small profit. What does that tell you??!

Are you telling me that only teams that make it deep into the 2nd round are allowed to make money cuz thats what it took for the Flames to make money.

I happen to think Calgary is one of the better markets in the NHL. They have close to the lowest ticket prices in the league for a reason, because their management has done a poor job for at least ten years.

Look what happened during last year's playoff run. Magically, 3,000 extra seats became available in the Saddledome for the playoffs and tickets were scarce to find. The city was buzzing. Imagine if the Flames go on another good run this year, not even to the finals, just making the playoffs again. The Flames would never have to curtain off those seats for at least another ten years. They could double the ticket prices and they wouldn't have a bit of a problem selling all of them. Calgary is a great market, even a sniff of a good team would give them revenues to rival most any US team.

I just have a hard time listening to Flames management blame the CBA for their poor performance and ability to compete. The revenues are there, if their management was even a little bit competent during the last decade, the Flames would be one of the better-off teams. Calgary is a great market.

I could make the same argument with the Oilers, but for some reason their fans they think their management has done "everything correct".

 

[thinkwild]

And we may have already seen the dismantling of the 2004 flames with Conroy leaving for LA at a ridiculous contract. I can guarantee you that McAmmond's contract is a huge reason that he was not resigned. Oliwa wanted more money than the Flames could afford (Iggy's and Kipper's contract take up everything).

Come on, the dismantling of the Flames? Didnt Conroy sign the same contract but for one year longer? Calgary made more good trades this summer, have some good looking young guns coming up, have at least one superstar, possibly two big contract players, and have shown you how to win using this system so that you need not be a crybaby because somebody else spends more. I cant believe a Flames fan cant see how its done yet.

The Flames maxed out their revenues last year and they only made a small profit. What does that tell you??!

It tells me they will probably be able to raise ticket prices and make even more next year. It tells me that Calgary is profitable under the current CBA, developing a winning team unbde rthe current CBA, and should fear nobody unde the current CBA. Expecially with some of the richest owners in the game. And yet here you are.

Are you telling me that only teams that make it deep into the 2nd round are allowed to make money cuz thats what it took for the Flames to make money. In that case, only 8 teams are allowed to make money? Furthermore, the Flames had a modest team salary at $38ish million US.

Burke looked directly in the camera for years saying unless his team went into the playoffs he couldnt make a profit for his owner. Now we know the truth. Burke can look directly in the camera and lie to us. I wonder if Harley would do that. It probably is a quality that makes Burkie a good candiate for being the owners commisioner.

 

[chriss_co]

No. The downfall of the Flames caused Fleury to be traded. The Flames hadn't been able to bring a good young player into the lineup since Fleury. How are they supposed to get better when they can't do that?

Yes it was. I was actually in Calgary at the time. I knew what was going on. And yes I have acknowledged that management was a contributor. But the CBA played a part. We could not afford Fleury's salary. Why do you think we traded him at the end of his contract? Why not keep him and 'attempt' to sign him after the season?

How could a different CBA and a different dollar have made a difference? Instead of crying about being a small market Canadian team they'd be the Phoenix Cardinals or Cincinnati Bengals of the NHL.

Perhaps. But the difference in the dollar prevented Calgary from adding that extra player. That extra player could have brought 20-25 goals. That might have turned the game around in a 1 goal game. Calgary had problems year after year winning those 1 goal games until last year. Maybe that extra player would have propelled the Flames into the playoffs. All i know is the dollar and the CBA made it alot harder than the average hockey team at that time.

That's pretty freaking funny. Bure, Housely and Kravchuk as your "budding stars". Kravchuk was such a budding star that he was given up by Ottawa for NOTHING. Housely was 30 years old before he played for the Flames. Bure is a player who can put up good numbers on bad teams but doesn't do much for good teams.

I knew someone was going to mention this. Yes, Calgary stunk it up at that time. But BACK THEN, Housley, Bure and Kravchuk were good players. Maybe today they are nobodies but they played a huge role then. Ottawa gave up Kravchuk for nothing because he was too expensive for them as well.

You mean you couldn't be the Rangers. You couldn't spend big money on a bad team. Every team has the opportunity to draft a solid core. The Flames just drafted Mattssons and Dingmans instead of decent NHLers.

No, I mean we couldn't be the New Jersey Devils and sign contract extensions to Elias and Brodeur. And yes, I already acknowledged the weakness in the Flames' drafting.

 

[chriss_co]

I happen to think Calgary is one of the better markets in the NHL. They have close to the lowest ticket prices in the league for a reason, because their management has done a poor job for at least ten years.

Look what happened during last year's playoff run. Magically, 3,000 extra seats became available in the Saddledome for the playoffs and tickets were scarce to find. The city was buzzing. Imagine if the Flames go on another good run this year, not even to the finals, just making the playoffs again. The Flames would never have to curtain off those seats for at least another ten years. They could double the ticket prices and they wouldn't have a bit of a problem selling all of them. Calgary is a great market, even a sniff of a good team would give them revenues to rival most any US team.

Calgary's 'low' ticket price is also due to the conversion from US to Canadian dollars.

It was about 1,000 seats that became 'available'. Only because no one would buy them during the regular season. Those seats wouldn't be considered seats. Ticket prices are already outrageous. Who can spend $400 to bring their family to a game? Why would you pay that much money to watch the NHL in a regular season game? Yes, they could increase ticket prices but if you double the current costs you will see a dropoff in sales.

Calgary is an OK market due to it being a major headquarter for corporations. But it doesn't compare to most US cities. The dollar severely prevents Calgary from making them rivals financially with any US team.

I just have a hard time listening to Flames management blame the CBA for their poor performance and ability to compete. The revenues are there, if their management was even a little bit competent during the last decade, the Flames would be one of the better-off teams. Calgary is a great market.

I could make the same argument with the Oilers, but for some reason their fans they think their management has done "everything correct".

Management is a large reason for Calgary doing poorly. But the CBA was also a factor. It prevents teams like Calgary to keep their major stars. It prevents them from bringing big stars, which means the only way we can be competitive is through drafting where other teams don't need to do that to be successful. That is how the CBA effects Calgary and others. The revenues are there to support a $40 million US club... not a $60 million US club.

Before you even think about the Oilers, I suggest you live in either of the markets for a year and see what it is like. Obviously, the 'small' canadian story hasn't reached the outreaches of the US correctly.

 

[mr gib]

Calgary's 'low' ticket price is also due to the conversion from US to Canadian dollars.

It was about 1,000 seats that became 'available'. Only because no one would buy them during the regular season. Those seats wouldn't be considered seats. Ticket prices are already outrageous. Who can spend $400 to bring their family to a game? Why would you pay that much money to watch the NHL in a regular season game? Yes, they could increase ticket prices but if you double the current costs you will see a dropoff in sales.

Calgary is an OK market due to it being a major headquarter for corporations. But it doesn't compare to most US cities. The dollar severely prevents Calgary from making them rivals financially with any US team.



Management is a large reason for Calgary doing poorly. But the CBA was also a factor. It prevents teams like Calgary to keep their major stars. It prevents them from bringing big stars, which means the only way we can be competitive is through drafting where other teams don't need to do that to be successful. That is how the CBA effects Calgary and others. The revenues are there to support a $40 million US club... not a $60 million US club.

Before you even think about the Oilers, I suggest you live in either of the markets for a year and see what it is like. Obviously, the 'small' canadian story hasn't reached the outreaches of the US correctly.

please remind me - who were the favorite stars that got away?

 

[chriss_co]

Come on, the dismantling of the Flames? Didnt Conroy sign the same contract but for one year longer? Calgary made more good trades this summer, have some good looking young guns coming up, have at least one superstar, possibly two big contract players, and have shown you how to win using this system so that you need not be a crybaby because somebody else spends more. I cant believe a Flames fan cant see how its done yet.

You always have to look to the future. Prevention is key. Who cares how people look back on history and say "oops, i guess we never saw that coming". It may not look like a dismantling but it could very well turn into the dismantling IF the CBA is not changed.

And no Conroy didn't sign the same contract. Sutter offered him somewhere in the $2 million range for 2 years. Conroy wanted 3 years.. didn't get it and left for big money.

If you look at the future, there is no way Calgary can afford to keep Iggy, Reinprecht, Kipper, Leopold or Langkow in 2-3 years. Thats is a huge chunk of the core. Why should any team be forced to live under those conditions? All I want is a system that allows teams like Calgary to develop AND KEEP their stars. If you look at escalating costs, there is no way Calgary can afford to keep that core in several years if the CBA was still running. But by then it would be too late and we would be another Edmonton situation.

It tells me they will probably be able to raise ticket prices and make even more next year. It tells me that Calgary is profitable under the current CBA, developing a winning team unbde rthe current CBA, and should fear nobody unde the current CBA. Expecially with some of the richest owners in the game. And yet here you are.

I've already commented against raising ticket prices. Even the commissioner has agreed that they are too high. Why would you raise them any higher? A regular season NHL game is not worth that much. Savvy hockey fans know that.

Calgary made money because they maxed their revenues. Any competent fan understands only 16 teams make the playoffs and only 2 makes the finals. Calgary only turned the black to red when they advanced deep into the 2nd round. Are teams only allowed to make money if they go that far into the playoffs?

 

[chriss_co]

please remind me - who were the favorite stars that got away?

Roberts, Nieuwendyk, MacInnis, Fleury, Bure, Conroy.

Those are the ones i mentioned. If i were to actually have a lineup in front of me, I'd be able to name more.

We have to stop getting off this looking at the past thing. Good teams and smart leaders prepare for the future. Do you guys not see any trends in the NHL and the market from the CBA???

 

[thinkwild]

We have to stop getting off this looking at the past thing. Good teams and smart leaders prepare for the future. Do you guys not see any trends in the NHL and the market from the CBA???

Prepare for the future eh. Like by not buying UFAs but actually developing a team. The trend I see is that all the great teams that were built from the ground up managed to keep their teams great, and the only other teams to ever challenge them were always the built not bought teams. The trend I see is that smart small markets can have great success in this league. The trend I see is a changing of the guard and a lot of non big markets fighting to become the next decades great teams. Calgary one of them.

 

[mr gib]

Roberts, Nieuwendyk, MacInnis, Fleury, Bure, Conroy.

Those are the ones i mentioned. If i were to actually have a lineup in front of me, I'd be able to name more.

We have to stop getting off this looking at the past thing. Good teams and smart leaders prepare for the future. Do you guys not see any trends in the NHL and the market from the CBA???

bure sucked c'mon - the others guys - that was a zillion years ago - conroy - he is the type of player people are choked about - if he loved it there so much!!! - oh i'll never leave - don't forget - he's a yank - i AGREE with you owner lovers - he's not worth it - either is vincent damphouse -

don't pay em - duh ps - you broke flames made the cup final - we didn't - i love it the way it is

 

[thinkwild]

other than that not making the final part

 

[YellHockey*]

Before you even think about the Oilers, I suggest you live in either of the markets for a year and see what it is like. Obviously, the 'small' canadian story hasn't reached the outreaches of the US correctly.

What makes Calgary or Edmonton so much different from Ottawa, which is where the doctor is located? Why is it that Alberta NHL fans seem so hard done by the past CBA while the fans in Ottawa blame their woes on the coach or the goalie?

If Ottawa can go into a season as the favourite to win the Cup in the old CBA, why can the Oilers or Flames not survive in that CBA?

 

[mr gib]

What makes Calgary or Edmonton so much different from Ottawa, which is where the doctor is located? Why is it that Alberta NHL fans seem so hard done by the past CBA while the fans in Ottawa blame their woes on the coach or the goalie?

If Ottawa can go into a season as the favourite to win the Cup in the old CBA, why can the Oilers or Flames not survive in that CBA?

( the flames went to the final ) what can anyone say? - baseball's way worse -

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Roberts, Nieuwendyk, MacInnis, Fleury, Bure, Conroy.

In return they got Phil Housley, Andrew Cassels, JS Giguere, Jarome Iginla, Rene Corbet, Wade Belak, Robin Regehr, Rob Niedermeyer and four second round draft picks.

I don't think they got a bad return at all.

Tom

 

[Cawz]

In return they got Phil Housley, Andrew Cassels, JS Giguere, Jarome Iginla, Rene Corbet, Wade Belak, Robin Regehr, Rob Niedermeyer and four second round draft picks.

I don't think they got a bad return at all.

Tom

You forgot about the 7 years of re-building without having the ability to bid on a bonafide superstar. If only they could have been able to score Hull, Robitaille and Cujo during that 7 years...