Best Hockey Analyst - Bob McKenzie
- Thread starter Licentia
- Start date
- Status
me2
Go ahead foot
hockeytown9321 said:
NHL won't be negotiating because it weakens the last/best impasse rule. The players wouln't accept it anyway. The players have the ball in their court, they can make offers without it being a tactical mistake, in fact its a PR blessing for them. Time for them to show us their lowest acceptable point.
Last edited:
Cawz
Registered User
Man, dont bother arguing with that guy. He's a sad selfish person who cares only about his team. Save your discussions for people who actually care about hockey.Seachd said:
Digger12
Gold Fever
hockeytown9321 said:
I'm sure it did...35 years ago. Times have changed a bit though, yes?
If nobody else cares if Edmonton lives or dies, why did the NHL even bother with the Canadian dollar subsidy?
Small market Canadiana is still around...sorry if we're such an inconvenience. :lol
Digger12 said:
Because it was almost as much as the Canadian TV contract subsidized them? Apparently, as it turns out, it seems Edmonton, because of the much larger Canadian national TV contract, has been subsidizing the American teams by more than they have been sending back through this supposed equalization program.
Cawz said:
And I'm sure all the other fans are real worried what Detroit is going to look like under a cap. Please. The reason all the small market fans wants a cap is becuase they have this deluded notion it will create parity, enabling thier otherwise incapable teams to compete.
I'm selfish for endorsing a luxury tax compromise that will save the season? If I was selfish, I'd want the season to be canceled because then half the league would be crippled when they came back. Half the teams are in markets where they don't support hockey now. Why does anybdoy think they'll support it after a year or two away?
All I've done for 2 weeks is give realistic examples on how a salary cap will continue the same problems all the small market teams ***** about now, and no one has come up with an realsitic argument that it won't. All I hear is that its unfair now (maybe it is, but if we're endorsing the owners for thinking like capitalists in the lockout, its hypocritical to salm the players for the same thing) or that its equally unfair for everyone under a cap (again totally false-you can never equalize talent).
Cawz
Registered User
hockeytown9321 said:
No youre selfish because if comments like:
"I've never argued against the cap because I thought the players would get screwed. I argue against it because my team will be screwed, thus I will have less enjoyment."
Everyone else here loves hockey. You just love your team. But hey, thats youre opinion. I guess if youre team sucked, like in the 80's, you wouldnt care about the Wings or the NHL then.
And I think its funny how some people on here argue tooth n nail about what the NHL would be like with a cap, like they actually know what they are talking about. Any armchair GM that talks about whats going to happen needs to play less East Side Manager.
You dont know what a salary cap will do. You dont know what a luxury tax will do. You dont know what the status quo will do. Youre delusional if you think you do know.
All we know is what has happened, and that something needs to be fixed. So go ahead and take cheap shots at Canada and give "realistic examples" for another 2 weeks. I dont think anyone takes you seriously anyways after your comments a couple pages ago.
No, all you have shown for 2 weeks is your complete & utter ignorance on :hockeytown9321 said:
1) what a salary cap is,
2) what a luxury tax is
3)what is communisim
4) what is socialisim
5)the difference between a franchisor & Wal Mart
6) the fact the NFL is socialist
7) that in the long run,its in everybodies interest to have all franchises healthy
8) ......... etc
Westlander
the olden time
I don't think any of us believe that the motives of the owners are selfless. It is very possible though, that what's in the best interests of the owners is what is also in the best interests of the league as a whole. I also doubt anyone is thinking that a salary cap will will make the NHL perfect in terms of parity for small market teams. The NYs, Detroits, and Phillys of the league will still be at an advantage, but in theory, the small markets would have a fighting chance.
I find it ironic that most of the posters who are so concerned with 'communism' are taking the side of the players. If you're all so gung-ho for free market economics, then why should the owners even have to deal with the players union to begin with?
Since the other three major pro sports in North America all have some mechanism to keep salaries in check (communism
), that would mean that of the four, the NHL should theoretically have the best system in place. Yet the league has been losing a ton of money. Anyone can see something has got to change, and if the solution is considered communistic by some, so be it. The NHL wouldn't be the first.
I find it ironic that most of the posters who are so concerned with 'communism' are taking the side of the players. If you're all so gung-ho for free market economics, then why should the owners even have to deal with the players union to begin with?
Since the other three major pro sports in North America all have some mechanism to keep salaries in check (communism
), that would mean that of the four, the NHL should theoretically have the best system in place. Yet the league has been losing a ton of money. Anyone can see something has got to change, and if the solution is considered communistic by some, so be it. The NHL wouldn't be the first.Westlander said:
See: http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=103310&page=1&pp=15
"No union, no CBA means no entry draft, no standard player contract, and every player is a free agent from day one."
Also, it's illegal to impose anything (like a cap) that imposes limitations on wages without the consent from those whom it's imposed on.
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 186,929
- 39,031
Licentia said:McKenzie: "The easy answer for me is the NFL has a cap, the NBA has a cap, why shouldn't the NHL have a cap? The players would say 'because we don't want one.' Is that a good enough reason?
"I am sure there is some system with a cap that could work."
I agree, not a very good reason why the NHL shouldn't enforce "cost certainty."
McKenzie Rulez!!
Bob is way off here. There is a systen where a cap could work, but you can't say "Well, the NFL and NBA have caps" Well the NBA's cap is a joke and there's going to be another lockout, and the NFL has insane player movement without guarenteed contracts.
joechip
Registered User
hockeytown9321 said:
A person unhappy with his transaction was not unhappy at that time, hindsight is always 20-20, and the nature of hunam action is not 'what I should have done with my money' but 'what should I DO with my money.' The differences lies right there and it is at that margin where all decisions are made.
Also, I disagree with your statement that 'In capitalism, we assign values arbitralily. They are not based on an item's usefulness.' That is absolutely backwards, and affects your analysis in the end. We assign our value to things based on their usefulness at the moment of the transaction. Prices for goods are a result of past human action and what information they have about the future. A price of a particular item is intrinsically linked to its current usefulness, which is why Bobby Holik got 9 mil/yr from the Rangers.
I'm not arguing for or against a cap, BTW. As a free-marketeer, my inclinations are for an open system and not a salary cap. In my mind, price floors and price ceilings are a recipe for economic disaster, because they ALWAYS create shortages, either through underproduction (price floors) or hoarding (price ceilings).
The way to look at a salary cap, though, is not as a price ceiling but as a Budget, and the NHL is the entity who is setting the budget. As revenues increase so will the Budget for salaries. Spend that budget how each team sees fit, but the Budget is the final arbiter.
Ta,
joechip
Registered User
habitual_hab said:
H_H,
I have no idea about this situation, if you'd like to PM me with some links to how it works and why, I'd be happy to investigate it further. My first inclination is to say that if the system is a voluntary one then "Rock On!, I'm glad it works for them." And, as such, is inherently 'capitalisitc,' by the actual definition of that term. If somehow it's enforced by labor laws or some other such thing, then my inclination is to say, "there is probably a better way."
A little term-defining is in order:
Socialism as an 'organizational' model is one predicated on enforcement of the model. As a system the desires of the individual are supplanted by an enforced 'collective' good. Enforcement implies a a mechanism thereof, i.e. a ruling class of Enforcers. Voluntary systems can look like socialism (people acting collectively), but if 'enforcement doesn't come through coersion (or the point of a gun) that is still capitalistic. Where "Socialists" (read most of Human History) have gone wrong in the past is in defining what they want as "Right!" and therefore, disagreement with that is "Wrong!," and down that slippery slope we go.
The voluntary process, Capitalism (Not the State-sanctioned Corporatism practiced in the US, previously known as Fascism), may lead to uncomfortable or 'alien-looking' conclusions but, IMO, I would rather that, and the attendant responsibilities that comes with it, than being told what to do by someone who has no clue how to run their own life, no less mine.
The more I think about a salary-cap the more I think it is a Budget than a price-ceiling, and in that sense can justify it as long as both sides can agree to it within the context of a level bargaining table, which current U.S. and Canadian labour laws will not allow for.
Ta,
joechip said:
No values are assigned arbitrailily. Why do you pay the price you pay for anything? Someone decided thats what it costs. Its not realated to an items usefullness. People can get a lot more use out of a pile of 2X4's than they can out of a bar of gold, so why is the gold more valuable? Its what Karl Marx called "fetishism of commodities".
http://newton.uor.edu/FacultyFolder/Spickard/SocialTheory/commodity_fetishism.htm
Sammy said:
A cap is an artifcial way to let otherwise incapable teams compete. It is not a way to ensure success or increase revenue. It is a way to gaurantee mediocrity. This is not an assumption. Look at the NFL. The only team able to win consecutive SuperBowls in over a decade circumvented the cap to do it.
It is also not a way to equalize talent, either on the ice or in management. Talent can never be equalized, thus there will always be inequality.
Sammy said:
A luxury tax is a system by which those teams unable to generate enough revenue for themselves receive revenue from teams that can. It is also a system in which player salaries will be decreased. It allows teams to build and maintain an elite club. It is also a system that if one side was willing to compromise, a season, and thus the game will be saved.
Sammy said:
Communisim is a system heaviliy influenced by Karl Marx. In this sytem, workers(in the NHL's case, the players) have all the power. There are no "owners". Its is a system that is impossible to acheive, because the transisition between capitalism and communism can't happen. This transisiton has been tried in such places as the USSR. Everytime it has been tried, it has failed. Additionally, the system requires total 100% cooperation among everyone in a society. Animal nature prevents this cooperation from ever taking place.
Sammy said:
Socialism is a less severe form of communism. Instead of economic control in the hands of the proletariat, its in the hands of government.
Sammy said:
In my example, WalMart was a big market team, a small local store was a small market team. i can't help it if people don't bother to read what I write.
Sammy said:
I was not aware the NFL was socialist. I am aware that people use the NFL as an argument for having a cap, when infact, the two leagues are incomprable. And the paralells that can be drawn support my argument.
Sammy said:
How healthy are those franchises going to be after a year or two away? If they can't draw make money now, how are they going to do it later? I guess this is the fundamental difference between the two sides. I think the league's biggest problem is lack of revenue for the small market teams. A cap does not solve that.
Sammy said:
Well you're right, I should of put a period at the end of etc.
joechip said:
I don't have knowledge on the Spainish model, but in Germany(basically socialist) there are laws requiring employees to have some board posistions. I don't know what they call it off hand, I'll have to check some notes.
joechip
Registered User
hockeytown9321 said:
No, actually, Marx was just a bad economist with a chip on his shoulder. I pay the price I pay because I have a higher marginal demand for that item in relation to the money in my pocket at the time I bought them. That's it. If I felt the price was too high and didn't buy them then I obviously had a higher demand for the value represented by my money staying in my pocket as opposed to owning a bunch of wood.
Your analogy of the 2x4's is flawed because you don't understand money. Don't feel bad, most people don't. I didn't for quite a long time and Marx certainly didn't when he and Engels wrote that Manifesto of theirs. Money, in the definition of Ludwig von Mises, is the only commodity the production of which confers no net good (the value good in relation to bad, not a finished 'good').
Gold, for example, is valued because of properties it has that make it a good 'store of value.' It's rarity, fungibility, and density make it attractive to hold as a hedge against future uncertainty, much like a savings account denominated in dollars is.
A pile of 2x4's is only useful if the person has a need for them and is able to make use of them through the application of acquired skills (having built my own house in the recent past I know the difference between having skill with 2x4's and not). The importance of this is that each person's desires/demands for different things is different, for Marx to ascribe psychological shortcomings to this process betrays his lack of understanding on the matter, and his hatred for humanity.
The question you aren't asking is 'Why did the vendor price his product at the level he did?' Because he could, is the answer, of course, and why is that? Because you paid it.
By your own argument, utility should be the only vector by which we judge something worth owning. Why most socialists are seduced by Marx's flawed analysis is that they don't value their time enough. Money is a liquid source of exchangable value, and as such is the mechanism by which individuals express their marginal (the only economically interesting) desires.
So, is the pile of 2x4's worth more than the ounce of gold? Depends on who you talk to and when.
Sorry, bad analogy.... try again.
Ta,
joechip said:
Well, Marx was a philosopher, not an economist. And I don't beleive in what he wrote.
But what you're not understanding is that under communisim, all of the stored value, etc. of gold is meaningless. There is no money. The basis for exchange is a product's usefulness(use value) The process of creation is what gives an object use value. Going back to my other example: I'm a baker, you're a plumber. You come and unclog a drain in my house, and next week I give you a loaf of bread. This is the cooperation and total equality part. Everyone has everything they need provided to them, all they have to do is use their abilities to produce something someone else needs.
in theory, production exists to satisfy immeiate need. once that need is satisfied, the surplus is traded and society is corrupted.
Cawz said:
And when my team sucked in the 70's and 80's I didn't blame Montreal or the Islanders or Edmonton. We had crap ownership, and crap players that we drafted or acquired. It took 14 years for Ilitch and Devellano to build them into a champion.
Now onto my selfishness vs. my enjoyment of the game. Why does anybody here watch hockey? Is it for enjoyment? Do you not have more enjoyment if the team you like wins? Isn't the main reason people want a cap-because thats the only way they think their teams can win? Isn't that selfish? I want my team to be able to continue to build throught he draft and contend for Cups. I don't theink they, or anybody else, can do that under a cap. If someone could show me realistic examples of how they could, I'd be happy to listen.
Isn't it selfish to endorse a lockout, when that same lockout will do more harm to the game than Detroit or the Rangers ever could? Why is this point so hard to understand? Maybe people in Canada don't realize the lack of interest in hockey in the US. The World Cup drew a .4 rating on ESPN. Thats about 600,000 people. How can the game survive canceling a season?
Here's one of my proposals. Tell me how unfair it is, or how selfish I'm being. The league made $2.1 billion last year. Pool all of it, and divide it 30 ways. $70 million per team. No cap, no excuses. You spend more than $70 million, you lose money. Too bad.
Seachd
Registered User
- Mar 16, 2002
- 24,938
- 8,947
hockeytown9321 said:
The $2.1 billion is revenue, not profit. Splitting it 30 ways leaves teams with pretty much nothing because the players are getting 75% of it.
Why don't the players just agree to taking their fair share - well over 50% according to the NHL.
mmbt
Cheeky Monkey
hockeytown9321 said:
There's a big difference between a team being unsuccessful because of incompetent management, and a team being unsuccessful because they can't hope to compete financially.
The NFL and NBA, for all their problems, at least give their small markets a fighting chance to be successful if they have smart management. In the NHL, all you can hope to do if you're a small market team is tread water, recycle expensive players for prospects, and maybe get a fluke run once every decade or two.
- Status
