Complex CBA could turn fans away from the NHL

[Flames Draft Watcher]

The amount that the 'base' team can offer for a player to stay will be totally dependent on how much cap room they have. So if they want to keep, lets say Havlat or Lecavalier, they will have to gut their team of Alfredsson or Richards.

The team building will become about choices, and not an elite assembly of players.


Instead of Redden and Chara, it will be Redden or Chara... Instead of Richards and St. Louis, it will be Richards OR ST. Louis... etc... its going to become a game of choices, and they will gut theier teams.

Looking at the history of the previous CBA, it was unecessary for Tampa or Ottawa to chose between those two players, for example. Now they will have to. If you don't consider this 'gutting' the tesam, than I don't know what kinda rationalizing you're doing.

How long do you think Ottawa and Tampa could have afforded to keep their teams together under the previous system? Tampa already was having to look at moving players because of salary. Ottawa wasn't far behind.

Saying that they didn't have to choose is a myth. They would have had to choose when several of their best young players hit their prime and were due monster raises at the same time. If you believe Tampa could have kept St. Louis, Lecavalier, Richards AND the rest indefinitely then you really don't have a clue about the economics under the previous system. Same goes for Ottawa and Spezza, Havlat, Hossa, Alfredsson, Chara, Redden, Volchenkov, etc. Teams can keep young players together for a little while. Then once their team is in their prime, they are forced to break it up unless you're talking about the big spenders.

I can't believe you can't see that. Is it too much to ask that you might provide some intelligent debate on this board?

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Edmonton lost Weight, Guerin and Joseph because they couldn't afford them. Why would it matter if they developed them or not? They lost them because of the unlevel playing field in the last CBA.

You think that 30 and 31 years old is considered prime years? Are you dense enough to believe that the Oilers could have won with the team they had in 1997 and 1998? Are you negligent enough to ignore the fact that the Oilers point totals improved after those players were traded? Whats wrong with you?

And BTW, how come Vancouver Ottawa and Tampa have had no problem building winning teams (and Calgary last year too) with the same payroll as Edmonton. Has it ever occured to you that the Oilers sucked at drafting? Are you THAT blind to ignore that?

 

[Tiki]

Part of this wise decision making is CHOOSING BETWEEN ELITE PLAYERS, something that DID NOT HAPPEN under the old CBA, at least with ELITE PLAYERS IN THEIR PRIME.

Really?

Why Would a team trade Alexi Yashin in his prime?

Michal Peca?

Bill Gurien?

Roman Hamrlik?

Janne Niinimaa?

Jagr?

Kovalev?

....And thats off the top of my head. Players that were moved more for $$ reasons than talent reasons under the last CBA. Nice try to stir the pot with that lame excuse though.

Just because you do not like where the new system is headed does not mean it will be better or worse for the game. Its done fine in the NFL. If it makes your minor system seem to matter less, oh well. Too bad for you then. Not a problem for the league or the fans.

Most of fans who pay to see a game would rather see thier team sign a new top line wing than draft an 18 year old who will not make an impact, or improve the costly product they pay to see, for a few years.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

You think that 30 and 31 years old is considered prime years? Are you dense enough to believe that the Oilers could have won with the team they had in 1997 and 1998?

Yes, 30 and 31 are right in the middle of the prime years. Prove me wrong.

No, I'm not dense enough to think they could have won with those teams. Are you too dense to realize that argument doesn't support your point? You must be.

 

[Tiki]

You think that 30 and 31 years old is considered prime years? Are you dense enough to believe that the Oilers could have won with the team they had in 1997 and 1998? Are you negligent enough to ignore the fact that the Oilers point totals improved after those players were traded? Whats wrong with you?

And BTW, how come Vancouver Ottawa and Tampa have had no problem building winning teams (and Calgary last year too) with the same payroll as Edmonton. Has it ever occured to you that the Oilers sucked at drafting? Are you THAT blind to ignore that?

Would be an apt description of the close minded guy with the Stanley Cup comming to Ottawa in June of 2004 avatar.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

And BTW, how come Vancouver Ottawa and Tampa have had no problem building winning teams (and Calgary last year too) with the same payroll as Edmonton. Has it ever occured to you that the Oilers sucked at drafting? Are you THAT blind to ignore that?

It's possible to build winning teams in a small market in a short timeframe. What is not possible is to keep those teams together indefinitely.

We would have very quickly seen the dismantling of teams like Tampa and Ottawa under the old system. You must be too blind to see it.

Drafting plays a role, I've never said otherwise have I?

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

It is quite evident that the overall quality in the league, and the average 'quality' of their teams will go down in this CBA

No, that's not "quite evident". But don't let me interrupt your mindless ranting...

 

[HockeyCritter]

<< SNIPPED POST >>

They are designing this CBA to make that more likely. Notice how they are also designing the draft to give the Rangers the best chance to get Crosby?

I snipped part of your post because people have already addressed the points you are trying to make.

However, the League doesn't have to do anything to ensure the Rangers have the best chance at Crosby, seven straight years of missing the playoffs is enough to ensure the Rangers a better than good chance at Crosby.

EDIT: Because some times English is tricksy

 

[Traitor8]

Don't you guys know!

Somehow Ottawa has so much money that they would be able to keep Hossa,Havlat,Alfredsson,Chara,Reeden and Spezza all when they hit their prime together.. Of course under the old system, I would say the average of those 6 players woud demand at least 7 M $...so that's 42 M $ right there for 6 players... now you have to pay 4 more defenseman and 8 more forwards + 2 goalies + replacement players ...GOOD LUCK WITH THAT...

!!!!!!!

Let's just say for fun that Ottawa payed the rest (17 players) about 1 M $ each....

now you have a payroll of 55-60 M $ !! You think Ottawa can afford that?
Let's say the GM WAS dumb enough to give that..that's where the problem is..the Senators would LOSE money...

and no owner wants to lose money right now...

or under the old system:

Hossa is UFA... Ottawa offers 4 yrs / 24 M $
New York Rangers offer 5 Yr/ 45 M $ deal..

who you think he's gonan take?

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Are you that moronic?

Can you argue without insulting anyone? Obviously not.

What does that say about you? You must be immature I guess.

Earth to scared, insulting people doesn't help your arguments. It makes you look like a complete idiot.

 

[Jester]

It's what killed the NFL and NBA

the NFL has NEVER been more popular... so how has anything killed the NFL?

the style of play is what has destroyed the NBA... similar to those that argue style of play killed the NHL.

 

[Otter]

An observation from a casual reader of these boards: you people love to hash out details.

I'd think a complicated CBA would be like steak to you. No?

 

[Traitor8]

the NFL has NEVER been more popular... so how has anything killed the NFL?

the style of play is what has destroyed the NBA... similar to those that argue style of play killed the NHL.

I think he was being sarcastic..

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Sure it will. Thats why they are lowering the UFA age right, to let teams hold on to the players they draft for less time. Thats exactly going to help teams that draft and develop talent.

Unless a team consistently drafts average NHL players with average NHL salaries to follow, they will continually (read: every year) bleed off any elite players that they develop after they reach a certain quota (lets say 4 per team) because quite frankly a salary cap will not allow any team to assemble a bunch of great players, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY DRAFT THEM

Even if the teams that can continually produce players have an advantage over those who cannot, it will be small. Since the cap acts as a centralizing type magnet where teams evenly spread out their dilluted talent with a near identical amount of elite players, this means that the SC champion will be decided by the luckiest team, not the best team, irregardless of any drafting greatness that a team may have.

You seem to be saying that all star players are equal. That everyone making an upper eschelon salary is worth it.

NEWSFLASH. There can be multiple players available at the same salary level that don't provide the exact same benefit to a team on ice. There will be bargains, there will be overpaid guys.

The good managers will assemble a team full of winners, the poor managers will grab some "stars" that don't lead them anywhere.

Seriously, do you follow sports? Do you not realize that there are these differences?

 

[Tiki]

An observation from a casual reader of these boards: you people love to hash out details.

I'd think a complicated CBA would be like steak to you. No?

For the most part, yes you are correct. Even after its done (what ever year that may happen) People here will most likely fight about who actually won it untill the next lock-out/Strike Takes place.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Don't you guys know!

Somehow Ottawa has so much money that they would be able to keep Hossa,Havlat,Alfredsson,Chara,Reeden and Spezza all when they hit their prime together.. Of course under the old system, I would say the average of those 6 players woud demand at least 7 M $...so that's 42 M $ right there for 6 players... now you have to pay 4 more defenseman and 8 more forwards + 2 goalies + replacement players ...GOOD LUCK WITH THAT...

!!!!!!!

Let's just say for fun that Ottawa payed the rest (17 players) about 1 M $ each....

now you have a payroll of 55-60 M $ !! You think Ottawa can afford that?
Let's say the GM WAS dumb enough to give that..that's where the problem is..the Senators would LOSE money...

and no owner wants to lose money right now...

or under the old system:

Hossa is UFA... Ottawa offers 4 yrs / 24 M $
New York Rangers offer 5 Yr/ 45 M $ deal..

who you think he's gonan take?

They would have easily kept the majority of the players listed above had they ever figured out a way to win consistently in the playoffs. If they can't win in the playoffs, for SEVERAL YEARS (7 or 8!) than it makes absolutely no sense to keep that team together, irregardless of the payroll or individual player salaries.

At least the old system gave us a chance to see if we could win. Now we wont even have that chance, at least not for more than a 3 year period. I would rather take my chances on my team being noticeably better than 2/3 of the league for 10 years than have 3 years to have a 1/10 shot at winning when my team is slightly better than average in the new CBA.

Odds go down, quality of play goes down, player identification with team goes down, elite teams disappear and UFA age goes down. Thats those are the end results of this CBA that is rumoured to be shaping up. Not one of those things is good for the fans, except for those whose teams have inept management, just waiting to snag up the elite players cultivated from other teams.

Whats even worse is the compensation for the players lost because of the cap will be far less than market value, since the team giving the player away (see: Tampa giving Richards away) will be desparate to get rid of him.

Theres not one good thing in the Gary Bettman Hockey League, unless you are an owner.

 

[CarlRacki]

It is quite evident that the overall quality in the league, and the average 'quality' of their teams will go down in this CBA, thus they will care about it, only when its too late though, then they will start wishing that the system returned to the old one... which of course will not happen, at least not for the forseeable future. I would be feeling dirty right now if I was someone who support the owners quest to destroy this great league.

You mean the same way NFL fans have fled from professional football because its salary cap?
sorry, but you make absolutely no sense. A cap may install more parity, but it will do nothing to effect the "quality" of the league. The same great players will be playing the same great game, they'll just be dispersed more evenly through the league. If anything, it will enhance the quality of the game because more teams will be more competitive which will mean better contests.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Isn't this just a new take on the posts from several months back that the players better "win" this lockout/CBA, the owners want to kill the league?

Oy. Give us hockey, and give it to us soon.

 

[Jester]

The stars will still get their money. Even if the temporary resetting of salaries causes a downward trend to an average of 7.5 to 8 to 5.5 to 6... it will still even out in the end. The stars will be getting the most money. Not only that, but now that they are going to become UFA's significantly earlier than the previous CBA, it will drive up the salaries of those players to teams.

honestly... you don't seem to grasp the entire concept of this.

so let us come up with a simple definition.

Salary Cap: A LIMIT to how much money a TEAM can spend on their ENTIRE roster.

simple facts.
1) 18 skaters necessary for an NHL team.
2) 2 goalies necessary for an NHL team.
3) 20 players must be paid at or beneath the Salary Cap (above definition) in order to field an NHL team.

Will the "better" players get more than the "weaker" players? Yes. NO ONE is debating this fact. However, they will NOT be getting 7 to 8 million from any team that is attempting to field a competitive team under a Salary Cap in the 36 Million range... Why? Because that would hinder the teams ability to field a competitive team... think about it... what is better 1 guy at 8 million, or 2 good guys at 4 million? very few players in the league right now come close to equaling the production of two above average players... talent has condensed through coaching and the style of the game in general.

So in a sense, you are right... teams could get broken up to sign a guy to some ridiculously high contract... but they wouldn't be able to win with that formula in the cap environment.

If you want an example of this from a cap world... look at the Colts in the NFL. They've thrown so much of their cap space into the offense that they can't field a strong enough defense to be really and truly competitive... neverminding that their offense struggles in bad-weather conditions.

You need to go back to the drawing board and actually think about how you would operate in the salary cap world... Hell, look at how the Eagles and Pats have operated. You keep your draft picks, try to draft well, and when players become UFA's you evaluate their cost-effectiveness against the cap number you have...

the next question is: Have you ever taken simple economics? I mean, do you understand the idea of utility and whatnot? Because that is what these decisions are going to boil down to...

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Does anybody else get the mental picture of scaredsensfan sitting in front of his computer with his fingers in his ears chanting "I can't hear you, I can't hear you" when presented with good, logical arguments?

Do you actually read anything anybody else posts and analyze what they've said scaredy? Doesn't seem like it.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

You mean the same way NFL fans have fled from professional football because its salary cap?
sorry, but you make absolutely no sense. A cap may install more parity, but it will do nothing to effect the "quality" of the league. The same great players will be playing the same great game, they'll just be dispersed more evenly through the league. If anything, it will enhance the quality of the game because more teams will be more competitive which will mean better contests.

Hello antilogic. The fact that teams will be more even will mean that teams will play more defensively, leading to worse contests than already existed.

If all teams are equal, it will lead to a 'no mistakes' hockey game which is :

trap, dump, try and draw penalty, dont take chances etc.


To think the opposite will be true is once again counter-intuitive.

How can people be so backwards?

Teams more even = MORE DEFENSE.

Where's the rationality?

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Does anybody else get the mental picture of scaredsensfan sitting in front of his computer with his fingers in his ears chanting "I can't hear you, I can't hear you" when presented with good, logical arguments?

Do you actually read anything anybody else posts and analyze what they've said scaredy? Doesn't seem like it.

Ive responded to and refute to several 'arguments' (I use that term lightly) in this thread, why do you think I am responding?

Not one person has been able to show that a salary cap system that is coming is better than the previous CBA, and thats what my position is:


THE OLD SYSTEM WAS FAR BETTER FOR FANS THAN THIS SYSTEM WILL BE

 

[PecaFan]

The NHL/NHLPA would be well advised to keep the CBA as simple as possible. Fans do not want to be lawyers/accountants. If the new CBA is too complex I can see it turning fans off and away from the game. We don't want formula's to figure out our favourite teams roster!!!!

I heard Strachan saying this same thing yesterday.

Whoever says it is clearly a fan of a big spending team. Fans of those teams are used to being able to say "We should sign this guy for $6 million, that guy for $8 million, and trade X,Y, and Z for Q!".

What they're missing is that fans of most teams *already* have to be accountants. They have to say "how much money can we afford to spend" *NOW*, and then try and find players etc to speculate on that fit within that budget.

Welcome to how the other half lives.

 

[Jester]

Hello antilogic. The fact that teams will be more even will mean that teams will play more defensively, leading to worse contests than already existed.

If all teams are equal, it will lead to a 'no mistakes' hockey game which is :

trap, dump, try and draw penalty, dont take chances etc.


To think the opposite will be true is once again counter-intuitive.

How can people be so backwards?

Teams more even = MORE DEFENSE.

Where's the rationality?

actually the "trap" and defensive clutch-and-grab style of play is the staple of the weaker teams that don't have the ability to compete skill-wise with the big boys... so if you have more parity amongst the teams it will actually encourage teams to feel they can go back-and-forth with everyone else in the league...

you don't need to grab someone if you're going down the ice trying to score a goal.

 

[CarlRacki]

"How is watering down the product with no elite teams ever again (at least not during this CBA) going to increase interest?"

I think the success in recent years of the New England Patriots (three Super Bowls in four years), Philadelphia Eagles (four consectuive conference championship appearances), Indianapolis Colts (playoffs five of last six years) and Green Bay Packers (playoffs eight of last 10 years), among others, proves quite clearly that elite teams can, and do, exist in a capped league.

By the way, fan interest is generated far more by "their" team being competitive than by an elite team halfway across the continent. I mean, do you really think Kansas City baseball fans give a rat's a-- that the Yankees have been a dominant team for the past decade? Did NBA fans in Denver pay less attention to the game this year with their team a winner than win Jordan's Bulls were ruling the league?