Does the NHL owe big market teams anything?

[leafaholix*]

With the salary cap in place, it's clear it was put in place for the smaller market teams, what do you think the NHL owes the large market teams that lost out on an entire season and a shot at the Stanley Cup?

Teams like Detroit, Colorado, Philly, Toronto.

What does the NHL owe them since the teams like Pittsburgh, Nashville, Edmonton, etc... got their demand in a hard cap, and a low one at that?

Click to read more...

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Isn't this sort of like Russia asking Poland what they are owed because they can no longer take advantage of them? The Plantation Owners asking the slaves to kick in something as they were no longer picking cotton? You all had your way for years, and now you want 'reparations' because you can not treat the rest of the league like glorified farm teams? Be happy that you could go so long with an uneven playing field and that should have been the end of it. But you get some sort of pretty good shot at Crosby or another top pick too. Are getting a clean slate with being able to buy your way out of your stupidity in signing big contracts after being warned not to do so with the new CBA coming. Hard to believe that you are asking for more.

 

[leafaholix*]

Isn't this sort of like Russia asking Poland what they are owed because they can no longer take advantage of them? The Plantation Owners asking the slaves to kick in something as they were no longer picking cotton? You all had your way for years, and now you want 'reparations' because you can not treat the rest of the league like glorified farm teams? Be happy that you could go so long with an uneven playing field and that should be the end of it.

Wow, talk about sounding arrogant. Big words coming from a fan of one of the most poorly run sports organizations in North America.

If you can't play with the big boys, get off the field... isn't that how business works? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If you cannot run a business in a proper fashion, why blame the successful businessmen?

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Wow, talk about sounding arrogant. Big words coming from a fan of one of the most poorly run sports organizations in North America.

If you can't play with the big boys, get off the field... isn't that how business works? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If you cannot run a business in a proper fashion, why blame the successful businessmen?

OK, teach me. What do we small and mid-sized markets owe you big markets for the honor of sharing the ice with you? For finally levelling the playing field instead of ceasing to exist . . . or better yet letting the 4 franchises that make money under the old system remain behind and see what kind of sport you have left. Tell me what you think fair reparations should be. I will reach for the wallet if you convince me.

 

[leafaholix*]

OK, teach me. What do we small and mid-sized markets owe you big markets for the honor of sharing the ice with you? For finally levelling the playing field instead of ceasing to exist . . . or better yet letting the 4 franchises that make money under the old system remain behind and see what kind of sport you have left. Tell me what you think fair reparations should be. I will reach for the wallet if you convince me.

I can see where you're coming from, but when you restrict one side from doing something like spending money these organizations have and can afford to spend on players, isn't it fair to say those organizations deserve SOMETHING in return?

You in particular, I've seen posts saying that the draft MUST be a weighted draft, because these teams are "loaded", yet you say these teams were "stupid" and there must be restrictions and no compensation.

You're pushing on one end, saying these "loaded" teams are better off and don't deserve a 30-1 shot at Sidney Crosby, but at the same time you're saying they should pay for spending money they can afford to spend.

And by "loaded", I'm not sure what you're referring to. Because the Toronto Maple Leafs are at the other end of the spectrum in terms of prospect depth compared to the Pittsburgh Penguins and in a far worse situation when it comes to the hard cap.

Tell me, aside from financial profits, how is Toronto "loaded" in the New National Hockey League (NNHL) that they don't deserve an equal shot at the #1 pick in 2005, a draft year that was wiped out by a lockout. Keep in mind that all past seasons and performances by clubs were compensated for in prior drafts, so the 2005 draft is not compensation for 2001-2004.

 

[GirardIsStupid]

The NHL doesn't owe the big markets anything. The leafs profits for the lost year wouldn't have exceeded 15 M. They'll make 40 M for next season. BOO HOO. Those kind of profits make up for 5 years worth of lost seasons.

 

[Mess]

With the salary cap in place, it's clear it was put in place for the smaller market teams, what do you think the NHL owes the large market teams that lost out on an entire season and a shot at the Stanley Cup?

Teams like Detroit, Colorado, Philly, Toronto.

What does the NHL owe them since the teams like Pittsburgh, Nashville, Edmonton, etc... got their demand in a hard cap, and a low one at that?

I see it a little different ..

What do big market teams owe their fans in this ..

The hard cap helps the small markets compete in the new NHL ..

The NHL should force or put something into effect that if big market teams are only spending 30 % of their revenues while small markets are spending 54% .. So some sort of ticket price reduction should be given to big markets fans as a result.

The laws of supply and demand prevent it as their are more fans then seats in big markets, so the league really would have to be involved because otherwise it wouldn't happen..

Because this really is about the fans they pay the bills for both sides. If all teams are playing under the same CAP figure for parity then why should it cost more for some fans to see their team then another ??

However to answer your direct question one thing the NHL is doing is giving each team at least 1 shot at Crosby in the draft ..

 

[leafaholix*]

However to answer your direct question one thing the NHL is doing is giving each team at least 1 shot at Crosby in the draft ..

I agree with your post, I especially agree with the quote above.

I think the least the NHL can and will do is give each organization a 1 shot chance at the #1 pick and a shot at moving up in the draft no matter what they have in their system. So, giving the organizations that took the most hit financially a chance at moving up into the top 5 or 10 in the draft.

 

[davemess]

The big market teams are going to make more money under this cba than the old one...... how much more do they need?

 

[leafaholix*]

The big market teams are going to make more money under this cba than the old one...... how much more do they need?

I'm thinking one of these big market clubs had a terrific shot at the Stanley Cup this past season, it was taken away because of a hard cap that the small market teams rely on to survive.

 

[davemess]

I'm thinking one of these big market clubs had a terrific shot at the Stanley Cup this past season, it was taken away because of a hard cap that the small market teams rely on to survive.

They had 10 years under the old CBA to win a cup while the small market teams struggled to survive...... a decade seem like long enough to me.

 

[SoundsGood]

I can see where you're coming from, but when you restrict one side from doing something like spending money these organizations have and can afford to spend on players, isn't it fair to say those organizations deserve SOMETHING in return?

The first thing you get in return is a league. Without a cap, it could not have lasted much longer. I think that is a big return.

 

[leafaholix*]

The first thing you get in return is a league. Without a cap, it could not have lasted much longer. I think that is a big return.

Yes, because a locked out season certainely did a lot for hockey in Nashville and Carolina.

 

[EroCaps]

The Big Markets exploited the NHL's weak CBA for what, 10 years? They aren't owed anything. The league is rolling back contracts for a reason.

 

[transplant99]

what do you think the NHL owes the large market teams that lost out on an entire season and a shot at the Stanley Cup?

Didnt EVERY team lose out on a shot at the Cup last year?

Like the big market teams deserve ANYTHING more than anyone else.

What a joke.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

The Big Markets exploited the NHL's weak CBA for what, 10 years? They aren't owed anything. The league is rolling back contracts for a reason.

Both sides exploited that weak CBA. And yes, the league does owe something to the big market teams because those teams are going to generate revenue for the smaller market teams. If anything, they should be saying to the league that if there is a luxury tax over a certain threshold, that for the first two years of the agreement, that's it's 25 cents on every dollar they are over instead of dollar for dollar. As well, the draft should not be a weighted draft. It should be a random drawing.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

With the salary cap in place, it's clear it was put in place for the smaller market teams, what do you think the NHL owes the large market teams that lost out on an entire season and a shot at the Stanley Cup?

Teams like Detroit, Colorado, Philly, Toronto.

What does the NHL owe them since the teams like Pittsburgh, Nashville, Edmonton, etc... got their demand in a hard cap, and a low one at that?

Hmmmm, I thought this was a pretty straight forward thing for people to understand. What the NHL has done is GUARANTEED these big market teams will turn into even bigger cash cows for the corporations that own them. That means the Ontario Teachers will see more and more money go into their pension fund, which was the goal when they bought a big chunk of the Leafs. This means Comcast will get even bigger profits off the Flyers.

You make it sound like the corporations that own these teams enjoyed throwing huge money around on players. If you do believe that you are delusional. The bottom line is that these teams are there to make money, not spend it like its going out of style. A new CBA that guarantees greater profits and increased franchise value is exactly what these teams are hoping for. Anyone saying otherwise is out of touch with reality.

 

[Tiki]

Didnt EVERY team lose out on a shot at the Cup last year?

Well, I hear the big market owners in Tampa and Calgary were pissed about not being able to defend thier Eastern and Western conference titles.

 

[ranold26]

Hmmmm, I thought this was a pretty straight forward thing for people to understand. What the NHL has done is GUARANTEED these big market teams will turn into even bigger cash cows for the corporations that own them. That means the Ontario Teachers will see more and more money go into their pension fund, which was the goal when they bought a big chunk of the Leafs. This means Comcast will get even bigger profits off the Flyers.

You make it sound like the corporations that own these teams enjoyed throwing huge money around on players. If you do believe that you are delusional. The bottom line is that these teams are there to make money, not spend it like its going out of style. A new CBA that guarantees greater profits and increased franchise value is exactly what these teams are hoping for. Anyone saying otherwise is out of touch with reality.

Your post sums everything from my perspective. The more revenues, the more profits. The way it should be!

 

[Icey]

The Big Markets exploited the NHL's weak CBA for what, 10 years? They aren't owed anything. The league is rolling back contracts for a reason.

Was it really the big markets that exploited the NHL's weak CBA? Was it not Boston (not considered big market) who signed Joe Thorton to that outrageous rookie contract by finding the loopholes in the CBA and testing them out and then the GM who agreed to it, which lead EVERY rookie contract that followed to use the "Thorton" model? Was it not Carolina (certainly not big market) who put an offer sheet on Federov and made salaries climb? Was it not Anaheim who was paying Paul Kariya $10M a season when the club knew they could not afford it? Those are hardly big market teams. Give me an example of how Toronto exploited the CBA? They worked within a system.

You may not like big markets, you may not like that they have been able to pay salaries higher than the small market teams, but they certainly are not the ones that started this ball rolling, that was the small market teams. And remember the big market teams are the ones who will be bailing the small market teams out through revenue sharing.

Does the league owe them something? Absolutely. They gave up a year of PROFITS and as you anti-player like to so often point out, that is lost money, money that will never be recovered. Not only did they give up their profits, it costs them money in arenas fees, etc. Not all teams lost less money by not playing.

Like it or not, the NHL is going to have to throw the big market teams a bone in this deal. They are not just going to sit by and sign on the dotted line and get nothing in return. There is a reason bits and pieces of the CBA have not been released, because there are parts that the small market teams will hate (and vice versa). Mark my word on it, there will be something in the new CBA for the big market teams.

 

[EroCaps]

Was it really the big markets that exploited the NHL's weak CBA? Was it not Boston (not considered big market) who signed Joe Thorton to that outrageous rookie contract by finding the loopholes in the CBA and testing them out and then the GM who agreed to it, which lead EVERY rookie contract that followed to use the "Thorton" model? Was it not Carolina (certainly not big market) who put an offer sheet on Federov and made salaries climb? Was it not Anaheim who was paying Paul Kariya $10M a season when the club knew they could not afford it? Those are hardly big market teams. Give me an example of how Toronto exploited the CBA? They worked within a system.

You may not like big markets, you may not like that they have been able to pay salaries higher than the small market teams, but they certainly are not the ones that started this ball rolling, that was the small market teams. And remember the big market teams are the ones who will be bailing the small market teams out through revenue sharing.

Does the league owe them something? Absolutely. They gave up a year of PROFITS and as you anti-player like to so often point out, that is lost money, money that will never be recovered. Not only did they give up their profits, it costs them money in arenas fees, etc. Not all teams lost less money by not playing.

Like it or not, the NHL is going to have to throw the big market teams a bone in this deal. They are not just going to sit by and sign on the dotted line and get nothing in return. There is a reason bits and pieces of the CBA have not been released, because there are parts that the small market teams will hate (and vice versa). Mark my word on it, there will be something in the new CBA for the big market teams.

You list few examples of small market teams trying to compete. They're more like exceptions to the rule. You can't tell me that the big markets did not benefit from the average price of players out-pricing the smaller markets. If the small markets had generated the playoff revenue and attendance that the big markets enjoyed during that period would they not have generated a profit?

The big markets spent because they could. They didn't break any rules. The real villain was the lack of a parity in the past CBA. The league as a whole can't operate with it's free market system. It's not a matter of capitalism vs. communism when the product the owners and players are collectively selling is the success of the LEAGUE. Both sides profit when the NHL profits and a the new CBA looks to accomplish that, yes? The NHLPA wanted to make money off the league, not for it. In the end, they were crippling a business that has the potential to make them MORE money.

 

[Deebo]

You list few examples of small market teams trying to compete. They're more like exceptions to the rule. You can't tell me that the big markets did not benefit from the average price of players out-pricing the smaller markets. If the small markets had generated the playoff revenue and attendance that the big markets enjoyed during that period would they not have generated a profit?

The big markets spent because they could. They didn't break any rules. The real villain was the lack of a parity in the past CBA. The league as a whole can't operate with it's free market system. It's not a matter of capitalism vs. communism when the product the owners and players are collectively selling is the success of the LEAGUE. Both sides profit when the NHL profits and a the new CBA looks to accomplish that, yes? The NHLPA wanted to make money off the league, not for it. In the end, they were crippling a business that has the potential to make them MORE money.

carolina offersheet to fedorov, bostons rookie deals to samsonov and thornton and thier lapointe contact, montreal and anahiem's goalie deals, islanders and yashin, washington and jagr, all stupid contracts by teams not mentioned as the "stupid teams who were warned 2-3 years ago crowd"

when player agents have these deals as comparables, where do you expect salaries to go?

 

[Icey]

If the small markets had generated the playoff revenue and attendance that the big markets enjoyed during that period would they not have generated a profit?

Exactly, but they didn't did they. Despite that they were the ones playing the last few finals and not the big market teams. They spent beyond their means. And as we have seen from experience, championships do not guarantee you profits either.

But if Carolina hadn't offered Federov that offer sheet, then Detroit wouldn't have had to match it JUST TO RETAIN HIM. Same think with the Sakic situation. And once Boston agreed to pay Thorton the money all the first line players who had been playing for 5-7 years all the sudden started questioning their salaries. Why am I making $4M after 6 years and Thorton makes $3M in his rookie season. Thorton's contract drove all those salaries up. That is why there are so many $7-10M players.

The big markets spent because they could. They didn't break any rules. The real villain was the lack of a parity in the past CBA. The league as a whole can't operate with it's free market system. It's not a matter of capitalism vs. communism when the product the owners and players are collectively selling is the success of the LEAGUE. Both sides profit when the NHL profits and a the new CBA looks to accomplish that, yes? The NHLPA wanted to make money off the league, not for it. In the end, they were crippling a business that has the potential to make them MORE money.

And what happens when the new CBA doesn't accomplish that? The big markets will still be able to outbid the small market teams. Do you think just because there is a salary cap that all the sudden Atlanta is going to spend $36M on payroll? Detroit will still outbid Atlanta, Colorado will still outbid San Jose, Philadelphia will still out bid Buffalo.

I think people are being fooled into the fact that there will be a salary cap that all teams will have a shot at a player and all teams will have a legitimate shot at going to the finals, but I don't see that happening. Parity? They will have as much parity as the other leagues have. How many superbowls have the Patroits won? How many NBA championships do the Spurs have? Afterall those are the two leagues with salary caps.

I am just not buying that the CBA is going to heal all that woes the league.

 

[AM]

owe the big market teams?

With the salary cap in place, it's clear it was put in place for the smaller market teams, what do you think the NHL owes the large market teams that lost out on an entire season and a shot at the Stanley Cup?

Teams like Detroit, Colorado, Philly, Toronto.

What does the NHL owe them since the teams like Pittsburgh, Nashville, Edmonton, etc... got their demand in a hard cap, and a low one at that?

You mean, what should they get for just about managing the NHL into the ground?

I figure 50 canes for each executive.

Its abit leanient, but I say, let bygones be bygones!

 

[EroCaps]

Exactly, but they didn't did they. Despite that they were the ones playing the last few finals and not the big market teams. They spent beyond their means. And as we have seen from experience, championships do not guarantee you profits either.

But if Carolina hadn't offered Federov that offer sheet, then Detroit wouldn't have had to match it JUST TO RETAIN HIM. Same think with the Sakic situation. And once Boston agreed to pay Thorton the money all the first line players who had been playing for 5-7 years all the sudden started questioning their salaries. Why am I making $4M after 6 years and Thorton makes $3M in his rookie season. Thorton's contract drove all those salaries up. That is why there are so many $7-10M players.



And what happens when the new CBA doesn't accomplish that? The big markets will still be able to outbid the small market teams. Do you think just because there is a salary cap that all the sudden Atlanta is going to spend $36M on payroll? Detroit will still outbid Atlanta, Colorado will still outbid San Jose, Philadelphia will still out bid Buffalo.

I think people are being fooled into the fact that there will be a salary cap that all teams will have a shot at a player and all teams will have a legitimate shot at going to the finals, but I don't see that happening. Parity? They will have as much parity as the other leagues have. How many superbowls have the Patroits won? How many NBA championships do the Spurs have? Afterall those are the two leagues with salary caps.

I am just not buying that the CBA is going to heal all that woes the league.

The NBA is a different animal, but the Patriots and the NFL are the perfect example of what the NHL can become. New England created a dynasty with superior coaching and management- end of story. The last several years have seen big NFL markets show considerable restraint in FA signings. The draft has become vital and the quality of the game has grown by leaps and bounds. The NFL dominates in the US and it couldn't do so w/out it's hard cap system.

MLB, on the other hand has slipped to a distant #2 thanks to the Yankees and Red Sox.

It's really now or never for hockey in the US. It's losing money to Golf and Nascar, which is just sad.