Does the NHL owe big market teams anything?

[HockeyCritter]

Sorry sorry! Someone else with the same initials. That's what I get for trying to respond from memory.

Bad Kritter. *slaps self on hand*

I was wondering if my evil twin was reeking havoc once again.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Dont like the rangers prices? You can always move to Carolina where they are alot cheaper. But you will also have to take a pay cut of about ohhh...30-50% of what you make now.

Just like players in Carolina should be making less also, cost a lot less to live there.

 

[HockeyCritter]

There is a direct correlation between ticket prices and demand …….. New York, Montreal, Detroit, and Toronto can charge exorbitant ticket prices because that’s what the market will bear.

 

[NYIsles1*]

There is a direct correlation between ticket prices and demand …….. New York, Montreal, Detroit, and Toronto can charge exorbitant ticket prices because that’s what the market will bear.

http://www.teammarketing.com/fci.cfm?page=fci_nhl_03-04.cfm

The Isles and Devils avg ticket prices are higher than the Rangers, meanwhile all three teams usually have to play against one another to get a true sellout. You cannot compare the turnouts in Toronto, Montreal and Detroit with teams in this market.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Whats in it for you as a Rangers fan? How about the cap will force your team to actually consider building a supporting cast, rather than spend a ton of money on a bunch of individuals who dont work well together?

If there is one large market team that will benefit on the ice from this CBA, it is the Rangers - once they dump Sather at least. There is no way the Rangers could possibly be more inept than they were the last seven years, but the new structure will more than likely force the Rangers to be better, even if it is just via dumb luck.

The Rangers problems aren't money related, it's simply management as you said. They were incredibly unsuccesful and the way they put together their team was terribly stupid, but that's their fault. They can change that by firing the GM or the coach...they didn't need to miss a season to change their strategy.

In fact, if anything I think this is the worst thing that could have happened to the Rangers. Some people seem to forget that last March they started to completely rebuild. Now they are in a situation where when this CBA is signed, really ANY team has a chance to win the cup next season. There are so many free agents, future buyouts and trades that the Rangers will be able to get a lot of veteran players for cheap. I think it's way too enticing to try and win now for Dolan/Sather(who's contract is almost up) to sit around and wait on the rebuilding plan that they just started. Actually, with the new CBA there will be a lot of player movement and a lot more parity...I think the days of teams taking 5 years to rebuild and suck are long gone. Kind of like the NFL.

As for what's in it for you? Honestly, who cares whats in it for you? It is doubtful that you cared whether the last system worked for me, so I'm not going to waste my time worrying about your feelings. If you (large market fans in general) cannot handle having your team stuck on an equal footing with everyone else, then that is your (again, in general) problem, not mine.

I didn't say you need to worry about my feelings. I said you can't blame big market fans for being pissed they lost a season. I can absolutely handle my team being on an equal footing with everyone else, but this isn't about my teams success. My team has been the worst for 7 years, but I am still a fan. I'll watch the Rangers no matter how good or bad they are. My only concern is the cost to watch the Rangers, and that is not going to change, so why did I lose a season? I lost a season so my owner could stop losing money that he didn't care he lost in the first place and cut his expenses almost in half and now he will make big profits. Bottom line is if my team wasn't one of the teams who needed a new CBA to be more competative or stop losing money, and if the cost of watching the Rangers remains exactly the same, than there was NO reason for me to lose a season.

 

[Resolute]

Given that your team is one the major reasons why we lost this season, perhaps you should go talk to Dolan about why you had to lose a season. You arent going to get any sympathy from those of us who realized that a season had to be lost for sanity to be restored to the league.

 

[HockeyCritter]

The Rangers problems aren't money related, it's simply management as you said. They were incredibly unsuccesful and the way they put together their team was terribly stupid, but that's their fault. They can change that by firing the GM or the coach...they didn't need to miss a season to change their strategy.

In fact, if anything I think this is the worst thing that could have happened to the Rangers. Some people seem to forget that last March they started to completely rebuild.

<<< snipped >>>.

The problem is that the Rangers started this "rebuild" four years too late. For too long they went for the short term, buy a FA, trade the youth fix in order to make the playoffs. Guess what, that plan doesn't work under any CBA but Sather and/or Dolan are too dense to figure that out. The moves the Rangers made in March had less to do with "rebuilding" and more to do with salary dumping.

 

[bonzaiman]

Ah, so it's all about revenge then? How nice.

Don't fault the big market teams because they had the resources to succeed in the old system. It's not their fault that Carolina or Washington or Calgary or whoever didn't have the fortune of a very wealthy owner who was willing to invest money in the team.

Should it be fixed? Enough people in very good economic standing say yes, so who'm I to argue that. But to say "Hah! Finally, I, fan of X small-market/low-revenue/low-spending team, will finally get to avenge those dumb big-market franchises and all their stupid winning ways" is so not what this should be about. This lockout should be for a healthy league that benefits all 30 teams, not just the 8 big-spenders or the 8 hard-liners or the 14 mid-level teams.

Hmmm....don't worry about Washington, the ownership group here is loaded , and once they accquire MCI Center (right now they get no money for luxury boxes, and concessions) they will be just fine. Washington's ownership group has taken losses for five years, and hasn't complained nearly as much as other owners. Its hardly fair to compare Washington's situation to Calgary, our owners have the money, its just a matter of owning the arena, its hard to make a profit when you don't get money for any luxury boxes or concessions, that is a huge portion of profit gone.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Additionally Washington was not a "low spender" ---- they were middle of the pack, Leonsis brought them into the top spending group, but when he discovered that a larger payroll did not equate on ice success he stopped. So now the team is in the mist of a full on rebuild- A rather sound business and hockey line of thinking.

 

[NYIsles1*]

The Rangers problems aren't money related, it's simply management as you said.

When your losing 40.9m and reportedly losing tens of millions for years the Ranger problems are money-related also.

I lost a season so my owner could stop losing money that he didn't care he lost in the first place and cut his expenses almost in half and now he will make big profits. Bottom line is if my team wasn't one of the teams who needed a new CBA to be more competative or stop losing money, and if the cost of watching the Rangers remains exactly the same, than there was NO reason for me to lose a season.

You cannot write Dolan does not care about losing 40.9m because you do not know what he thinks about any of this, bottom line is he did lose money and that's why you lost a year.

Between the Ranger losses, his one-time ten percent promised discount combined with a possible luxury tax the Rangers are still going to lose money when this is over unless their payroll is below 30m AND they make all they revenue they did in
2003-04 which is almost impossible.

Rupert Murdoch dissolved his merger with Dolan, Msg has no baseball advertisers left when the Mets contract expires so they have no leverage with advertisers or sponsors and will follow the Mets to Comcast-Time Warner.

Most of the local teams and city government are no friends of Dolan.

Your team's youth movement was to give Michael Nylander a three year deal with an option a month before a lockout and absobe Jagr's long-term deal. Sather is still around because Messier will not have it any other way and Dolan needs Messier to sell tickets and will not be seen as the person kicking him out again. Messier get's another three million and a substitute teacher (Renney) as coach he can control and all critical minutes while he has a big role in player decisions and the lockeroom.

If you think Dolan does not care about losing money guess who is paying for his renovations. Looks like us.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06272005/sports/49097.htm
NY Post 6/27/05:


Uh-oh, watch out! The Garden has distributed a survey to Knick and Ranger ticket subscribers designed for feedback on possible arena renovations that would raise ticket prices 10-to-50 percent.

Some of the pay-more proposals for those already paying a fortune are downright obnoxious, including coat-check facilities, private curbside entrances and — get this — opportunities for improved "chances to see the various A-list celebrities who attend events at the Garden." You mean you can get a better view of celebs who don't pay a dime to sit in better seats than yours? Is this basketball or the Oscars? And if they're A-listers, what are you? How much does the Garden now charge to look at celebs?

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Given that your team is one the major reasons why we lost this season, perhaps you should go talk to Dolan about why you had to lose a season. You arent going to get any sympathy from those of us who realized that a season had to be lost for sanity to be restored to the league.

But you can't tell me I have no reason to be upset.

I'll ask you one question. I'm a Rangers fan living in NY, what did I get out of not seeing my team play for a whole season? If your answer is nothing, than you can't disagree with my position.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

The problem is that the Rangers started this "rebuild" four years too late. For too long they went for the short term, buy a FA, trade the youth fix in order to make the playoffs. Guess what, that plan doesn't work under any CBA but Sather and/or Dolan are too dense to figure that out. The moves the Rangers made in March had less to do with "rebuilding" and more to do with salary dumping.

Exactly. That's exactly what I said. Dolan and Sather saw all the players avalible to them and went for the win-now approach...and it completely backfired and the team lost a ton of money and a ton of respect because of it. Not playoffs for 7 years. And like I said, with the current state of most teams and probably half of the players in the league, there is a good chance this could happen again. It will be hard for the Rangers to be patient when there are 300 free agents this summer, and they might go right back to what they've been doing for 7 years.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

When your losing 40.9m and reportedly losing tens of millions for years the Ranger problems are money-related also.

He was talking about there on ice record, and that's what I meant by saying their problems aren't money related. Put it this way, the Rangers have never not been able to have the roster they wanted because they didn't have enough money or couldn't lose any more money.

You cannot write Dolan does not care about losing 40.9m because you do not know what he thinks about any of this, bottom line is he did lose money and that's why you lost a year.

You are the first one to let everyone know how much Dolan lost over the years by running the Rangers. If he cared about the annual losses, do you think he would have continually added payroll, continually spent top 5 in the league and more money than needed to be competative, and continually lost money every year by doing that? Don't think so, he is a little smarter than that. Whatever he thought he was getting by spending $70M a year on payroll, he obviously valued that a lot more than the annual losses because he continued to do it.

Your team's youth movement was to give Michael Nylander a three year deal with an option a month before a lockout and absobe Jagr's long-term deal. Sather is still around because Messier will not have it any other way and Dolan needs Messier to sell tickets and will not be seen as the person kicking him out again. Messier get's another three million and a substitute teacher (Renney) as coach he can control and all critical minutes while he has a big role in player decisions and the lockeroom.

IF Messier comes back, which I really doubt he would, than you could be right. Also you should remember that the genius who helped bring Dolan/Sather together in NY is the same genius who cancelled the season partly because Dolan/Sather were losing millions every year. Go figure

Uh-oh, watch out! The Garden has distributed a survey to Knick and Ranger ticket subscribers designed for feedback on possible arena renovations that would raise ticket prices 10-to-50 percent.

Some of the pay-more proposals for those already paying a fortune are downright obnoxious, including coat-check facilities, private curbside entrances and — get this — opportunities for improved "chances to see the various A-list celebrities who attend events at the Garden." You mean you can get a better view of celebs who don't pay a dime to sit in better seats than yours? Is this basketball or the Oscars? And if they're A-listers, what are you? How much does the Garden now charge to look at celebs?

This is what I mean. As a Rangers fan, the only thing that could have made losing a season worth it would be if ticket prices, concessions etc were cut. They will NEVER be cut because of this lockout, and aside from the stupid 10% promise they won't be cut for any other reason. They'll probably go up.

 

[NYIsles1*]

If he cared about the annual losses, do you think he would have continually added payroll, continually spent top 5 in the league and more money than needed to be competative, and continually lost money every year by doing that?

Absolutely. For most of the same reasons Detroit, Philadelphia, Boston, St Louis, Colorado, Dallas, Isles, Devils and most other teams lose money by overspending.

 

[iagreewithidiots]

But you can't tell me I have no reason to be upset.

You have no reason to be upset.

Your team was allowed to overpay for players. It got them no where. Now they will be forced to pick better players. Looks like a good thing for you.

Its funny how big market fans always used to tell me it was a good thing my team had no money to spend. They let go overpriced players and kept younger talented guys they told me. They told me the team coulndt win anyway so it was good they couldnt afford to keep it together. They were forced to rebuild instead of waste money they said to me.

Now the big market fans are forced to give up their overpriced talent and they cry foul. Very funny indeed.

You have just as much reason to be upset with the future economic reality as I had to be upset with the past economic reality. And I was always told too bad.

 

[djhn579]

You have no reason to be upset.

Your team was allowed to overpay for players. It got them no where. Now they will be forced to pick better players. Looks like a good thing for you.

Its funny how big market fans always used to tell me it was a good thing my team had no money to spend. They let go overpriced players and kept younger talented guys they told me. They told me the team coulndt win anyway so it was good they couldnt afford to keep it together. They were forced to rebuild instead of waste money they said to me.

Now the big market fans are forced to give up their overpriced talent and they cry foul. Very funny indeed.

You have just as much reason to be upset with the future economic reality as I had to be upset with the past economic reality. And I was always told too bad.

 

[hillbillypriest]

Wow, this is a long thread. I want to jump on a couple of points made by other posters, but I'm too lazy to go back and find them.

First, I should declare my bias as a lifelong Oilerfan, and all round "small market guy" from forever.

Anyway, here's the thing. Somebody raised the possibility that this may be about the small market teams getting revenge on the big market teams. This was downplayed, but I think it's probably a pretty big factor, and why not?

Here's my take on the small market owner mentality. They're in a business where their main cost of production are being driven out of control by a CBA that ties what they negotiate to salary negotiation settlements in other markets. The small market guys complain about this in the NHL boardroom and basically given no sympathy from the larger market guys who say that they're in this business to win and make a profit, that they're playing by the rules, and that while they may be sympathetic to the little guys, the small guy problems are not their problems. At this point, the small market guys just have to take it because the CBA is not open and they can't do anything about it. They certainly can't openly demand the large market teams to operate to an "informal" budget, because that would be collusion.

The small guys do have memories, though. And, as it turns out, they also have strength in numbers. History will show that it was solidarity that "won" this deal for the owners. This in turn, arose because the teams that were doing pretty well in under the existing system ended up being the minority in the board room. However, once the CBA expired, the interests of the majority in the boardroom finally came to the fore, and the deal sought was going to reflect those interests. Why would anybody be surprised by this. By the way, this is a completely logical result of the market structure of the NHL. As someone has pointed out in this thread, the NHL is a franchise operation, and in that structure, franchises located in large markets get a lot more money than they would get in a truly "open" market where a new franchise could just move into a lucrative market without having to pay an exhorbitant "rent" to the existing franchise holder of a city as compensation. In addition, all of the existing franchises including the big ones readily accepted their share of the new franchise fees when the NHL was expanded. This was mostly gravy to the big guys, the only downside for them was the dilution of influence of the large market members in the numbers game of the board of governers. Having paid their expansion fee, the 90's additions like the Nashvilles and the Floridas and the Anaheims will understandibly want to vote on the league adopting an economic system that actually allows them to recoup some of their entry fee money. Who can blame them? Do they feel bad for the Colorados, Detroits and Torontos. Not on your life. Why should they?

Bottom line. The majority on the Board of Governors won out and held out for a deal that suited them when they finally had an opportunity. Do they feel bad that larger market managers are going to have cap problems because they didn't prepare for the economic system that was coming? No, (and by the way, if I can become comparative more competitive than you by forcing you to pay for your sins rather than grandfathering your previous excesses, that's just me trying to compete. Just business you understand).

HBP

 

[se7en*]

Kritter, if you were referring to me, never once have I stated that I want to have "revenge" on the so-called big-markets. But the fact you acknowledged that we have something to want "revenge" over says much.

I don't care if Dallas wanted to be stupid and pay Turgeon $7 mil, it's not my problem. It doesn't effect me personally. Unless this sort of idiocy results in small-markets not being on an equal playing field. Now? I'm just relieved—and I don't think I'm alone here—that my team won't be a glorified farm club in this league.

I think this attitude is just proving that big-market fans are bitter that teams like Edmonton will able to compete, and beat, them on am equal footing. It is very telling that you all don't want an equal-playing field, you all insinuate such but wouldn't flat-out admit it. This is what I feel smug about.

It's not quite "revenge" but it's enough to satisfy me.

Welcome to the new NHL. If you don't like it that every team has a chance to be on an equal footing, there are other options. Just like the glory years of the league, the teams that draft well and and make smart trades will excel. The years of spending your way to the top are OVER!

 

[Kritter471]

Hillbillypriest - See, that all makes tons of sense to me. Because what was once a disadvantaged (by virtue of a system they helped design) group on the BOG is in the majority, they are able to force things that play to their advantage more and (deliberitely or not) put what were the big market teams at a distinct disadvantage in the new financial system. But the question remains, do those teams owe something to the teams they're now trying to screw? My answer remains yes, if only to maintain good relations among the BOG or the large legions of fans that follow those teams.

HootchieCootchie (Hah, I got your name right this time. Go me). I'm all for an equal playing field. I'm not all for screwing the teams that have been the marketing lifeblood of the league for the past 10 years to get there.

Frankly (AND THIS IS MY OPINION HERE, SO FEEL FREE TO TELL ME IT'S DUMB BUT I'M NOT LIKELY TO CHANGE MY MIND) *ahem* Frankly, I think what most of the small-market teams want revenge for has everything to do with other teams winning, not with a level-playing field. From 1980-1992, 10 different teams were in the Stanley Cup Finals, with 5 champions (Islanders, Oilers, Habs, Flams, Penguins). From 1993-2003, there were 16 seperate teams in the Finals with 7 champions (Penguins, Devils, Rangers, Avalanche, Red Wings, Stars, Lightning).

Even if you account for the fact that the league expanded in the 1990s, statistically, more teams made the finals more recently rather than 12-25 years ago (what many people hold up as the paragon of "competitive balance"). Since 1993, no team has won more than two Cups in a row (which has happened once, by the way) and no team won more than three total, whereas from 1980-1992, one team won 5 Cups. one team won four in a row and three champions repeated (five if you count each Islander repeat as a seperate one).

You can tell me all you want that "teams had the same opportunity to excel in that era, now it's all about salary," (though if someone could link me to where I could find historical league payrolls, I'd love to look at those numbers), but it was an era of dynasties and concentrated talent, just like it is now.

And hey, the fact that you're so excited that teams can't excell in the ways they used to must mean they were doing something right to win under the old system.

 

[Resolute]

But you can't tell me I have no reason to be upset.

I'll ask you one question. I'm a Rangers fan living in NY, what did I get out of not seeing my team play for a whole season? If your answer is nothing, than you can't disagree with my position.

I never told you you have no right to be upset.

As for what you got, you got to see as many playoff games as you did the previous seven years. I'd suggest you didnt really lose anything either.

 

[Icey]

Kritter, if you were referring to me, never once have I stated that I want to have "revenge" on the so-called big-markets. But the fact you acknowledged that we have something to want "revenge" over says much.

I don't care if Dallas wanted to be stupid and pay Turgeon $7 mil, it's not my problem. It doesn't effect me personally. Unless this sort of idiocy results in small-markets not being on an equal playing field. Now? I'm just relieved—and I don't think I'm alone here—that my team won't be a glorified farm club in this league.

I think this attitude is just proving that big-market fans are bitter that teams like Edmonton will able to compete, and beat, them on am equal footing. It is very telling that you all don't want an equal-playing field, you all insinuate such but wouldn't flat-out admit it. This is what I feel smug about.

It's not quite "revenge" but it's enough to satisfy me.

Welcome to the new NHL. If you don't like it that every team has a chance to be on an equal footing, there are other options. Just like the glory years of the league, the teams that draft well and and make smart trades will excel. The years of spending your way to the top are OVER!

You know what I have to say about all of that....BS! Fans of big market teams are not bitter. What do I have to be bitter over? Nervous over an unknown of the future, perhaps, but certainly not bitter.

I for one hated the games of the Stars vs. Nashville or Stars vs. Atlanta. Why? Because before I even got to that game I knew who was probably going to win. There was no excitment to that game. But a Stars vs. Colorado, Stars vs. Philadelphia or a Stars vs. Detroit game, now that was a different story. Those were two teams on as you like to refer it "an even playing field". You had no idea who was going to win until the final buzzer and that makes the game more exciting.

The fact that you don't care how much they are paying Turgeon unless it affects YOU says right there what is wrong with the league and the world today. You should care. You should care a lot because that statement could be turned around. Why should I as a fan of Dallas care because Edmonton can not afford to pay player "X" $$$ if it doesn't affect me. Everyone should care what every team can and can not afford to do. Because if not, we are no better off with the new CBA than we were 5 years ago with the old.

The difference between the big market fans and the small market fans is nothing more than a perspective. The small market fans want to see the big markets crash and burn. They want to see them fall to the bottom because they feel they have been robbed of players and a legitimate team for the last 10 years. Most big markets fans don't feel that way. Most of them look forward to the Edmontons, Calgary's, Columbus, Atlanta etc competiting with them. They look forward to you being able to build a team to compete with the big markets not the other way around. And that is truly sad and why so many of you come off as being so smug. Instead of looking forward to your team competing with the big markets you are looking forward to Dallas, Toronto, Colorado, Philadelphia etc crashing and burning.

And what will the excuse be when some teams still aren't competitive, because it will happen. Not all 30 teams will put a team together that is capable of competing for the Stanley Cup. What will the excuse be against the big market teams then?

I am happy Edmonton will no longer be considered a farm team (although honestly I knew considered them as such). I am happy that they will start the season thinking they have just as much of a chance at the Stanley Cup as anyone else. I guess I just don't get that the only way you feel that will happen is if Dallas crashes and burns.

And BTW maybe next time you could use a larger font because I could barely read the one you used.

 

[Icey]

Absolutely. For most of the same reasons Detroit, Philadelphia, Boston, St Louis, Colorado, Dallas, Isles, Devils and most other teams lose money by overspending.

Dallas doesn't lose money. They lost $300,000 last season due to their early playoff exit, but in previous years they made money. Philadelphia also makes money.

 

[kdb209]

Even if you account for the fact that the league expanded in the 1990s, statistically, more teams made the finals more recently rather than 12-25 years ago (what many people hold up as the paragon of "competitive balance"). Since 1993, no team has won more than two Cups in a row (which has happened once, by the way) and no team won more than three total, whereas from 1980-1992, one team won 5 Cups. one team won four in a row and three champions repeated (five if you count each Islander repeat as a seperate one).

You can tell me all you want that "teams had the same opportunity to excel in that era, now it's all about salary," (though if someone could link me to where I could find historical league payrolls, I'd love to look at those numbers), but it was an era of dynasties and concentrated talent, just like it is now.

And hey, the fact that you're so excited that teams can't excell in the ways they used to must mean they were doing something right to win under the old system.

The most comprehensive NHL team salary listings I've seen are here:

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/NHL-Business/historical-payrolls.htm

It only shows payrolls from 1989-90 to date, but it shows many interesting things.

As I posted earlier in this thread, things have fundamentally changed in the last decade.

During the 5 years from 1989-90 to 1993-94, there were 13 different teams who were in the top 5 in payroll for at least one year - including "small market" teams like Buffalo, Hartford, Quebec, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Pittsburgh.

During the 5 years from 1999-00 to 2003-04, there were only 7 - Colorado, Dallas, Detroit, NYR, Philly, St Louis, and Toronto.

 

[missK]

The most comprehensive NHL team salary listings I've seen are here:

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/NHL-Business/historical-payrolls.htm

It only shows payrolls from 1989-90 to date, but it shows many interesting things.

There's another site that has salary info, by player and/or by team.

Hockey Zone

 

[Gary]

Does the NHL owe big market teams anything?

Nope, but the big market teams own the NHL something...A apology for being driving up salaries so much and a thank you for putting a contract together that will make them more $$$ then you can shake a stick at. BTW-For those pro-player types (Saying this because with my avatar it's clear I'm a Bruins' fan and you might see me as being hypocritical)...The contract the Bruins' signed Lapointe to was what the market value was at the time. They did'nt blow him away with a offer that no one else would've. The Habs offered the SAME amount to him but he chose Boston. 27 goals and real young for a U.F.A.-It was a gamble more teams then just Boston would've been willing to take. And don't get me started with the Rookie Bonuses they signed Thornton and Samsonov to-Does anyone REALLY believe the Bruins said "I'll tell you what guys, we're going to give you rediculous signing bonuses to double or triple your salaries inspite of what the league wants, and the fact that it will screw us ourselves in future years?" The agents came up with that one guys. GM's might be stupid, but they don't go throwing $$$ around without a reason. What about the Rangers some may say? They did'nt throw around $$$ without a good reason-They wanted every UFA on the market that was decent to look towards them first and they had wicked amounts of cash to blow.