For the Pro-Goodenow's

[Epsilon]

Or maybe Bettman and those fans understand that competitive balance is going to help out the small market teams?

Thank you for totally missing the point.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Why are you having such a difficult time comprehending that the poster didn't ask why the PA is against it?

Why don't you reply to what people say? I guess you have nothing to say, so you you just bring up some random point?

I already said a couple of posts ago...look at the title of the damn thread. It has Goodenow's name in it. If he is asking the "pro-goodenow's" what is wrong with a cap and competative balance, than that's the same question as asking why the PA is against it. The question is clearly directed at pro-pa people.

If you don't think he is asking why the PA is against it, than what is he asking? Please, gimme your point of view on what the guy is asking, because I don't think it can mean anything other than 'hey pro-pa, whats wrong with a cap, why's it bad for hockey'.

And I'm still interested in see any quotes where anyone has said that a cap or competative balance is bad for "hockey". Because if you or the other guy can't find any than I don't even know why he would ever be asking this question.

And again, how IS a cap good for hockey? It doesn't really have an affect on who or how they play the game, it doesn't really affect "hockey". A cap is purely business. All it affects is the owners pockets and the players pockets. So why is he asking pro-pa people 'what's wrong with a cap, how's it bad for hockey'? It really has no affect on hockey...his question should be 'what's wrong with a cap if it's good for the owners'? I think it's a completely ridiculous question asked from a completely ridiculous point of view. If your not going to respond to anything I'm saying than please don't bother responding again.

 

[Hasbro]

Seriously though, the PA's inability to explain to the public why a 1.3 million dollar average salary wasn't enough cost them the pr battle at the start.

 

[WC Handy*]

I already said a couple of posts ago...look at the title of the damn thread. It has Goodenow's name in it. If he is asking the "pro-goodenow's" what is wrong with a cap and competative balance, than that's the same question as asking why the PA is against it. The question is clearly directed at pro-pa people.

If you don't think he is asking why the PA is against it, than what is he asking? Please, gimme your point of view on what the guy is asking, because I don't think it can mean anything other than 'hey pro-pa, whats wrong with a cap, why's it bad for hockey'.

Wow.

You are the only person here that hasn't yet figured out that he's asking posters why they think a cap is bad. NOT why the PA thinks it's bad. You don't think that he included Goodenow's name in the thread because pro-owner posters don't think a cap is bad for hockey?

And I'm still interested in see any quotes where anyone has said that a cap or competative balance is bad for "hockey". Because if you or the other guy can't find any than I don't even know why he would ever be asking this question.

Do a search for posts by DR or DementedReality. That'll get you started.

And again, how IS a cap good for hockey? It doesn't really have an affect on who or how they play the game, it doesn't really affect "hockey". A cap is purely business. All it affects is the owners pockets and the players pockets. So why is he asking pro-pa people 'what's wrong with a cap, how's it bad for hockey'? It really has no affect on hockey...his question should be 'what's wrong with a cap if it's good for the owners'? I think it's a completely ridiculous question asked from a completely ridiculous point of view. If your not going to respond to anything I'm saying than please don't bother responding again.

The poster wants to know how it's bad for the NHL. Did you not grasp that either?

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Wow.

You are the only person here that hasn't yet figured out that he's asking posters why they think a cap is bad. NOT why the PA thinks it's bad. You don't think that he included Goodenow's name in the thread because pro-owner posters don't think a cap is bad for hockey?

Exactly, as you say he thinks that pro-owner posters don't think it's bad for hockey...so he's asking pro-pa posters why they think the opposite. Which is a stupid question, because the cap has no affect on "hockey"

But your saying he's asking me personally why I think a cap is bad? What the **** do I care, I'm not an NHL player. Then it's an even more ridiculous post than I thought. I think a cap is bad because it's the hardest thing to get a union to agree to, and personally I like watching hockey not watching a lockout. So I guess that's why I think a cap is bad, does that answer his question?

Do a search for posts by DR or DementedReality. That'll get you started.

No I don't care what some guy on these boards says. I'm talking about a quote from someone in the PA. When has Goodenow or Saskin ever said that a cap or competative balance is bad for hockey? They haven't, because it's not, but it is bad for the employees they represent and that's why they are against it. It's not their job to put as much money in the owners pockets as possible, actually it's exactly the opposite.

The poster wants to know how it's bad for the NHL. Did you not grasp that either?

????????????????????????? Read that paragraph again and you'll realize I completely grasped that and it's been my point this whole time that's it's a ridiculous question.

I said "So why is he asking pro-pa people 'what's wrong with a cap, how's it bad for hockey'? It really has no affect on hockey...his question should be 'what's wrong with a cap if it's good for the owners'?

So you agree, that his question makes no sense because a cap doesn't affect hockey. What the poster is really asking is what's wrong with a cap if it's good for the NHL, as you said. Anyone on here would say it's not bad for the NHL(that's why they want it)...that's why it's a stupid question.

 

[WC Handy*]

LOL. There are people on this very board that think a cap is bad for the NHL.. for the LEAGUE, not for the owners.

 

[likea]

We didn't keep Selanne or Fleury. And Selanne is the only UFA acquisition of the bunch.

Fleury went strait to the Rag$. Like DeVries, Lefevre, Kamensky, Keane and Coach Torttier. And the Sakic offersheet.

but they were hockey choices based on who they want...not based on money

 

[Exisled]

But your saying he's asking me personally why I think a cap is bad? What the **** do I care, I'm not an NHL player. Then it's an even more ridiculous post than I thought. I think a cap is bad because it's the hardest thing to get a union to agree to, and personally I like watching hockey not watching a lockout. So I guess that's why I think a cap is bad, does that answer his question?[/quote

No hockey because tickets HAVE TO BE $75 in the nosebleeds is bad. If you're travelling on the wrong road, you don't wish for the best, you turn around and get on the right one. TOO MUCH money is being spent and it either will get corrected or you'll have hockey next year, maybe the year after, and then collapse and disaster.

The cap sounds bad. But it sure looks good for players when compared to the monies they made a decade ago.

So you agree, that his question makes no sense because a cap doesn't affect hockey. What the poster is really asking is what's wrong with a cap if it's good for the NHL, as you said. Anyone on here would say it's not bad for the NHL(that's why they want it)...that's why it's a stupid question.

Keep watching what affect it'll have on the game and the talent in the coming years. Lots more better matchups and better games and a much more sellable product.

Not to mention this could be the last straw of Bettman's quest to turn the NHL into the NBA. Now if he could only get the pros ou of the olympics so we can watch hungry young talent we'll relish once they turn pro, like the 1980/84 and '88 olympians......

 

[nyr7andcounting]

LOL. There are people on this very board that think a cap is bad for the NHL.. for the LEAGUE, not for the owners.

Well if it's reasonable I don't think it's bad for anybody but the players and the PA, which is why I don't blame them for fighting against it. I don't care what other people think but that sure isn't my view of a cap, so maybe you'll understand my previous posts a litte more. I just thought it was a stupid question, like the guy was blaming the PA for not taking a cap since a cap could be good for the NHL. Well no ****, it's about money and it always is about money.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

No hockey because tickets HAVE TO BE $75 in the nosebleeds is bad. If you're travelling on the wrong road, you don't wish for the best, you turn around and get on the right one. TOO MUCH money is being spent and it either will get corrected or you'll have hockey next year, maybe the year after, and then collapse and disaster.

The cap sounds bad. But it sure looks good for players when compared to the monies they made a decade ago.

Ticket prices have nothing to do with player salaries or the PA. They are dependent on the market for tickets in that city, nothing more. Wether or not there is a cap has minimal affect on the fans, especially in large markets who are going to watch either way, and it definetly has no affect on "hockey". The on ice product is the same with or without a cap, and so are ticket prices.

Keep watching what affect it'll have on the game and the talent in the coming years. Lots more better matchups and better games and a much more sellable product.

It has no affect on the talent and no affect on the way the game is played. What makes you think that there will be better matchups and more exciting games just because there is a cap? There is still the same amount of good teams and same amount of bad teams and the same game being played.

 

[Hasbro]

but they were hockey choices based on who they want...not based on money

The Avs deffinately wanted to keep Keane and DeVries, and were either interested in keeping Fluery or going through the motions, but the Rags paid way more than their worth. the team had a tough hoe trying to skrimp together the $15 million signing bonus to match Sakic's offer sheet.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

What's wrong with a salary cap and competitive balance. Why is that bad for hockey?

If you want to adress inequities in costs, you should do the same in revenues.

Why should fans in one city pay more for tickets than fans in another?
Why should some teams get more tv revenue than others.
Why should the owners of the Maple Leafs get more when they sell the franchise than the owner of the Hurricanes.

This isn't about fixing the product. It's about fixing the bottom line.
And that's fine.

But don't talk to me about partnerships if you're going to fix the entire bottom line on the backs of the players.
Let's see the rich owners ante up some of the problem.

If the owners were willing to fix some of this themselves, then I'd expect the players to do their share.

But all a salary cap does is gaurantee instant profits for the rich teams.
So fans of the rich teams are going to continue paying big prices and the product they watch will being to deteriorate.

This isn't about "competitive balance"
If you believe that you've got rocks in your head.

This is about bottom lines, franchise values and equity.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

"Competitive balance" is something that Bettman has used to sell the lockout to some of the more naive fans out there. The truth is this lockout is all about profits and money. Which is just fine by me, I have no problem with two groups fighting it out over the greenbacks. But call a spade a spade and don't pretend that Bettman 's goal is to provide some sort of social service.

Thats what i've been saying all along too I mean it's obvious it is always about the money. Like I said before, if the NHL had NO competitive balance whatsoever, but everyone made money hand over fist, would the NHL be talking about trying to restore "competitive balance" to the league? Obviously not.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

"Competitive balance" is something that Bettman has used to sell the lockout to some of the more naive fans out there. The truth is this lockout is all about profits and money. Which is just fine by me, I have no problem with two groups fighting it out over the greenbacks. But call a spade a spade and don't pretend that Bettman 's goal is to provide some sort of social service.

Ditto

 

[gary69]

LOL. There are people on this very board that think a cap is bad for the NHL.. for the LEAGUE, not for the owners.

There were some rather good discussions on this subject last year, you could check e.g. "Imposed parity" -thread.

I joined in on page 8, check out the posts of for example GoCoyotes, converse, john flyers fan on that thread.

http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=113762&page=9&pp=15

 

[thinkwild]

IMO, "competitive balance" in and of itself is not bad for hockey,

The problem is the league is proposing a cap which makes talent-equality more of a factor than competitive balance, which I can tell you, from working in the NFL, is not as fun as its proposed to be. Each team of 53 guys gets 6-7 "superstar" players and has to build with mediocre talent around that. I'd much rather have teams with 10 "superstars" and 5 "superstars," so long as those functioned in a cycle rather than being stagnant (i.e., limit the trading of high salary players to avoid one team continously having 10 and one team continously selling off).

Competitive balance should not mean you can keep all your drafted players or have exactly as many "superstar" players as another team. Competitive balance should mean your team is able to compete on a regular basis. So yes, this eliminates the huge spenders AND the meager spenders (if the NHL was serious about competitive balance rather than guaranteeing profit, it would have offered a salary floor from the beginning), but it does not eliminate the middle teams.Take the top five in salary, the top five in lowest salary, take the rollback, make those your cap limits.

From my point of view, I have no problem with competitive balance. I do have a problem with making the "haves" and the "have nots" the exact same rather than affording them similar opportunities.

I agree completely. I've heard this complaint from NFL fans in many links. The cycle is the important part. If the dominant teams each decade arent changing, then its a problem. But when the teams that best developed a young team in its prime are the ones making each decade, this is the best equality of opportunity you can hope for.

The large markets are NYR, Tor, Wash(when he was crazy rich instead of humbled rich), LA (who's owner could probably buy all the owners businesses), Chi, Bos. The large markets were not having success. IT was medium markets like Det and Col(Who were a small market befiore they won, hence the Sakic offer sheet), as well as NJ, Tbay (who was supposed to be contracted because they'd never compete), Dal(How can hockey work in texas). People suggesting that large markets have been winning aarent looking properly.

If he is asking the "pro-goodenow's" what is wrong with a cap and competative balance, than that's the same question as asking why the PA is against it.

Heh. And furthermore, i completely reject the question. First off: THE PLAYERS ALREADY ACCEPTED A CAP! Jeepers.

But more importantly, the premise of what he is asking, is that only a cap brings competitive balance. I am against the cap but am for competitive balance. I guess though, we are defining it differently. If its to mean that every team each year, has an equal shot to get lucky, then that is one form of competitive balance. If it means that every team, over a 5 year span, has the opportunity to develop a team under 25 that can be elite for 5 years, then that is what I mean.

Playoff teams are going to get more money. There is a built in disparity maker if you choose to look at it that way.

I think those that are puzzled why anyone wouldnt be in favour of a cap, dont appreciate the nature of market forces. Now before that carpenter character comes downon me for market, i am aware sports is unique. Its not the normal market. But when in doubt, I'd want to err on market forces guiding. THere is nothing wrong with making money decisions. NJ let go Holik, Arnott, etc, and still went on to win a cup.

The former is better for gambling which is why the NFL likes it. THe latter is better for fans, well the ones like win and like greatness anyway.

 

[19nazzy]

first- Colorado, Detroit and Toronto (used these three teams because you used them later in the thread) do not really have strong management. Is it hard to sign their star/good players and then add players like Hasek or trade for a Rob Blake.

anyone can do that

Seems to me the Rangers have had their share of superstars and yet have failed to win.

And how did the Avs get their star players?
They either drafted them, or traded their prospects that they drafted to get them.

 

[bcrt2000]

Nope.
But they shouldn't be the reason to turn this league upside down. This is just my personal opinion on these things. I just prefer to let the good teams win and have the crappy teams lose without having things to be evened out. Owners that are willing to spend, and that have money shouldn't be penalized because other teams can't afford to do something.

Yeah, the problem though is whatever hurts the 30th team in the standings, hurts all of the other 29 teams in one way or another. You have to protect ALL 30 teams so that they can be profitable AND each team has a chance to compete (so that people will actually *want* to watch the team)

 

[19nazzy]

Yeah, the problem though is whatever hurts the 30th team in the standings, hurts all of the other 29 teams in one way or another. You have to protect ALL 30 teams so that they can be profitable AND each team has a chance to compete (so that people will actually *want* to watch the team)

Name me a league where there isn't a notable crappy team.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

What's wrong with a salary cap and competitive balance. Why is that bad for hockey?

The only problem with a salary cap and competitive balance is that there are always going to be teams who will not work within the confines of the system. There will always be cheaters who spend more money, but they will have the contracts written up in a way that it doesn't circumvent the cap or there will be teams who spend so far below the cap that they will claim they are losing money.

The fact of the matter is that the only way you get a financial system in place that works is to have full 100% revenue sharing amongst all teams. As well, if you have full revenue sharing, then there should also be full debt sharing amongst teams. When you consider that the average Canadian team is taxed what all U.S. teams are taxed, there's a heavy burden right there that Canadian teams have to bear. You have everyone share in on the debt load, then you can get your competitive balance that you want.

However, I don't see an Ed Snider or a Mike Illitch helping bail out a team like the Toronto Maple Leafs with regards to their tax burdens. I could see them helping out a team like Edmonton and Calgary, maybe even Vancouver and Ottawa, but no way does Toronto get any special consideration. And that is the main problem. The league won't address the heavy tax burdens of the Canadian teams. They address it, they can have competitive balance and maybe, just maybe, you'll see Canadian teams be able to retain some of their talent.

 

[Hasbro]

Name me a league where there isn't a notable crappy team.

That's the thing that's missed alot in this discussion of competative balance. Some Teams find ways to win and some teams find a way to suck. The Clippers have had a cap for near 20years and they haven't done anything, meanwhile the Bulls won 6 under a cap.

The Broncos managed back-to-back Super Bowls, which was undone by Elway retiring rather than financial reasons the Pats have 3 in 4. Meanwhile the Cards and Bengals are synonomous with failure.

 

[Weary]

That's the thing that's missed alot in this discussion of competative balance. Some Teams find ways to win and some teams find a way to suck. The Clippers have had a cap for near 20years and they haven't done anything, meanwhile the Bulls won 6 under a cap.

The Clippers are intentionally bad. The team is owned by a guy who wants to maximize profits rather than be competitive. And the Bulls were only able to do what they did because it was a soft cap. That team would've never achieved what it did if the cap were a firm or hard one.

 

[Hasbro]

The Clippers are intentionally bad. The team is owned by a guy who wants to maximize profits rather than be competitive. And the Bulls were only able to do what they did because it was a soft cap. That team would've never achieved what it did if the cap were a firm or hard one.

The Nuggets sucked and not on purpose. Throw in the Warriors. Yeah Sterling is a horrible owner, so's Bidwell and Brown.

It was actualy a pretty firm cap. Ho Grant left for more money, but they manges three more without him. Besides Mike and Pippen they didn't have any team member that couldn't be replaced.

Hell the Celts, Lakers and Pistons managed to work in the cap era.