honest ... if VAN can do it, why cant others ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
cw7 said:
We're just re-packageing the same discussions. Having the same arguments. It gets old, quick. Something new would be nice, but I gave up on that a couple months ago.

You see it from one perspective, I might see it from another. The problem is that there seems to be a brick wall between the two with many who post here, they're not open to ideas and thoughts other than their own. So the same thing happens every time; regardless if a certain point is factual and/or logical, that doesn't get through to the ones looking at this with a narrow-minded, singular perspective. In essense, it's not real communication, just the same banter as it was before. It becomes insanity after a while; doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.

It shouldn't matter to us if one side is right or wrong, or if won side wins or loses. If the end result is that each team is given the opportunity to be competitive as well as financially healthy, we shouldn't give a damn how that comes about. And you might not see it (or want to see it), but way too many people discuss from a right-wrong, win-lose premise. They keep on that narrow road, not willing to try and think about it another way. Thus, the discussions turn confrontational andend up going nowhere. And I use the word discussion very liberally. Only a handful keep an open mind to all the possibilities, reading and learning as much as they can to get each side of each story. But not nearly enough to keep these "discussions" going forward.

That doesn't happen every single time, just most times. A pity, really.


I'm very open ot other ideas, I think there do need to be changes (look at the proposal i posted a few days ago). I don't care how much the players make. i don't care what they system is. As a fan of the Detroit Red Wings, all I want is the ability to build a team, like they've done for 20 years, and not have to break it up because if a cap. I'm not trying to limit the other team's ability to do that. If they build a better team than we do, good for them. So far no one has shown me how that can happen under a cap. I think there is a way to do it and keep the league healthy without a cap. I think if the owners force the season to be missed because of their unwillingness to compromise, there will be so much damage done to the game that a cap, or luxury tax, or market, or any other goddamn sysytem they invent won't be able to fix it.
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
the doctor said:
From what we've heard recently, the weakest markets, the ones that lost the bulk of the money last year were the Rangers, Caps, Blues, Islanders, Panthers and Hurricanes.

That's your way of determining weak markets. That's certainly not mine.

To me, it's about the common acceptable expense and return.

I have no sympathy for the Rangers, nor do I think they have any sort of problem except those they are causing to themselves. They have a lot of spending power. Too much for many other owners.

The key to a healthy, dynamic and interesting league is to find what is the acceptable level of spending power between the competitors. Obviously, if the weakest team can't spend enough to be competitive and not be profitable, that team should not be in the NHL or the spending must be controlled in a way that allows such a team to be competitive.

The bottom line for me is that right now, some teams can afford to remain elite for a stretch of 7-8 years and some can't.

I don't really give a **** about the owners or players. They can all go **** themselves on pine cones as far as I'm concerned. But I want a league where there is fairness for everyone involved. If they can't get that level of fairness and if some teams have to continually dump players Oilers-style, then I'd prefer they cut those teams loose because it's just not fair.

My belief is that the 30 teams are probably viable under a sane CBA context. Unfortunately, the owners didn't have a backbone a decade ago to pull it off and IMO, will probably not get a CBA deal that allows them the true parity they should already have right now if they weren't selfish, shortsighted, trembling buffoons.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
Vlad The Impaler said:
The key to a healthy, dynamic and interesting league is to find what is the acceptable level of spending power between the competitors.

Why do you believe this is so? Won't we solve this problem if we did not know what the team payrolls were? We can fix this just by having the NHLPA open their site to players and agents only.

If we did not know how would you distinguish the 1995-2005 period from any other era?

Tom
 

garry1221

Registered User
Mar 13, 2003
2,228
0
Walled Lake, Mi
Visit site
Tom_Benjamin said:
Why do you believe this is so? Won't we solve this problem if we did not know what the team payrolls were? We can fix this just by having the NHLPA open their site to players and agents only.

If we did not know how would you distinguish the 1995-2005 period from any other era?

Tom

even if the nhlpa only opened the $$$ part of the site to just players and agents we'd still have this problem, except the fans would be mostly in the dark about it when it comes to amount of money the players are making, that's all that would be, the problems that the league faces today would still exist, the fans aren't the ones telling the GM's how much to pay each player, so what does it matter if we couldn't see what their salaries were?... we'd just know that they're getting paid 5 - 6 - 7 times more than the average fan roughly speaking
 

garry1221

Registered User
Mar 13, 2003
2,228
0
Walled Lake, Mi
Visit site
hockeytown9321 said:
I'm very open ot other ideas, I think there do need to be changes (look at the proposal i posted a few days ago). I don't care how much the players make. i don't care what they system is. As a fan of the Detroit Red Wings, all I want is the ability to build a team, like they've done for 20 years, and not have to break it up because if a cap. I'm not trying to limit the other team's ability to do that. If they build a better team than we do, good for them. So far no one has shown me how that can happen under a cap. I think there is a way to do it and keep the league healthy without a cap. I think if the owners force the season to be missed because of their unwillingness to compromise, there will be so much damage done to the game that a cap, or luxury tax, or market, or any other goddamn sysytem they invent won't be able to fix it.

bottom line, a cap comes into play, the salary levels would drop across the board, the wings and all other big market, big spending teams wouldn't have to rip our teams apart limb from limb, obviously a cap would be phased in over a period of 2 or 3 years to give teams the time to adjust and let some contracts die off/retire/etc. .. this is what everyone complains about but no one really thinks in depth about, most people hear salary cap, they think 'great, no more great team', i don't see that as the case at all, when i can get my thoughts straight i'll write my view on it later
 

oilswell

Registered User
Mar 19, 2002
1,760
0
Wandering the globe
www.geocities.com
Vlad The Impaler said:
The key to a healthy, dynamic and interesting league is to find what is the acceptable level of spending power between the competitors....The bottom line for me is that right now, some teams can afford to remain elite for a stretch of 7-8 years and some can't.... I want a league where there is fairness for everyone involved. If they can't get that level of fairness and if some teams have to continually dump players Oilers-style, then I'd prefer they cut those teams loose because it's just not fair. My belief is that the 30 teams are probably viable under a sane CBA context.
:bow:
 

The Rage

Registered User
DementedReality said:
why should an NHL team be any different from any other business ? i fail to see why us fans should sacrifice so the poorest NHL teams (in terms of business ability) can still turn a profit.

dr

My take is, the lower player salaries are, the more upset fans get about about high ticket prices. Fans are angry right now, because they pay too much for too little, but their hatred is directed at the players who are the ones benefiting from the money, and not at the owners who set ticket prices. If teams are making profits (and not losses) it's far easier for fans to campaign for lower ticket prices. That's the perspective of someone who would like to be able to afford go to a few games each year.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Is Vancouver small market? I'd say no, its a big market. If you divide the markets in 10 big, 10 medium and 10 small, where would Vancouver fits. Its a clear cut #3 in Canada, almost doubling its the smaller Canadian franchises (Ott,Cal,Edm).

Its got solid, financially sound population.
Its got a medium population in terms of hockey cities (Vancouver's Greater Area of 2 million). http://www.canadainfolink.ca/cities.htm
Its got a much higher % of hockey followers than the average NHL team's cities.
Its got a single team market to itself (unlike NY, South Cal, or even Alberta).
Its ticket prices are around top 10 in US$ ,that is high considering it charging in Canadian $.

I'd be very surprised if Vancouvers gate revenue was not in the top 10.
Its whinged until it got a lottery to help it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which US teams are bigger hockey market than Vancouver? I'd say its big 10 category.

If a team in the top ten needs to put out and elite team on good budgetm while making no mistakes, there is something that needs looking at with the overall scale.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
garry1221 said:
even if the nhlpa only opened the $$$ part of the site to just players and agents we'd still have this problem, except the fans would be mostly in the dark about it when it comes to amount of money the players are making, that's all that would be, the problems that the league faces today would still exist, the fans aren't the ones telling the GM's how much to pay each player, so what does it matter if we couldn't see what their salaries were?... we'd just know that they're getting paid 5 - 6 - 7 times more than the average fan roughly speaking

Whatever problems those are, but never mind that. Hockey would look just like it did in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. Everybody knew that the Islanders had the highest payroll in the league in 1980. Nobody thought it was strange. When a veteran was traded for prospects in those days everyone acknowledged the team was talking short term pain for (hopefully) long term gain.

If we were not obsessed with money we would look at the 1990's and say "Man, the league is getting better and closer all the time. Any league that has Tampa and Calgary playing for a Cup while the New York Rangers are the team with the longest playoff drought is fair. We got parity."

Tom
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Tom_Benjamin said:
Whatever problems those are, but never mind that. Hockey would look just like it did in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. Everybody knew that the Islanders had the highest payroll in the league in 1980. Nobody thought it was strange. When a veteran was traded for prospects in those days everyone acknowledged the team was talking short term pain for (hopefully) long term gain.

If we were not obsessed with money we would look at the 1990's and say "Man, the league is getting better and closer all the time. Any league that has Tampa and Calgary playing for a Cup while the New York Rangers are the team with the longest playoff drought is fair. We got parity one year in 11"

Tom

9% success rate is good for me!
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
me2 said:
9% success rate is good for me!

what are you talking about ? in the last 10 years these teams have made it to the final 4.

MIN, ANA, BUF, WSH, VAN, COL, NJD, NYR, DET, CGY, TBY, FLA, DAL, OTT, PHI, TOR, SJS, STL

thats over HALF the league and Im sure I missed some teams.

thats parity bozo.

dr
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
DementedReality said:
what are you talking about ? in the last 10 years these teams have made it to the final 4.

And how many disappeared shortly after? How many of those that disappear were in the lower salary bracket?


MIN, ANA, BUF, WSH, VAN, COL, NJD, NYR, DET, CGY, TBY, FLA, DAL, OTT, PHI, TOR, SJS, STL

thats over HALF the league and Im sure I missed some teams.

thats parity bozo.

dr


And the cup winners were? And the cup losers were? That's the parity to lose in the finals

1975-1976 1. Montreal Canadiens (N) 4, 2. Philadelphia Flyers (Pa) 0
1976-1977 1. Montreal Canadiens (N) 4, 3. Boston Bruins (Ad) 0
1977-1978 1. Montreal Canadiens (N) 4, 2. Boston Bruins (Ad) 2
1978-1979 2. Montreal Canadiens (N) 4, 5. New York Rangers 1
1979-1980 5. New York Islanders 4, 1. Philadelphia Flyers (Pa) 2
1980-1981 1. New York Islanders (Pa) 4, 9. Minnesota North Stars 1
1981-1982 New York Islanders (PW) 4, Vancouver Canucks (CC) 0
1982-1983 New York Islanders (PW) 4, Edmonton Oilers (CC) 0
1983-1984 Edmonton Oilers (CC) 4, New York Islanders (PW) 1
1984-1985 Edmonton Oilers (CC) 4, Philadelphia Flyers (PW) 1
1985-1986 Montreal Canadiens (PW) 4, Calgary Flames (CC) 1
1986-1987 Edmonton Oilers (CC) 4, Philadelphia Flyers (PW) 3
1987-1988 Edmonton Oilers (CC) 4, Boston Bruins (PW) 0
1988-1989 Calgary Flames (CC) 4, Montreal Canadiens (PW) 2
1989-1990 Edmonton Oilers (CC) 4, Boston Bruins (PW) 1
1990-1991 Pittsburgh Penguins (PW) 4, Minnesota North Stars (CC) 2
1991-1992 Pittsburgh Penguins (PW) 4, Chicago Blackhawks (CC) 0
1992-1993 Montreal Canadiens (PW) 4, Los Angeles Kings (CC) 1
1993-1994 New York Rangers (EC) 4, Vancouver Canucks (WC) 3
1994-1995 New Jersey Devils (EC) 4, Detroit Red Wings (WC) 0
1995-1996 Colorado Avalanche (WC) 4, Florida Panthers (EC) 0
1996-1997 Detroit Red Wings (WC) 4, Philadelphia Flyers (EC) 0
1997-1998 Detroit Red Wings (WC) 4, Washington Capitals (EC) 0
1998-1999 Dallas Stars (WC) 4, Buffalo Sabres (EC) 2
1999-2000 New Jersey Devils (EC) 4, Dallas Stars (WC) 2
2000-2001 Colorado Avalanche (WC) 4, New Jersey Devils (EC) 3
2001-2002 Detroit Red Wings (WC) 4, Carolina Hurricanes (EC) 1
2002-2003 New Jersey Devils (EC) 4, Mighty Ducks of Anaheim (WC) 3
2003-2004 Tampa Bay Lightning (EC) 4, Calgary Flames (WC) 3


Class these winner into below average salary and above average salary.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
me2 said:
Which US teams are bigger hockey market than Vancouver? I'd say its big 10 category.

I can't disagree with you there. It is a great hockey market. Awesome. One of the best in the NHL. That's the point. How come people did think Vancouver could not compete? How come people told me we could never, ever afford the payroll we now have let alone be easily able to increase it? What kind of propaganda did it take to convince sentient human beings that the NHL franchise in Vancouver was ever threatened?

Why on earth do people believe the Canadian markets can't compete? It's crazy thinking. All of the Canadian teams are doing fine. They aren't the teams bleeding red ink. Toronto is the richest team in the league and Vancouver is a couple playoff rounds a year away from being right there with Toronto.

The Canadian hockey market is subsidising US teams with the TV package. If the National TV package was divided up among the teams that earned it we would split $60 million US from Canadian TV among 6 Canadian teams. The American teams can split the American TV package 24 ways.

Tom
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
me2 said:
Class these winner into below average salary and above average salary.

What's the point? Vancouver is now over average salary and still rising. The league as a whole increased salaries by 2% last year. Vancouver's jumped by over 10%. What kind of team do you expect to win a Cup? The only reason Tampa was so cheap is that their best players are still really young. Most teams disappoint a few times before winning.

The league is fair if every market can afford to pay for a winner, and the only way to build a winner is from the ground up. The idea that everyone should have about the same payroll is absurd. We're going to use payroll to artificially spread the talent around the league so that anyone can win any year?

Man, I hate that idea.

Tom
 

codswallop

yes, i am an alcoholic
Aug 20, 2002
1,768
100
GA
Licentia said:
Every thread - whether directly mentioning the CBA/Lockout or just something narrowly related to the CBA/Lockout - turns into this battle.

Always will be, I knew that the first time I read such a thread on this board.

I'm just an argumentative SOB, stubborn you might say. I knew the fruits of these debates would only have very finite amount of juice to them (ie few contents, a lot of pulp). I just liked the back-and-forth nature that is bred here, I couldn't resist going up against the arrogance that has always inhabited these boards. Not to say that I'm completely innocent; I've tried my very best to be open-minded but sometimes that isn't an option. Like Kansas said, "Fight Fire with Fire". On occasion, it is needed.

My participation thus far has been as much business related as it has be psychological. Some in the business don't regard the psychological aspect as much as myself. I've found it to be an invaluable tool. Not merely in information obtained but also a more personal connection, gathering insight. Let's just say, it has helped.
 
Last edited:

Street Hawk

Registered User
Feb 18, 2003
5,348
19
Visit site
Few Factors...

Why Vancouver has a 49 million US payroll.

1) Stronger Canadian Dollar. Back in the Messier days, the Lonnie was near $.60 US, but now is $.76. So, if the Can dollar was still that low, Nucks would be paying $83 million dollars for a $50 million US payroll, as opposed to the $67 million they pay now. Difference of $16 million Canadian. Hey, that's about 1/3 of the profits of that 45 million they made the past 2 years

2) More Revenue streams. Nucks have been aggressive in tapping new sources of revenue. Pay per view games, Lotteries, and selling everything they can sell, luxury suites, advertising, etc. So, outside of playoff money, they are pretty much maxxed out. Which is why they weren't freaking out when Dave Cobb left to join the olympic bid team. Nothing left to sell.

3) Good team, means that fans want to come to watch the game. Also helps that they play an entertaining style. But, that same style comes back to haunt them in the playoffs. So, kind of a catch 22 there.

4) Great Management. Burke isn't tremendous with trades, but is very good at signing players to fair deals for the team.

As for whether the Nucks could hold onto everyone if there was a cap, I think no and yes. No, not everyone, as a cap suggests, tough decisions have to be made. But, hopefully that would mean that the likes of a Linden (2.1 million), Arvedsson (1.65 million), May (1. whatever), Cloutier etc. won't get signed or be signed to less than what they got, same with Bertuzzi and Morrison.

Best thing for the NHL game is for 4 - 6 teams contract. I would love it if that happened. We could say don't let the door hit you in the behind on your way out to 138 players if 6 teams died. Also, the salaries would go down since if a team like the Canes folded (an example), a guy like Brindy wouldn't get claimed during a dispersal draft, and thus the remainder of his 2 year 10 plus million deal would be toast and he'd have to sign for what he's worth, under 2 million.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
garry1221 said:
bottom line, a cap comes into play, the salary levels would drop across the board, the wings and all other big market, big spending teams wouldn't have to rip our teams apart limb from limb, obviously a cap would be phased in over a period of 2 or 3 years to give teams the time to adjust and let some contracts die off/retire/etc. .. this is what everyone complains about but no one really thinks in depth about, most people hear salary cap, they think 'great, no more great team', i don't see that as the case at all, when i can get my thoughts straight i'll write my view on it later

But professional athletes are greddy bastads, right? If one team comes along and offers your player $2 million more than you
can offer because of a cap, I think he'd probably take it.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
hockeytown9321 said:
But professional athletes are greddy bastads, right? If one team comes along and offers your player $2 million more than you
can offer because of a cap, I think he'd probably take it.

Which is what happens now for the smaller market teams.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
me2 said:
Which is what happens now for the smaller market teams.

And if you bothered to read anything I've written, you'd know I never said they should keep the current system or that changes don't need to be made. If something is unfair now, it doesn't become fair by making everyone suffer.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
hockeytown9321 said:
If something is unfair now, it doesn't become fair by making everyone suffer.

thats how socialism works. instead of making the groups at the bottom raise their levels, socialists bring everyone else down to the lowest denominator.

its much easier to blame and punish the succesful, than to place responsibility and expectations on the others.

dr
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
DementedReality said:
thats how socialism works. instead of making the groups at the bottom raise their levels, socialists bring everyone else down to the lowest denominator.

its much easier to blame and punish the succesful, than to place responsibility and expectations on the others.

dr

If you want to get technical, if every team is 100% eqaul in every way, which is what the cap supporters say will happen, its really communisim in its truest form. And there has only been one attempt at true communism (the Paris Commune) and it failed within a month. It's impossible to acheive.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,813
1,464
Ottawa
Tom Benjamin said:
I don't believe in making this move. I really don't think Ottawa improved their chances by getting Bondra or Smolinski or Greg deVries. Once you get that good, it is very hard to get better. The move backfired on the Blues. I'd rather play the game the same way. If I'm not good enough I want to find another great kid.

I know, of all the great points you make I jump on this one. What can I say, im a fan and defensive.

While I agree, im not sure the moves were meant to improve our chances as much as solidify them. I see these players as depth for injury replacements. Smoke is like a top line utility guy for us. And Bondra's defense caught me by surprise. He should of definitely warranted a brief moments consideration for a Selke nomination before going on. These were veteran warrior depth injury replacements, not integral to our core. Id rather they rented them short term, but really, all are quite reasonable really. Maybe they hoped de Vries would take a top 4 spot, but I have my doubts he can win that spot.

I still think these decisions were more paid out of the marketing budget than the hockey one. When Melnyk took the team, he really had to change the mindset of the fans that Bryden had left them in, of this timid, we cant ever compete or spend mentality, so why should we buy tickets.

So he held a private Eagles concert for fans paying them $2mil, more than Schaefer!, and signed some names doing something fans never thought we could do. And it worked. Sales went up, the mindset changed.

But you're right, the players most Sens fans have on the block are these UFAs. Not because we cant afford them, but because they arent really worth it. Id rather develop Eaves, Bochenski and Meszaros and give Spezza, Fisher and Vermette big minutes

Ok, now that I have hijacked the thread off topic, sorry, back to regularly scheduled programming.



Vlad the Impaler said:
The bottom line for me is that right now, some teams can afford to remain elite for a stretch of 7-8 years and some can't.
Yes, the winning teams can. Whats wrong with that if everyone has the same opportunity to become that winning team? Thats the equality thats important - equality of opportunity. America isnt a great country because everyone is equal - its a great country because everyone has equal opportunity to become great.

Not every team can be elite at the same time anyway. Are you propsoing we try and fool fans into think they can?

The weakest links do not need the ability to spend at the elite levels, they need the ability to survive at rebuilding levels.

Tom once had a great line saying think of the great Hab, Detroit, Toronto, Flyer, Islander, Oiler, Penguin, Bruin, Avalanche teams. Every one of us is pretty much thinking the same. The great teams of their era. Who were the bad teams of that era? Was that era not defined by the great teams. Arent they the nostalgia we long for.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
littleHossa said:
I think that Nonis is just groomed by Burke, let's not forget that Burke might of been the only GM in the NHL who had a business mind. Some other GMs don't spend, but they don't think either. Burke spent the best amount, advertised in the right places, took the sure gambles etc. When Burke opens his mouth about his ideas in the NHL, they all only have 1 goal in mind and that's winning more money and having his team succeed, in short what a businessman would do.

There is nothing wrong with that, it's just that some GMs are more hockey oriented. Some GMs realize that their team could be above a cap, but would still support the cap because their life doesn't begin and end with the success of their team, but also with a fair playing field and good hockey. Business people don't think like that, for good reason, we're seeing right now that from a financial point of view, they run their franchises 10x better than the "hockey" GMs do. But who are you going to choose, sports is more than just a business to most fans.

"Burke might of been the only GM in the NHL who had a business mind."

Not so, Burke has no business mind and that is why Orca Bay gave the financial job to Dave Cobb many years ago. Unlike most teams the Canucks were smart enough to give the finance job to a guy with the training and expertise and not an ex-jock GM. In the Canuck business model Burke reported directly to Stan McCammon (the owner's guy) as did Dave Cobb. Unlike most teams the finance guy did not report through the GM but had separate lines of authority to owership.

It was Cobb who set up the pay-per-view TV system, established the corporate sponsors roundtable, brought the corporations on board and kept them there, ran the seasons ticket drives, oversaw all the promotions and marketing, signed up the sponsorship deals, was the NHL Board of Governors delegate when McCaw did not attend, etc. Unfortunately for the Canucks, Cobb has just been hired away by the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committe.

Dave is Chartered Accountant and was responsible for all the financial operations except for negotiating the player contracts - and that was done by Dave Nonis under Burke. And a darn good thing too since most every time Burke stuck his nose in, the negotiations turned nasty and went south in a hurry.

No wonder Burke was canned - he was actually doing very little.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->