How does a lower UFA age help the "small markets"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Beukeboom Fan said:
I think those fans are the best in sports for loyalty, but the NHL lacks any sort of "casual" fan, which is where the ratings really come from.

Right. Who do you think the casual basketball fan knows and is a "fan" of? At this point, the vast majority would probably say the Lakers. In 1996, they'd say Chicago. Gretzky got far more publicity as a King than he did as an Oiler. TV networks will not notice you if you are not in a big market. I'm sorry, its fact.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
NYIsles1 said:
In 1994 there was a baseball off-season in NYC. That's over. In 1994 the Yankees had Steve Howe closing games and the Mets had the highest payroll in baseball history at 39 million dollars. There was no Yankee-Mets-Redsox or interleague games.

The sports world changed a lot here.

What does that have to do with the NHL over taking the NBA nationally?
 

mudcrutch79

Registered User
Jul 5, 2003
3,903
0
The Big Smoke
www.mc79hockey.com
NYIsles1 said:
In 1994 the Yankees had Steve Howe closing games and the Mets had the highest payroll in baseball history at 39 million dollars.

This Mets claim is flat out wrong, and I've seen you make it over and over. The Mets spent 29 million in 1994, nowhere near the Yankees at 44 million. The Jays were over the 40+ million mark for the third season in a row. Your point is valid that the New York market is different now, but I don't know where this Mets stuff comes from.
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
Tom_Benjamin said:
No way. That doesn't work. They want one superstar in each market. The biggest superstar in the biggest market, the smallest in the smallest market. Then they want the best near superstar in the biggest market and the worst near superstar in the smallest market. Then they want the biggest star in the biggest market and the smallest star in the smallest market.

The result will be a league where rosters turn over rapidly, there is an illusion of fairness, the biggest stars are in the biggest media markets. The ideal is if half the legitimate contenders are from a big market and the other half are small market every season.

What is it that small markets get from the last CBA proposed by the owners? The richer markets are prevented from overpaying aging stars. That's it. Period. Otherwise, they get no revenue sharing, they are forced to increase payroll and earlier free agency. What do the big boys get? Much fatter profits and access to the best players in the league.

Sounds great, eh?

Tom

once again it makes no sense
if this were the case every superstar would change teams every year
hey this year the best superstar was on colorado so what we're gonna have to do is give him to NYR and then move NYRs superstar to the market right below them and that teams superstar would have to move down one
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
txomisc said:
please explain to me why the nhl would do all this fighting for a hard cap only to intentionally put loopholes in it for the big market teams?!?!? i mean hell if they were gonna do that why would they even try to get a cap at all?

Have you been reading the thread?
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
JohnnyReb said:
How?

Nashville Predators payroll: under $25 million.

Nashville Predators claimed losses: $5-10 million.

Nashville Predators gains from the owners proposed revenue sharing: $0

So if they were losing money with a payroll already under the cap, and there is no significant revenue sharing, how does a cap ensure they are profitable?

There are about 8-10 other teams in the same situation as Nashville...


First, a bigger national TV deal means more revenue for Nashville.

Second, why would the NHL propose what they've proposed if it hurts a third of the league, as you say?
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
txomisc said:
why would there be a lockout all this time ruining the attitudes of fans toward hockey in many huge markets all so they nhl owners can trick the players into a higher salary cap and a lower ufa age?
wouldnt they have just come to the table initially and said
"lets lower the ufa age to 26 and lets start playin"

Would that sell? I don't think so. It is far better to make chumps of fans in small markets by marketing competitive imbalance, and going for a cap (for fairness, of course). Then they reluctantly accede to earlier free agency to get it. Then they sell the illusion of competitive balance just like the NBA does.

It is very easy to manipulate public opinion.

Tom
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
hockeytown9321 said:
Have you been reading the thread?
yes
can you give the same answer to the question of have you said anything that makes any sense in this thread?
so just friggen answer the question here

why would the nhl fight for a cap..in the process hurting the game only to allow bigger markets to continue to spend

answer it
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
Tom_Benjamin said:
Would that sell? I don't think so. It is far better to make chumps of fans in small markets by marketing competitive imbalance, and going for a cap (for fairness, of course). Then they reluctantly accede to earlier free agency to get it. Then they sell the illusion of competitive balance just like the NBA does.

It is very easy to manipulate public opinion.

Tom
would it sell to who? fans? i think both sides have already proven they dont really care what the fans think about the situation
absolutely amazing. this is complete lunacy. what is this xfiles?
 

JohnnyReb

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
704
0
Visit site
hockeytown9321 said:
First, a bigger national TV deal means more revenue for Nashville.

Second, why would the NHL propose what they've proposed if it hurts a third of the league, as you say?

Bigger national TV deal?? Where is this bigger national TV deal?? All indications are that the current national TV deal, with NBC, is lower than the last one, and chances are it ain't going to get better anytime in the near future. How long has Gary Bettman been working on getting that big national TV deal? 10 years?? What makes you think they're going to get it now??

As for why the NHL proposed the deal, what makes you think that those 1/3 are behind the proposal? If Bettman only needs 8 owners to back him, perhaps he's only looking out for those 8-10 teams. How much money would guys like Bill Wirtz and Jeremy Jacobs stand to make in a salary capped world? Think they care about Nashville, or Pittsburgh, or Edmonton?
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
txomisc said:
yes
can you give the same answer to the question of have you said anything that makes any sense in this thread?
so just friggen answer the question here

why would the nhl fight for a cap..in the process hurting the game only to allow bigger markets to continue to spend

answer it

evidently you haven't been reading.

The NHL wants the best players in the big markets. Putting loopholes in that the big market teams can exploit better than small markets is a way to help the process.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
JohnnyReb said:
As for why the NHL proposed the deal, what makes you think that those 1/3 are behind the proposal? If Bettman only needs 8 owners to back him, perhaps he's only looking out for those 8-10 teams. How much money would guys like Bill Wirtz and Jeremy Jacobs stand to make in a salary capped world? Think they care about Nashville, or Pittsburgh, or Edmonton?

No, I don't. But alot of people seem to.
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
hockeytown9321 said:
evidently you haven't been reading.

The NHL wants the best players in the big markets. Putting loopholes in that the big market teams can exploit better than small markets is a way to help the process.
the only thing that is evident is that you dont want to answer the question.
but lets look into what you said
big market teams and exploit these loopholes better than small market teams...hmm whats the difference between the two...oh yeah its money...so they big market teams can give the best players more money? wow that sounds eerily similar to the system that is currently in place. simply lowering the ufa age would accomplish exactly this
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
NYIsles1 said:
Hockey is not a major sports in NYC. It's a huge baseball market and those are the only stars the general public will identify with. Yashin, Brodeur and Jagr play here and the media could care less because they are not interested in selling hockey to the general public. They have Jeter and A-Rod, Pedro and Beltran, Chad and Eli, Herm, Torre, Randolph, Marbury and Kidd.

This is where sports editors send their people and what sports programs discuss.

If Iginla signed with a NY team he would be about the 20th star here on the seventh, eighth or ninth team in a sport that cannot compete with it's competion and only has one small fan demographic watching.

And that has to change if the NHL is going to ever go big time in the US. How do you do that? Hockey was hot in 1994. Bettman got the NHL their biggest TV deal ever on Fox. Why? The Rangers were coming off the Messier Cup. That didn't make a splash in New York? Gretzky was in LA and they made the Cup Finals in 1993. Chicago made the Finals in 1992 and were in the playoffs every year. Boston was also a perennial contender.

I do not believe it is a coincidence that the league was perceived to be hot when the league had contenders in the big US markets. It is perceived to be on the road to obscurity with the good teams in Ottawa, Tampa, Vancouver, and Colorado.

Tom
 

txpd

Registered User
Jan 25, 2003
69,649
14,131
New Bern, NC
hockeytown9321 said:
There's enough big market teams to ensure all s the superstars will fit somewhere.

and how exactly are the poor, oppressed small market teams who draft every talented player int he league now, only to have them stolen away by Detroit and New York, going to fit all of those superstars under their cap? Is there going to be some sort of special rule that allows the oppressed teams to go over if they want?

how many name brand players are there in those "oppressed small markets"??
how many in edmonton? how many in calgary? one? how many in nashville? none?
how many in minnesota? one? How many in Atlanta? two? part of the problem is that these "oppressed small market teams" are basically restricted to the star players they can draft from being bad. How many name brand players are there in Detroit? Lidstrom, Hatcher, Cujo, Shanahan, Hull, Lang, Whitney, Datsyuk, Schneider....any of those guys could be the best player on many teams. I count one goalie, 3 defensemen and 5 forwards. With a $38m-$40m salary cap, how may of those guys do you see on one team. Particularly with a $10m Lidstrom already under contract. $10m out of $40 really cuts down on the possibilities.

Understandably as an Ottawa fan, you are worried about keeping Havlat and Spezza and Alfredsson and Chara and Hossa all together. That could be a challenge. But the truth is that they may lose one of those guys to salary cap concerns and not be able to keep a guy like Smolinski. Ottawa wont get raided. for Detroit, Dallas, Toronto, Rangers, and Colorado to get all these great players you say they will get they would all have to take one of your Sens players and leave all the rest of the league's top free agents alone. You think that is likely? nah
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
txomisc said:
why would the nhl fight for a cap..in the process hurting the game only to allow bigger markets to continue to spend

answer it

Because with free agency at age 31, the ability to spend is a hollow advantage. If there is one lesson learned under the old CBA is that you can't win by building a team around free agents. This means that even in New York they have to draft and develop players to compete. Spending money on a loser is a losing strategy.

That's hardly fair, is it?

Tom
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
PepNCheese said:
So the NHL's hard cap will function effectively without revenue sharing?

How is that going to save the small markets?

It will deflate the labor market, making quality players more affordable for smaller market teams. It's simple economics, really.
Smart people on both sides know this. This is why the NHL is very much in favor of it. This is why the NHLPA is so opposed they are willing to offer a 24 percent pay cut. They know that 24 percent cut is a) temporary in an uncapped system and b) pales to what they might lose over a career with a capped league.
 
Last edited:

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
Tom_Benjamin said:
Because with free agency at age 31, the ability to spend is a hollow advantage. If there is one lesson learned under the old CBA is that you can't win by building a team around free agents. This means that even in New York they have to draft and develop players to compete. Spending money on a loser is a losing strategy.

That's hardly fair, is it?

Tom
that still doesnt answer the question man. what is the point of the cap itself in this scenario?

its clear that either
a) im asleep and this is a bad dream in which case i wish i was dreaming about jessica biel in stead
b) the nhpla side has experienced mass hypnosis
c) the nhlpa side has used mind altering drugs
d)this is all some stupid joke
e)ive fallen into some alternate reality where this actually makes sense
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
txpd said:
...why boston let jason allison and bill guerin go? that was over restricted free agency, not UFA status.
BOS is a small market ?

txpd said:
...Same with Edmonton last year having to trade their best center. Remember this stuff?

EDM didn’t trade Comrie for any reason other than HE had fulfilled the obligations of his contract and did not want to resign with EDM. Surely the fact that he signed for less than the league average in PHX is proof of this. This has nothing to do with the CBA, it was purely his human right to not sign a contract with EDM.
DR

 

shnagle

Registered User
Apr 27, 2003
131
70
NYC
Visit site
CarlRacki said:
It will deflate the labor market, making quality players more affordable for smaller market teams. It's simple economics, really.
Smart people on both sides know this. This is why the NHL is very much in favor of it. This is why the NHLPA is so opposed they are willing to offer a 24 percent pay cut. They know that 24 percent cut is a) temporary in an uncapped system and b) pales to what they might lose over a career with a capped league.
While I think everyone agrees that a hard cap deflates the overall labor market I think the question was with 8-10 small market teams already spending less than the low-end of the NHL's salary range(32mil). How does a cap help these teams become profitable without revenue sharing?
 

grego

Registered User
Jan 12, 2005
2,390
97
Saskatchewan
Comrie was not that big of a loss for the Oilers. They just weren't that stupid to pay him a lot of money to underachieve. Also he is a whiner that couldn't take the GM telling the team that they had underperformed in the playoffs the previous year, when the got knocked out.

The GM told the team the played poor, Comrie goes home like a baby and cries and demands to be traded the next year.

I am glad we got rid of that idiot. I don' think there is a fan in Edmonton that has respect at all for Mike Comrie.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
CarlRacki said:
It will deflate the labor market, making quality players more affordable for smaller market teams. It's simple economics, really.

So Jarome Iginla can make the same money in Calgary as he can in New York. He'll choose Calgary? Ed Jovanovski can make the same money in Florida as he can in Vancouver. He'll choose Vancouver? Vincent Lecavalier can make the same money in Tampa as he can in Montreal. He'll choose the Lightning?

If money is the same, other factors become much more important. Those other factors will occasionally favour a small market, but mostly they favour the big ones. Eric Lindros wanted to become Eric Lindros, Inc so he refused to go to Quebec City. Mark Messier wanted to become Mark Messier, Inc. so he moved to New York. Gretzky, of course, became Wayne Gretzky, Inc. in LA.

Under the old CBA, big markets were expected to spend, so they did. In a real sense they were disadvantaged, forced by the market to spend on rapidly depreciating assets. If they don't spend, the market turns off as it has in Boston and Chicago. If they do spend, they don't improve. They get worse.

If you assume - just for a second - that that is the problem the NHL really sees, how would they behave to change it? I'd submit that they would behave precisely as they have behaved, and they would demand precisely what they have demanded.

If you do go for free agency at 27 without a cap, you have baseball. That works for the business but the illusion of competitive balance is destroyed.

Tom
 

se7en*

Guest
DR said:
EDM didn’t trade Comrie for any reason other than HE had fulfilled the obligations of his contract and did not want to resign with EDM. Surely the fact that he signed for less than the league average in PHX is proof of this. This has nothing to do with the CBA, it was purely his human right to not sign a contract with EDM.
DR

Barely. He came back early with a broken hand purely for the purpose of getting those bonuses not caring if he hurt the team in the process. That, coupled with the fact that he was invisible in the playoffs, led to fans - when management called him out he couldn't take the critisizm - turning against him. He couldn't handle the pressure playing here. You trying to use vague answers to help your case is uniformed, and that's being polite.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
txomisc said:
the only thing that is evident is that you dont want to answer the question.
but lets look into what you said
big market teams and exploit these loopholes better than small market teams...hmm whats the difference between the two...oh yeah its money...so they big market teams can give the best players more money? wow that sounds eerily similar to the system that is currently in place. simply lowering the ufa age would accomplish exactly this

Yep, while ensuring profitability. Doesn't seem worth it, huh?
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Tom_Benjamin said:
So Jarome Iginla can make the same money in Calgary as he can in New York. He'll choose Calgary? Ed Jovanovski can make the same money in Florida as he can in Vancouver. He'll choose Vancouver? Vincent Lecavalier can make the same money in Tampa as he can in Montreal. He'll choose the Lightning?

If money is the same, other factors become much more important. Those other factors will occasionally favour a small market, but mostly they favour the big ones. Eric Lindros wanted to become Eric Lindros, Inc so he refused to go to Quebec City. Mark Messier wanted to become Mark Messier, Inc. so he moved to New York. Gretzky, of course, became Wayne Gretzky, Inc. in LA.

Tom

Everything you say above is correct, but it's correct in a capped or uncapped system. Los Angeles and New York are more exciting places than Raleigh and Edmonton for a rich young guy to live, and that's true regardless of a cap. Playing for Montreal has an allure that playing for Columbus never will, whether there's a cap or not. These are things the NHL cannot control.
However, what the NHL can control - ideally via a cap but also through a severe tax - is preventing every good player from playing in one of those markets. It won't matter if every all-star wants to play in Toronto (as every Leaf fan believes) because with a cap, the Leafs can't make that happen.
Of course if the NHL were smart and created a system, a la the NBA, that allowed teams to spend more to keep their players than other teams can pay to take them away, that would offset to some degree the inherent benefits some cities have over others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->