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

[Morbo]

It will deflate the labor market, making quality players more affordable for smaller market teams. It's simple economics, really.

Actually, that wasn't my question.

"Simple economics" dictates that a cap equalizes spending, NOT revenues.

Without revenue sharing, the cap will do nothing to boost the revenues of small market teams, which is the real issue since none of them had high payrolls to begin with.

You stated that the rich teams want a cap because it will allow them to keep their excess revenues.

So again, how are the small market teams saved by a cap that doesn't boost their revenues?

 

[looooob]

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?

.

Tom

so Daniel Alfredsson will never forego that to sign with Ottawa, or Naslund in Vancouver?

I'm not sure how this scenario plays out in most cases, in part because outside of a Gretzky or Messier, how many marketing opportunities are there for these guys really? Is Jovo going to be selling cars and chocolate bars in Miami??

Maybe if the money is the same, some guys go where the cost of living is less and their dollar goes further?

I don't mean to sound naive here as clearly many players (especially young single guys, or the guys married to supermodels/actresses) will flock to the big cities. I would suspect that other players might make different choices. a competitive team helps though, for sure

 

[hockeytown9321]

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

I'm an Ottawa fan? See, all this time, everybody was accusing me of only wanting a system that enables the Red Wings to continue to buy championships.

 

[grego]

If players could make as much money to play in a team like Edmonton they would stay there too. Doug Weight would never have left Edmonton if they could have paid him close to the same money. The guy totally hated to leave the team, and ever called every player on the Oilers to say goodbye. I am not making that up that was what Weight did.

I think with the Oilers able to play many players close to the same amount of money players that like offense would love to sign in Edmonton. Think about if for players that whine about having to play offense. You can sign to a team that plays the neutral zone trap, or sign for the same money with Edmonton. Where they would encourage you to play offensively and to take part in an exciting brand of hockey.

Other then Comrie, it is rare you ever find a player that didn't like to play in Edmonton. The only reason to leave there is one thing, money.

It is a classy organization, well run, a hockey town, the best ice in the league to play on, and a fast fun type of hockey to play.

 

[Cawz]

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.

How does free agency at 27 without a cap give an illusion of comp balance? Thats exactly the opposite.

How does a cap help these teams become profitable without revenue sharing?

Well, in theory, they could build a fan base based on a hope that their team can actually win something, and not simply be a farm-team for a have-team. Its basically a 2-tiered system as it stands, so its difficult to build and keep a fan base for the lower-tiered teams.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

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

How on earth does the league sell earlier free agency to fans across the league without a cap? They announce they want earlier free agency so that the bigger markets can get access to the league's brightest young stars? How would that fly?

If George Bush had told the American people he was invading Iraq because the world needed access to Iraqi oil, does he sell the war? How does the NHL sell early free agency? They declare a competitive balance problem by pointing to payroll disparity. They confuse big market and big revenue. They make Edmonton a poster boy. They sell the need for a salary cap like George Bush sold weapons of mass destruction. Then they "reluctantly" trade earlier free agency to get the cap.

It is an incredibly cynical view - so cynical I have difficulty swallowing it myself - but it fits the available facts far better than any other explanation. If they really cared about small markets revenue sharing and free agency delayed as long as possible should be at the top of their list.

Tom

 

[CarlRacki]

Actually, that wasn't my question.

"Simple economics" dictates that a cap equalizes spending, NOT revenues.

Without revenue sharing, the cap will do nothing to boost the revenues of small market teams, which is the real issue since none of them had high payrolls to begin with.

You stated that the rich teams want a cap because it will allow them to keep their excess revenues.

So again, how are the small market teams saved by a cap that doesn't boost their revenues?

I'm not sure it does "save" those teams other than allowing them to put a better, more competitive product on the ice and perhaps boost their revenues as a result. However, I would argue that if those teams, given a more level playing field and some modicum of cost certainty, still cannot compete then they shouldn't exist.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

How does free agency at 27 without a cap give an illusion of comp balance? Thats exactly the opposite.

Well, that's what I said. Without a cap there is no illusion. With the cap, there is. Baseball does very well but there is no illusion. People complain but Boston-New York playoff series does boffo business. People complain but watch. In hockey people complain and don't watch.

Tom

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

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.

Sure it can. It controls it by delaying free agency. These players eventually move, but not until the best part of their career is over.

Tom

 

[grego]

People with Baseball may watch in the US

But look at the effect of free agency and no real cap to Canada and it is different ( very similar to how it is in the US where hockey isn't a past time )

The Blue Jays can field a competitive team at all, and have lost a ton of fan support. Where I live in Canada if you take away the old retired Grandparents from the fanbase of active people watching the team their ratings would be really bad.

If a team is unable to compete people will not watch it as much. ( Though I will admit baseball has many other issues hurting its chances that are beyond the board here. Like not enough teams making the playoffs. Let 16 teams into the baseball playoffs so there are more getting in. And you would find many more people caring again, if their team even had a shot. )

 

[txomisc]

How on earth does the league sell earlier free agency to fans across the league without a cap? They announce they want earlier free agency so that the bigger markets can get access to the league's brightest young stars? How would that fly?

If George Bush had told the American people he was invading Iraq because the world needed access to Iraqi oil, does he sell the war? How does the NHL sell early free agency? They declare a competitive balance problem by pointing to payroll disparity. They confuse big market and big revenue. They make Edmonton a poster boy. They sell the need for a salary cap like George Bush sold weapons of mass destruction. Then they "reluctantly" trade earlier free agency to get the cap.

It is an incredibly cynical view - so cynical I have difficulty swallowing it myself - but it fits the available facts far better than any other explanation. If they really cared about small markets revenue sharing and free agency delayed as long as possible should be at the top of their list.

Tom

this is completely pointless
ill never convince you of the truth and youll never convince me that your insanity is actually truth
whatever. you arguements consist of no real evidence and no common sense

 

[shnagle]

In theory I would also hope that the smaller market teams could grow their fan base simply by being more competitive. The reality is that these are small market teams because they are small markets and absent revenue sharing from bigger markets or an additional source of revenue such as a real tv contract these markets will continue to lose money under a hard cap. While the league will achieve cost certainty with a cap, they also need revenue certainty for these smaller markets.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

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.

wtf .. are you drunk ???

Comrie didnt want to play in EDM, for the reasons you described, did i say otherwise other than to suggest it was his human right to not sign a new contract in EDM ?

i live within 2 hours of EDM, i dont consider myself uninformed of their market issues.

dr

 

[CarlRacki]

Sure it can. It controls it by delaying free agency. These players eventually move, but not until the best part of their career is over.

Tom

Delaying free agency makes Los Angeles a less attractive place to live? It makes playing for Montreal less special place to play? What are you talking about??

As for free agency, once again it is in the league's best interests to delay and limit free agency as much as it can. Despite your conspiracy theory -- a theory, by the way, for which you have no proof -- history bears this out. This is why every professional sports league has fought unencumbered free agency tooth and nail, even all the way to the US Supreme Court.

 

[shnagle]

But doesn't the league claims it needs a cap for its cost certainty in order for small market teams to survive. I would argue that without meaningful revenue sharing or an alternative revenue source(like a TV contract) that a hard cap only makes things worse for a small market team.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

so Daniel Alfredsson will never forego that to sign with Ottawa, or Naslund in Vancouver?

I'm not sure how this scenario plays out in most cases, in part because outside of a Gretzky or Messier, how many marketing opportunities are there for these guys really? Is Jovo going to be selling cars and chocolate bars in Miami??

Jovanovski's wife and family is in Florida. It is hard to say how many marketing opportunities there are. Right now, there aren't many, but right now, the major markets don't have anyone worth giving that opportunity.

I don't mean to sound naive here as clearly many players (especially young single guys, or the guys married to supermodels/actresses) will flock to the big cities. I would suspect that other players might make different choices. a competitive team helps though, for sure

I agree that other players will make other choices, but that's okay. As long as many players hear the siren of the big market and flock, the Rangers will compete even if they don't draft and develop players.

Tom

 

[hockeytown9321]

Delaying free agency makes Los Angeles a less attractive place to live? It makes playing for Montreal less special place to play? What are you talking about??

As for free agency, once again it is in the league's best interests to delay and limit free agency as much as it can. Despite your conspiracy theory -- a theory, by the way, for which you have no proof -- history bears this out. This is why every professional sports league has fought unencumbered free agency tooth and nail, even all the way to the US Supreme Court.

Delaying free agency means when superstars reach UFA status, they're past their prime. Jerome Iginal is more marketable to TV execs if he plays in New York when he's 27 than if he's 31.

League's have gone to court to fight free agency becuase it drives salaries up. Sure, all leagues would love to have no free agency, but they can't put that genie back in the bottle. The next best thing is to limit salaries with a cap. I'm sure thats a huge part of why the NHL wants it. But there are other beneifts which I beleive they are aware of, and that they embrace.

 

[CarlRacki]

But doesn't the league claims it needs a cap for its cost certainty in order for small market teams to survive. I would argue that without meaningful revenue sharing or an alternative revenue source(like a TV contract) that a hard cap only makes things worse for a small market team.

It clearly does not make it worse. It cheapens the labor pool, allowing these teams to keep top-tier players they otherwise could not. How is that a bad thing?
The usual argument one gets around here is that the cap floor will force some teams to spend more than they're currently spending, thus hurting them. in most cases that's complete bunk.
Right now, that floor is $32 million. Only six NHL teams were below that last year. Two of those teams - Chicago and Minnesota - clearly have the markets and resources to exceed it. Atlanta certainly has the market for it. Pittsburgh has been well over that amount in the past and likely will in the future with a new arena and all the revenue streams that come as a result.
So, that leaves us with Nashville and Florida. Would the league be much worse off if these franchises couldn't cut it even with a cap? I think not.

 

[Cawz]

But doesn't the league claims it needs a cap for its cost certainty in order for small market teams to survive. I would argue that without meaningful revenue sharing or an alternative revenue source(like a TV contract) that a hard cap only makes things worse for a small market team.

I dont see how. As said above...

I'm not sure it does "save" those teams other than allowing them to put a better, more competitive product on the ice and perhaps boost their revenues as a result. However, I would argue that if those teams, given a more level playing field and some modicum of cost certainty, still cannot compete then they shouldn't exist.

This I agree with.

 

[hockeytown9321]

But doesn't the league claims it needs a cap for its cost certainty in order for small market teams to survive. I would argue that without meaningful revenue sharing or an alternative revenue source(like a TV contract) that a hard cap only makes things worse for a small market team.

Get used to this one falling on deaf ears.

So, if the league isn't demadning a cap for the best interests of the small markets(and as evidenced by your point, they're not), by process of elimination, they're looking out for the big markets. Seems logical to me.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Delaying free agency makes Los Angeles a less attractive place to live? It makes playing for Montreal less special place to play? What are you talking about??

It doesn't make these places less desirable. It merely puts them out of reach until the player is 31.

As for free agency, once again it is in the league's best interests to delay and limit free agency as much as it can. Despite your conspiracy theory -- a theory, by the way, for which you have no proof -- history bears this out. This is why every professional sports league has fought unencumbered free agency tooth and nail, even all the way to the US Supreme Court.

So why isn't the NHL fighting it tooth and nail? Why do they propose a timetable to reduce free agency by a year? Why did Bettman - not Goodenow - declare that the NHL was in favour of liberalising the free agent rules?

I agree there is no proof. It will be in the pudding. I'm betting that the owner's final offer is an offer that clearly helps big market teams more than small market teams.

Tom

 

[CarlRacki]

So why isn't the NHL fighting it tooth and nail? Why do they propose a timetable to reduce free agency by a year? Why did Bettman - not Goodenow - declare that the NHL was in favour of liberalising the free agent rules?
I agree there is no proof. It will be in the pudding. I'm betting that the owner's final offer is an offer that clearly helps big market teams more than small market teams.

Tom

Well, I guess we'll see then.
The NHL is offering a 12-month reduction on UFA as a concession. Concessions are frequently made during negotiations (despite what pro-PA folks say about the owners making none). They're throwing the players a bone, that's all.

 

[Cawz]

Delaying free agency means when superstars reach UFA status, they're past their prime. Jerome Iginal is more marketable to TV execs if he plays in New York when he's 27 than if he's 31.

Where are you getting this age 27 from?

It merely puts them out of reach until the player is 31.

But many players are traded away due to salary concerns prior to age 31. That "age 31" arguement is very misleading. What about the 26 year old holdout, looking at the other markets giving the big salaries.

 

[grego]

Personally I think the NHL offered the year off UFA for one reason.

If you kick a guy in the balls, he may at least feel a bit better if you give him a small gift after.

The NHL knew the PA would hate to see a Cap in the proposal so they took one year off the age for UFA.

 

[CarlRacki]

Where are you getting this age 27 from?
But many players are traded away due to salary concerns prior to age 31. That "age 31" arguement is very misleading. What about the 26 year old holdout, looking at the other markets giving the big salaries.

Or what about the 26-year-old who's headed for arbitration where he'll get a salary his team cannot afford, forcing the team to trade him for prospects?

Also, the implication that a player is somehow less valuable past the age of 31 is ridiculous. Nicklas Lidstrom has won three Norris Trophies since his 31st birthday. Martin Brodeur picked up a couple of Vezinas past the age of 31. Dom Hasek won four of them, plus a pair of Hart Trophies, after he turned 31. Who wouldn't have taken a 32-year-old Patrick Roy? A 31-year-old Joe Sakic scored 118 points a few years back. Peter Forsberg turned 31 this summer. I'd take my chances with that washed up old man on my team.
Need I go on?