Is an uneven playing field indefensible?

[Jaded-Fan]

That is what this comes down to, for the fans here anyways, doesn't it? Not just in this sport but any sport. Those who come from big markets support a system that gives them a big advantage that allows them to enjoy the playoffs virtually every year (absent some really shoddy management - a certain team that rhymes with 'Dangers' comes to mind) and truely being favored to win it all year in year out. Those from mid-sized or smaller markets resent the advantage.

An observation:

First, it is obvious that if your team is from NY, no matter what the sport, you are going to have literally millions of fans more to draw from than almost any other team, to sell tickets to and to sell local cable rights to, not to mention things like merchandising and advertising. The same will be true in a handful of other markets, mostly the same ones in all sports, but in hockey add a couple in Canada too. If you live in one of those cities you have grown used to having a large advantage in money which makes monetary concerns have absolutely no bearing on your ability to field not just a competitive team but a virtual allstar team. You are used to making the playoffs as a god given right, and going deep into them, money has its privliges afterall. If you do not win it all for a couple of years it is a cause for city wide questioning. Now imagine the scenerio if you are not in a blessed city, a scenerio which baseball is in now and which hockey seems to have been heading, quickly. A mistake in contract signings that a big market could laugh off could hamstring your team for a decade. You watch players you saw come up from the minors and develope into something go to the big markets year after year and get back near nothing in return because it is all about the money, not the players. While the big name players go to those four or five places you fight over the real dregs, and overpay for them because of the trickle down of signings from big markets who have stupid amounts of money. You make the playoffs rarely (well, not in hockey where 2/3's of the teams make the playoffs, but in other sports) or exit first round more often than not because unless you catch lightening in a bottle, all star filled teams will beat you every time. Feeling the resentment? Blame the fans for that? And face it there are far more aggregate who face that second situation than there are in those four or five cities that can overspend. They make up the league, not the fans from those handful of places.

Now the questions:

1) If you are not a fan of the four or five teams in cities that have all of the advantages, why in the world would you spend your entertainment dollars supporting a sport that does not care a whit about you? Tickets are not cheap, at all, a family of four could easily end up spending close to $400 for a night at a game when food, merchandising, parking is thrown in. For what? The off chance that your team may get lucky one year? The perception that the scales are unfairly balanced makes anyone not in those four or five cities chumps for supporting such a system, doesn't it? Especially when there are other sports out there who keep the playing field even to various degrees. By a Cap. So give me reasons big city fans, why small or mid'sized city fans should support your continued extra helpings at the pig trough?

2) Wouldn't a 'fair' system where your on ice preformance depends on players and good management entirely and money is taken out of the equation per se grow the sport as a whole given the excitement that would be generated preseason as every team legitimately can think that it has a chance and off season where each team has the opportunity to make splash signings? How would true excitement league wide during the entire year dampen such excitement in big cities, the primary argument that I hear from apologists to the current system where there team has benefitted?

3) Conversly, doesn't an unbalanced system supress fan interest in all but that handful of cities that can buy all of the all stars from where it would be? If you are scrambling over John no name in 80% of the markets in the offseason, if you feel that your team is playing with a handicap year after year, how many fans will be lost out in those cities that hold 80% of the teams?

4) In short, if not from one of the cities who get to outspend merely because they have so many more people living there, why support anything but a Cap?

Click to read more...

 

[MarkZackKarl]

I am from Ottawa and I think it is idiotic to support a salary cap, probably because Im smarter than most and I understand how the league works.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

I am from Ottawa and I think it is idiotic to support a salary cap, probably because Im smarter than most and I understand how the league works.

Puh-lease. The peanuts in my poo have an intellectual advantage over you, especially when it comes to how the NHL works.

 

[Digger12]

I am from Ottawa and I think it is idiotic to support a salary cap, probably because Im smarter than most and I understand how the league works.

Only probably?

Nice to see you left yourself some room for margin of error. :lol

 

[gerbilanium]

I am from Ottawa and I think it is idiotic to support a salary cap, probably because Im smarter than most and I understand how the league works.

What a reply, we are all truely blessed to be graced with you presence. The fact you live in a city that derives 95% of it's gravy train lifestyle from the labour of the rest of Canada explains a lot though.

Good post Jaded but it will not convince any on the pro player side just the same as a well presented post from the pro-player side will not convince the other.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

As Bettman has said, this isn't about individual teams or markets it's about the league as a whole. If you think that a cap is the answer for the league, than so be it.

However, you have to remember that the only league with a true level playing field, about as level as it's going to get, is the NFL. And all though they do have a cap, they achieve a level playing field with an extensive revenue sharing program. So to me it seems like you should support revenue sharing rather than a cap. As far as small market teams are concerned, a cap only has a small affect on their financial situations. Yes, the overall price level will be lowered with a cap, allowing a small market to get some better players and field a better team. But an improved revenue sharing process is what will really put your small market team on a level playing field, which seems to be what you ultimately want. Remember, a cap may solve one problem for small market teams, salaries, but it doesn't solve the other problem, revenues. By what you are saying, the main thing you should worry about is revenue sharing, and that the NHL improves it even to the extent of the NFL's system. That would help your small market team more than anything. There are substitutes for a cap, there are other systems the NHL can run on that would eliminate the big markets signing everyone and anyone, so you don't need a cap. But there is no sub for revenue sharing, that is what you need

 

[MojoJojo]

Jaded, you sound like a socialist bleeding heart pinko commie with all this talk of fairness.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Yes, great post Jaded. One of the best in the past couple of weeks.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

As Bettman has said, this isn't about individual teams or markets it's about the league as a whole. If you think that a cap is the answer for the league, than so be it.

However, you have to remember that the only league with a true level playing field, about as level as it's going to get, is the NFL. And all though they do have a cap, they achieve a level playing field with an extensive revenue sharing program. So to me it seems like you should support revenue sharing rather than a cap. As far as small market teams are concerned, a cap only has a small affect on their financial situations. Yes, the overall price level will be lowered with a cap, allowing a small market to get some better players and field a better team. But an improved revenue sharing process is what will really put your small market team on a level playing field, which seems to be what you ultimately want. Remember, a cap may solve one problem for small market teams, salaries, but it doesn't solve the other problem, revenues. By what you are saying, the main thing you should worry about is revenue sharing, and that the NHL improves it even to the extent of the NFL's system. That would help your small market team more than anything. There are substitutes for a cap, there are other systems the NHL can run on that would eliminate the big markets signing everyone and anyone, so you don't need a cap. But there is no sub for revenue sharing, that is what you need

Revenue sharing does not stop an owner from spending out of pocket to 'win.' Remember most owners of teams in any sport do so for reasons other than profit, they can earn much more elsewhere. They do so for ego reasons mostly. Look at Steinbrenner. He has been hit and hit again with a luxury tax and may have player salaries approach a quarter billion dollars by the time the season starts.

Your model does not work for that reason, only a true salary cap would, though I would not mind one that allowed a range of spending as long as it was not a huge range. In other words, the floor could be to pluck a number 6 or 7 million less than the ceiling.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Jaded, you sound like a socialist bleeding heart pinko commie with all this talk of fairness.

I can feel the love . . .

And have missed going back and forth with you mojo . . .

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Puh-lease. The peanuts in my poo have an intellectual advantage over you, especially when it comes to how the NHL works.

I dont know whats funnier, an untelligent person or a person who thinks they are smart when they aren't.

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

The latter, of course. They tend to stick their feet in their mouths with much greater frequency and do so publicly, for all to ridicule.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

........... as a ps, baseball, the one place where a cap seems most firmly entrenched and where owners have most lost control of their game, even seems to be moving toward at least positioning for a salary cap run in 2006. Though I will believe it when I see it after the last baseball CBA sell out that led to even bigger gaps between the highest and lowest spenders:

The conspiracies in baseball

There's a couple conspiracies afoot in baseball. While baseball players are contemplating filing a collusion charge against the owners because numerous free agent offers came back almost identical, the players are missing a larger number on the horizon.

That number is 2006. In 2006, the current collective bargaining agreement, agreed to in August to avoid a strike, will expire. One aspect of this CBA is the agreement to not dissolve any franchises until after 2006. But I believe that the owners of major league baseball have, by and large, agreed to a conspiracy for, at least this off-season, guarantee that the owners will have the upper hand in negotiating a new CBA during the 2006 season. The owners want a salary cap, and realized far too late that it would be all but impossible to create one a la football and basketball with specific contracts currently in place for a number of years. Anyone on a contracted team could make the legal argument that the contract they signed was between with a specific team, not Major League Baseball, and therefore would not be subject to a contraction draft. The argument could be made they would be de facto free agents. Knowing the other owners, a bidding war could break out, and several players could wind up with contracts in the A-Rod range. That fear was real.

Rather than allow the players to hold the upper hand, the owners have apparently decided a different approach is necessary — make sure very few players have contracts past 2006. If the owners continue to reduce the number of players signed long-term, the salary cap could be strong-armed on players, especially if two teams get contracted. Players could be forced to swallow a bitter pill with the next CBA — non-guaranteed contracts. Football owners currently enjoy this luxury, along with a salary cap in the $70 million range. Right now, baseball's "luxury tax" starts at $117 million and moves up to $136.5 by 2006. Football teams have more players on roster and play 8 home games a season, not including pre-season or playoffs. Baseball teams play at least 81 games at home. Thirteen baseball teams exceeded the NFL salary cap this year, and the Yankees stand about double it right now. Baseball teams are claiming they aren't profitable, yet football is enjoying quite a bit of profitability as of late and expanded this past season. What's the difference? Cost containment. How was it achieved? Salary Cap.

http://www.contractbud.com/?article=apc_collusion

 

[Russian Fan]

To me an even playing is an illusion plain & simple. I can understand though people on small markets thinking & hoping that a cap or a stiff luxury tax would help them being an elite team someday.

People even me can turn statsinto our advantage , can put our beliefs into hard arguments that makes us think we have the truth but even if you look at the NFL & the NBA, it's like the NHL, INCOMPETENCY will always prevail !

We can find excuses that Colorado-Philly-Detroit-Rangers-Toronto is having the money to spend on their players but it's still the same thing after all. Best team with chemistry will win it all.

I don't want to go on specifics teams because this post will not be read properly & some will only focus on the $$$$ spending.

NFL :
This is perceive as the best equal field by fans but even if you have that ''even playing field'' you just see that competency & incompetency plays a big role in those franchises. + you can add WINNING DESIRE by the OWNER on why some franchise are not contenders since the '50's !

New England Patriots : Once the laughing stock of the NFL & when Bill Parcell & Bill Belichik came over, it change drastically the way this franchise was about to be & still is.

Cincinnati Bengals : never committed on winning & they still have a lot to come to be on the elite.

Washington Redskins : The NYRangers of the NFL, buying free agent over free agents does not change the fact like the NHL that you CAN'T BUY A TROPHY.

Detroit Lions : never committed to win even when Barry Sanders was on it & maybe things will change with Mariucci around.

Chicago Bears : one good year but aside from that they have it hard since forever.

Arizona Cardinals : Just start to rebuild the way it should but before that, it was patch over patch over bandaid.

NBA : Consider to have a luxury tax easily turn around by owners but still COMPETENCY & INCOMPETENCY + WINNING DESIRE by owners are still the major point on why some franchise are having success or not.

Boston Celtics : Since Larry Bird is gone, this franchise is going nowhere.

Toronto Raptors : coach over coach over coach & nothing changes.

Cleveland Cavaliers : before King James it was a hard time for them not there's hope.

Chicago Bulls : Jordan Era since then ......stink era

Los Angeles Clippers : Did they have a winning season in the last 20 years ??

I can go on & on but to me it's just obvious that an even playing field is just illusion. If it's giving hope to fans then why not but I just don't understand why some specific team fans are blaming the cba & not the staff of their specific franchise.

NHL :
Philly Flyers : committed to win , also huge ownership + the fact that WINNING is so important in that city in order to be recognize

New Jersey Devils : Once the laughing stock of the NHL (Mickey Mouse), Lou Lamoriello & David Conte change the face of this franchise to become a winning tradition in hockey. So few people just recognize that & prefer to point the Colorado's & Detroit of this league.

NYIslanders : Once a legacy since then, is it payroll or other teams payroll the problem or the hockey personal staff decisions that didn'T put the Islanders on top since the early 80's ?

NYRangers : so much blame on them , too much focus on their spending but the fact is that the Rangers are not trying to make other franchise having a hard time, they try to get a part of the huge MARKET call NEW YORK SPORTS AREA.

Pittsburgh Penguins : They decide to rebuild entirely + they made decision that are questionable & up to debate regarding some trades. Add to the fact that they have one of the worse arena lease of the league & you can understand why it's hell out there.

Boston Bruins : One of the most defendant of the salary cap ! YEah you heard me, the best owner who prefer PROFITS over his team. Boston fans knows it & it's laughable that this owners preach a cap when everything he's doing is to put money in his pocket.

Toronto MapleLeafs : One of the biggest market of this league & like the Rangers they try to satisfy to apetite of hungry & angry fans who wants one thing : WINNING !

Ottawa Senators : Having a ridiculous owner for years but build one of the most remarkable stock of players like the Nordiques in the 90's. A playing field won't change the fact that drafting, scouting is the main point why this franchise will be dominant for years to come. Maybe not 5-6 cups but on the top of the standings every year for the next decade. Will we blame them in 10 years when they sign contracts to keep their core like Colorado ?

Montreal Canadiens : Even with playing field that would have been in place in the 90's wouldn't have change the fact that the hockey personal staff was AWFUL : Réjean Houle was not an experience GM, André Savard was good in scouting but awful in finance. Look inside our house & you understand that's it's not players salaries fault if the Habs was so bad for 5-6 years.

Buffalo Sabres : Dominik Hasek was the main point of Buffalo's success back then. Since then you have a hockey staff that are prone to the status quo. Can we blame players salaries or no having a cap for that ?

Tampa Bay Lightning : A long rebuilding process with one of the good GM to do that but they change their GM to go to the next step & they are committed to winning. With 1 cup in their hands , can you say MISSION ACCOMPLISH !

Atlanta Thrashers : Too soon to speculate but the building process is fine & it should be a good franchise depending on how bad they will want to win it all.

Carolina Hurricanes : An example on how playing field is illusion, 1 season where chemistry was all together but for the last 20 years this franchise (Hartford-Caroline) was satisfied to put an OK team every season. Can you expect a cup thinking like this ?

Florida Panthers : Good thing to come with a franchise full of good prospects. Winning desire of the ownership will say a lot in the future.

Washington Capitals : I honestly don't know what to say , they tried the easy path of FREE AGENCY but like the Rangers, MONEY won't bring you a cup.

Detroit Red Wings : So much blame on them & I honestly can'T see why. Great draft team , great scouting + an owner who wants to retain their players. They've been a contender because of those great years of drafting. Now people blame them because they have the money to retain them. The last 2 years in Detroit just prove that money is not an issue. They try to patch with free agents or Jagr-Lang type of deal & since then the chemistry is not there anymore. Detroit will go on the rebuilding mode soon & they will patch things up to stay competitive but can you put them into stanley cup contenders ? certainly not !

St-Louis Blues : They have money & they don't care about other teams, it's another market where WINNING is everything but where is the success ?

Nashville Predators : small markets but also the teams on ice so far was just ok. Too soon to judge like Atlanta about how it will turn out but like the Thrashers WINNING DESIRE by the ownership will talk louder than a cap.

Columbus Blue Jackets : like Nashville , too soon to say but WINNING DESIRE will talk louder than a cap.

Chicago Black Hawks : Do we need to say more about WINNING COMMITMENT or is an even playing field would really change the course of this franchise ? Personne my mind is set.

Vancouver Canucks : A franchise that was going nowhere for a certain period of time until Brian Burke came along. Chemistry & building a team is the reason of the success of this franchise. Now they have the money to retain the core, can we blame them ?

Colorado Avalanche : Again so much blame for nothing. We're talking about a franchise that was in a rebuilding mode for close to 10 years & live on the success of those draft. They go from Quebec to Colorado because there was a market & most of all an ownership willing to retain this team together. Can we blame them ? When Sakic & Forsberg won't be back, can we really expect this franchise to be a contender ? like Detroit , it's gonna be rebuilding or patching mode.

Calgary Flames : Is it money or hockey personal staff that change this franchise around ? Call a bit of luck (Kiprusoff) but with a solid personal surrounding Mr.Sutter. You can see why COMPETENCY is such a factor more important than money.

Edmonton Oilers : It's tough to write about each team without insulting any fans because this post is not meant to do that but BAD TRADING, BAD DRAFTING, BAD SCOUTING had cost this franchise of having trouble more than money will ever do. An even playing field wouldn't have change this team anyway to be borderline make it or cut it playoff team.

Minnesota Wild : COMPETENCY is the RIGHT WORD for this franchise. Solid personal staff, solid scouting staff. Well an even playing wouldn't change the path of this franchise.

San Jose Sharks : They tried the money $$$$ way & it didn't work, they go through chemistry & team building & it clicked. How an playing would have change that ? They learn that money is not everything to suceed.

Dallas Stars : Again this ownership did the same thing that the Texas Rangers did , buying a cup is not that easy. In fact it's not possible yet in HOCKEY.

Los Angeles Kings : bad luck (Allison - Deadmarsh) stopped the process for this franchise that was about to be somehting good. Maybe not spectacular but good.

Anaheim Mighty Ducks : One run to the cup is not everything. You see why chemistry is so important on HOCKEY. Maybe Fedorov-Prospal was better on paper than Kariya-Oates but money won't give you success.

Phoenix Coyotes : Rebuilding seems over, we'll see how committed they will be the next few years with a new arena.


Just my 2 cents.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Russian Fan,

never said that good management is not key. I still fail to see where you addressed how having an unqual playing field helps the game. Remove any artifical prop ups and it is true, good management is the key. But you keep 80% of the fans thinking that their team starts out disadvantaged, that can only stifle the game's growth as fans basically shrug and turn off.

 

[Lionel Hutz]

.....

Ditto what jaded fan said above, you haven't addressed it.

Also, IMO, your assessments of at least half those teams are off base.

 

[Russian Fan]

Russian Fan,

never said that good management is not key. I still fail to see where you addressed how having an unqual playing field helps the game. Remove any artifical prop ups and it is true, good management is the key. But you keep 80% of the fans thinking that their team starts out disadvantaged, that can only stifle the game's growth as fans basically shrug and turn off.

Because Joe Fan does not want to believe that his GM's stink or that his owner do not try hard enough to put a competitive team on the ice. He prefer to look outside the box & since there's a lot of propaganda about FIXING THE STATE OF THE GAME, it becomes a good solution to not go further & be satisfied with the IF's & BUT's.

That's what I think at least.

 

[Lionel Hutz]

I dont know whats funnier, an untelligent person or a person who thinks they are smart when they aren't.

Perhaps the rest of us are not smart enough to understand what the point of this post is.

 

[Russian Fan]

Ditto what jaded fan said above, you haven't addressed it.

Also, IMO, your assessments of at least half those teams are off base.

Maybe I didn't adress it correctly but still I put arguments into it which is more than ''you're off base''.

Like I said, I'm in Montreal & even with the Houle & Savard era, I saw a lot of fans thinking outside the box & trying to find excuses outside the management & ownership.

 

[Lionel Hutz]

Maybe I didn't adress it correctly but still I put arguments into it which is more than ''you're off base''.

Like I said, I'm in Montreal & even with the Houle & Savard era, I saw a lot of fans thinking outside the box & trying to find excuses outside the management & ownership.

Perhaps "off-base" was a bit harsh, I did say that they were IMO. I suppose what I meant was simply that I would assess some of those teams differently.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Because Joe Fan does not want to believe that his GM's stink or that his owner do not try hard enough to put a competitive team on the ice. He prefer to look outside the box & since there's a lot of propaganda about FIXING THE STATE OF THE GAME, it becomes a good solution to not go further & be satisfied with the IF's & BUT's.

That's what I think at least.

Fine, let us say for arguments sake that I am deluding myself. Having more bucks does not help a team at all. It is an excuse used by the fans in 80% of the cities that do not have the advantage and shields the owners and managers from getting blamed for the poor management decisions that they make. How does a Cap not help the game then? Even more so? It would take that excuse away, wouldn't it?

 

[Russian Fan]

Perhaps "off-base" was a bit harsh, I did say that they were IMO. I suppose what I meant was simply that I would assess some of those teams differently.

You can do the exercise, it would be nice to compare & offer multiple views to the HF community.

 

[Cawz]

I dont know whats funnier, an untelligent person or a person who thinks they are smart when they aren't.

Does anyone else see the irony in this post?

How about instead of simply stating youre smarter than most, try posting something intelligent instead, then people will be able to see your brilliance first-hand.

You sound like one of those kids who is still in school, yet think they know everything about the real world. You might want to take yourself down a notch. We're all frustrated and miss the league, ok.

 

[Russian Fan]

Fine, let us say for arguments sake that I am deluding myself. Having more bucks does not help a team at all. It is an excuse used by the fans in 80% of the cities that do not have the advantage and shields the owners and managers from getting blamed for the poor management decisions that they make. How does a Cap not help the game then? Even more so? It would take that excuse away, wouldn't it?

Well this is just my opinion & I don't say I hold the truth but

#1 A cap won't stop paying the stars 7-10M$ IMO. Like the NFL , the stars are the product (IMO) & a cap won't prevent that

#2 If I can use Pittsburgh, does a cap help increasing revenues in your city ? So far you have the worst lease arena in the league so the reason of rebuilding is hoping that you will have money when your draft future stars will be actual stars. Think that instead of paying your stars 10M$ , you will be paying them 5M$.

It's still the same problem. If you have like 2 great D, a great 1st line for an average of 5M$ each it's 25M$ out of let's say a 45M$ hard cap.

Since your team would draft well , I suppose that some of your 2nd liner & some you #3-4 D are good enough to get 3M$. Since you are a contender in let's say 6 years , you want to go with veteran but veteran cap or not will cost you 1 to 1,5M$ but you can't get them because your young stars that you kept (for good reasons) to retain the core won't give you anymore space to get some great 3rd-4th veteran liner so you will go with you & hoping that they will progress faster.

+ you have a new arena now & your revenues goes up. The owners got money now but they can't spend it to get the missing pieces to be a strong cup contender so now you have a profitable Pittsburgh Penguins but that can't spend anymore.

Of course, I'm speculating a lot but my example is what could happen to the Ottawa Senators with a cap & could happen to your Penguins in a few years.

A luxury tax (a stiff one, let's stop thinking that luxury tax only equal = MLB tax for a second) + a very good revenu sharing program won't stop team committed to winning & will help team & owners that prefers profit over competitiveness to get their share.

An even playing field is when you have 30 GMs/Owners wanting to WIN BADLY & we know it's an illusion because of

#1 market doesn't put pressure to win
#2 owners are not into winning more than into having a sports franchise to show off.
#3 It's not everybody that winning is that important.

 

[Kodiak]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, and maybe someday one of our resident hard cap proponents will attempt to refute it. Large markets are grown. They are not just handed to a few select cities.

A winning team has a greater demand than a losing team. A greater demand not only leads to more tickets sold, but higher ticket prices without a significant drop in sales, higher rates for advertising on the ice/boards, more money from the local TV deal, more merchandise sold, etc. In short, a winning team will generate more revenue, so a winning team can spend more money and be considered a "large market" team. Money follows winning, in most cases, not vice versa. And winning teams are built by strong management. If there's one thing that the Rangers have taught us, it's that throwing money at problems does not work in hockey.

The main problem with this argument is that it assumes that the large market teams of today will always be large market teams. But let's look at the "large market" teams (aside from the Rangers): Colorado, Detroit, Dallas, Philadelphia, Toronto.

Toronto has a large, hockey-mad fanbase. They will always be a big hockey market, but they are an exception rather than the rule.

In Philadelphia, hockey was fairly dead between the Broad Street Bullies days and the Lindros trade. The Flyers were in financial trouble, but the Lindros trade created a stir in the city and the Flyers started winning again. Then after Lindros, a winning team, and a new arena were in place, the Flyers had revenue to spend again.

Dallas was not considered a bonafide hockey market at one time. After all, it was in Texas. But they had a team that won division titles and went deep in the playoffs, and what happened? The fans showed up and the team had money to spend.

Detroit was not spending wildly in the 80s when the team was bad. The attendence was still decent, but the prices were low because the team was bad. But they start winning and going deep into the playoffs, and suddenly the place is packed and the prices are rising. Then Detroit starts spending money.

Colorado is the most interesting to me. For a long time, Denver was not considered an NHL market. The Rockies were there in the late 70s/early 80s, but attendance was poor and the team failed miserably. They had to be moved to New Jersey. But once they transplanted a winning team into Denver, suddenly it's a large hockey market. They start raking in the revenue and can spend some of the money because they were winning, not because they were blessed with a great market.

But once the cores of these teams break down, they will start to lose, and the fans will stop showing up in such great numbers, so revenues will drop, and spending will decrease. Suddenly Colorado, Dallas, and Philadelphia are "small market" teams again. It happened to Pittsburgh, which was considered a great hockey market in Lemieux's heyday and had the highest payroll in the NHL in the early 90s.

But it goes the other way as well. New "large market" teams spring up. Look at Tampa Bay's attendance from the last four years:
2000-01: 14,906 per game (25th in the NHL, 75.4% capacity)
2001-02: 15,722 (20th, 79.6%, +816)
2002-03: 16,545 (16th, 83.7%, +823)
2003-04: 17,820 (12th, 90.2%, +1275)

These increases all happened before Tampa won the Cup, which usually leads to a huge boom in ticket demand and merchandise sales. Who's to say that Tampa was not going to be the next Colorado--a market previously considered small that hit it big through shrewd management?