Leonsis comments on Caps profitability

Chimaera

same ol' Caps
Feb 4, 2004
30,888
1,713
La Plata, Maryland
The Red Wings strength was their depth. Yes they had Yzerman, Fedorov, Shanahan and Lidstrom as superstars. But it was guys like Doug Brown, Kozlov, Draper, McCarty, Larry Murphy who were the reason they won. And those are the type of players who teams will lose becuase of the cap. There will always be teams willing to overpay for those types of players, much like what happened when Lapointe was signed by Boston.

And what's wrong with that?

If a team is willing to overpay a role player, or a depth guy, they are going to be less competitive.

You could argue their depth got them places, but at some point you still have to have good players at the top end to carry the team. Yes, it would have significantly hurt the team losing players of that caliber... but in the past they would've just gone out and replaced the guy by throwing money at it. Now the onus is on the team to find cheap, affordable, younger players who can do the same. It is based now on a matter of GM skill and front office talent (not to mention luck and player development by coaches) as opposed to just how many dollars you could throw at the problem. What's wrong with that?
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
Wanting equal basis for operation and the good of the league is not selfish, wanting your own favorite team to have a financial advantage over others while hurting the league is selfish.

It's all semantics anyway, here's the definition of Merriam-Webster:

1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>


Small market fans don't want an advantage for themselves, they don't want well-being WITHOUT regard for others.

If small market teams don't want an advantage for themselves, then this whole argument is moot. The advantages they realize throught the salary cap and revenue should be eliminated. Surely those small market fans, unselfish as they are, will merrily agree. They would never attempt to seek and advantage for themselves.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
If small market teams don't want an advantage for themselves, then this whole argument is moot. The advantages they realize throught the salary cap and revenue should be eliminated. Surely those small market fans, unselfish as they are, will merrily agree. They would never attempt to seek and advantage for themselves.
Since we are twiddling with words now, let me throw in my two cents.

Is the seeking of the removal of a disadvantage an "advantage"?

Weary, you would seem to say "yes".

I and others would disagree.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
If small market teams don't want an advantage for themselves, then this whole argument is moot. The advantages they realize throught the salary cap and revenue should be eliminated. Surely those small market fans, unselfish as they are, will merrily agree. They would never attempt to seek and advantage for themselves.

What part of the definition of 'selfish' you didn't get?

concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

Small market fans are NOT seeking on their own advantage WITHOUT regard for others.

Try again.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
And what's wrong with that?

If a team is willing to overpay a role player, or a depth guy, they are going to be less competitive.

Whats wrong is teams who draft well will be hurt. Other teams over-paying for any of your players obviosuly directly impacts your team and drives up prices for everyone else.

You could argue their depth got them places, but at some point you still have to have good players at the top end to carry the team. Yes, it would have significantly hurt the team losing players of that caliber...

Yes, it would've significantly hurt them. Instead of 3 Cups, they'd have none.

but in the past they would've just gone out and replaced the guy by throwing money at it. Now the onus is on the team to find cheap, affordable, younger players who can do the same.

But they already did find that cheap, young, affordable talent. Another team came in and made them unaffordable. Shouldn't the onus be on the other team's GM to develop that young, affordable talent for themselves? Or are a handful of teams responsible for developing everyone just like they're responsible for subsidizing the league?
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
Whats wrong is teams who draft well will be hurt. Other teams over-paying for any of your players obviosuly directly impacts your team and drives up prices for everyone else.

Teams who draft well will still be successful under NHL. It's just not enough, you have to be a good trader and manage assets constantly as well.
 

Chimaera

same ol' Caps
Feb 4, 2004
30,888
1,713
La Plata, Maryland
Whats wrong is teams who draft well will be hurt. Other teams over-paying for any of your players obviosuly directly impacts your team and drives up prices for everyone else.



Yes, it would've significantly hurt them. Instead of 3 Cups, they'd have none.



But they already did find that cheap, young, affordable talent. Another team came in and made them unaffordable. Shouldn't the onus be on the other team's GM to develop that young, affordable talent for themselves? Or are a handful of teams responsible for developing everyone just like they're responsible for subsidizing the league?


You act like its just 2 or 3 teams who are the only ones who draft well.

There are more players in the NHL who are worth something beyond the guys Detroit drafts in the 111th round.


You'd really have a leg to stand on if the NHL did not protect players rights for 7 years. Teams get 7 years out of players and then they still have the option of signing them.

The point you don't seem to want to rationalize is that all teams can still have ample opportunity to go out and compete for Free Agents. The main reason behind the hard salary cap is so (read this slowly please) No team has a specific advantage as far as money is concerned for players. There is no New York Yankees who can just pay triple what everyone else can pay. Every team in the NHL can basically afford similar amounts. Therefore, it is possible for a smart GM to build a team since everyone is on the same playing field. If a GM only drafts well, they will end up uncompetitive at the end cycle of an influx of talent. A GM must do more than just draft well and overpay everyone.

A team that develops players is still going to have a significant advantage over teams that drafts poorly. If your GM is smart, they could go out and deal players they feel they can replace/can't afford, for more assets to repeat the cycle of development. If your GM is a genius at drafting players, then trade players who are closing in on free agency for picks, and start over. If that player is so irreplaceable, then lock that player up and keep the core guys around. Drafting well provides a franchise with assets they can move and convert into players at key need areas, or provide the pipeline of cheaper, younger talent. But a team must trade well, and sign cost effectively.

It really isn't that hard to grasp.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
....The point you don't seem to want to rationalize is that all teams can still have ample opportunity to go out and compete for Free Agents...

who cares, under the old CBA there was no reason to go out and sign expensive free agents. it did NOTHING to help you win.

TOR, NYR and PHI were the main free agent spenders, and could hardly make the final 4, if even they made the playoffs.

Just look at the finalists over the last 5 or 6 years of the last CBA, none of those teams were built by signing expenses free agents. There were some signed, but they hardly were teams built around that philosophy.

A myth. A big who cares. I didnt care when my team didnt sign anyone, enough with all the penis envy, signing free agents meant very little in the scheme of building a winner.
 
Last edited:

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
Since we are twiddling with words now, let me throw in my two cents.

Is the seeking of the removal of a disadvantage an "advantage"?

Weary, you would seem to say "yes".
No, not the seeking of, but removing a disadvantage is the same as gaining an advantage.

These two sentences carry the same meaning:
  • "Small-market teams no longer have the disadvantage of operating in a league without a salary cap."
  • "Small-market teams now have the advantage of operating in a league with a salary cap."

I and others would disagree.
I am a bit puzzled as to why you are relying upon argumentum ad populum to make your case.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
What part of the definition of 'selfish' you didn't get?

concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

Small market fans are NOT seeking on their own advantage WITHOUT regard for others.

Try again.

There were two statements that started this whole discussion. Consider Ogopogo's original statement: "Ultimately, I don't care what the real reasons are for the cap, it benefits me as a fan because my team can keep players and compete, I like it." And also your support of that statement: "Fans of small market teams have every reason to be happy about the new CBA."

Both statements are focused on the pleasure of small-market fans under the new CBA. Neither of the statements showed regard for anyone other than small-market fans. Hence, both fit the very definition you have provided.
 

burstgreen

Registered User
May 11, 2006
125
0
Boston
These two sentences carry the same meaning:
  • "Small-market teams no longer have the disadvantage of operating in a league without a salary cap."
  • "Small-market teams now have the advantage of operating in a league with a salary cap."

That's odd, as I agree wiht the first sentence, but don't agree with the second. If they have an advantage, that advantage must be relative to someone else.

For example, lets say we're in a two team hockey league, and Team A plays Team B every game, but Team A always gets to start each game with two goals, so Team A has an advantage. Let's call it the "free goal rule." Let's say the league takes away that rule and the teams start the games even.

Your sentences:
  • "Team B no longer has the disadvantage of operating in a league with the free goal rule." -- TRUE
  • "Team B now has the advantage of operating in a league without a free goal rule." -- FALSE

I would think same is true re: the salary cap.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
That's odd, as I agree wiht the first sentence, but don't agree with the second. If they have an advantage, that advantage must be relative to someone else.

For example, lets say we're in a two team hockey league, and Team A plays Team B every game, but Team A always gets to start each game with two goals, so Team A has an advantage. Let's call it the "free goal rule." Let's say the league takes away that rule and the teams start the games even.

Your sentences:
  • "Team B no longer has the disadvantage of operating in a league with the free goal rule." -- TRUE
  • "Team B now has the advantage of operating in a league without a free goal rule." -- FALSE

I would think same is true re: the salary cap.

Let's extend this thought experiment. Let's say the league not only had the "free-goal rule," but also the "man-down rule" wherein Team A had to play a man down the whole game. So Team A gets two free goals, but also must contantly play shorthanded. Now, as in the initial example, the free-goal rule is eliminated. Team A will no longer receive the extra goals, but will still play shorthanded.

Now are the same sentences true or false?:
  • "Team B no longer has the disadvantage of operating in a league with the free goal rule."
  • "Team B now has the advantage of operating in a league without a free goal rule."
 
Last edited:

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Let's extend this thought experiment. Let's say the league not only had the "free-goal rule," but also the "man-down rule" wherein Team A had to play a man down the whole game. So Team A gets two free goals, but also must contantly play shorthanded. Now, as in the initial example, the free-goal rule is eliminated. Team A will no longer receive the extra goals, but will still play shorthanded.

Now are the same sentences true or false?:
  • "Team B no longer has the disadvantage of operating in a league with the free goal rule."
  • "Team B now has the advantage of operating in a league without a free goal rule."

i dont know what point you are trying to make. the counter point is to claim that teams with high payrolls were never playing shorthanded or with any other encumbrance.

id simply like to say that, having the ability to hire old and expensive free agents was never an advantage anyway. the new CBA simply makes it easier for the NYR and TOR of the world to keep up with the OTT and COL type teams.
 

Chimaera

same ol' Caps
Feb 4, 2004
30,888
1,713
La Plata, Maryland
there are quality free agents who could have been signed. Just because some teams pick the wrong ones, does not mean in general it is a bad system or disadvantageous.


You don't throw the baby out with the bath water.



The caveat to all of the CBA, and any financial structure in the league is still the onus on having quality people in your management structure. If you don't have a good front office, good scouting and good coaching/player development, you're going to end up losing. In the past, teams could spend to overcome those difficulties. In this system, being able to pony up another 20 million to right a wrong isn't possible.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
Both statements are focused on the pleasure of small-market fans under the new CBA. Neither of the statements showed regard for anyone other than small-market fans. Hence, both fit the very definition you have provided.

I wasn't talking about some particular statement, I was talking about small-market fans in general.

So using the M-W definition, small markets fans are NOT selfish.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->