Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)

[Morgoth Bauglir]

The Hindenburg?

Why not? The season's going down in flames afterall

 

[Fugu]

The Hindenburg?

You just know I'd name it the Bettmenburg if this were left up to me.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Chicago, Philly, Pittsburgh, Boston, Detroit, Washington, Rangers.

I think you're making an assumption as to why they don't show Canadian teams. The Canadian media (TSN/RDS/CBC/SN) seem to have the best games there covered already. I can watch almost every game between a Canadian club and one of those 7 teams.

No I was showing why the argument that big market/popular teams don't need to be front and center is specious. They are the most marketable brands and the biggest money markers. The MLB gets that.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

You just know I'd name it the Bettmenburg if this were left up to me.

Of course

 

[Killion]

Heres the original... major loss of
confidence after that one as well.

Hindenburg - May 6, 1937

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Heres the original... major loss of
confidence after that one as well.

Hindenburg - May 6, 1937

Can I get a light?

 

[ottawah]

I'm trying to be nice here. You really believe the MLB players association would accept a salary cap where big market teams are capped? Go look at the amount of money being spent in Major League Baseball this winter. There is no cap. The luxury tax begins at $178M. The salary cap is so much better

OK, if the previous poster was correct that the current pay out rate in MLB is 42% (I thought it was 46%), then the players would receive an immediate 20% raise in MLB. Every player.

Do you honestly believe that the MLB players would not vote for a 20% raise?

Its not that its a cap, its also a guarantee. The NHL deal would guarantee MLB players more than they have ever made before.

I cannot think of anyone, in any profession, that is given the chance to get a 20% raise would not go for it.

 

[Killion]

Can I get a light?

Not safe... but How Many More Times
before they get it right? 2017? 2024? 2031?

 

[Timmy]

Babe, I'm gonna leave you...

 

[Butch 19]

Those players will want to be paid as well. I am from Detroit which is one of the best run franchises in all of sports. Unfortunately their hands are tied due to the cap. They are now just another mediocre team among many mediocre teams. This is a direct result of catering to sunbelt teams.

There's nothing mediocre about today's hockey. It's hard hitting and fast, and some of the best hockey I've ever seen. After the "rule changes" after the last lockout, the calling of obstruction and interference really opened up the game - speed meant something again.

Claiming that "mediocre hockey is a direct result of catering to sunbelt teams" is just sour grapes and/or making excuses for teams that lose in the playoffs.

The game has never been better.

So, Detroit is now "just another mediocre team among many mediocre teams?" yeah, that's a shame

 

[DuklaNation]

Heartbreaker . . . but that was on #2.

 

[Actual Thought*]

Love it when billionaires lobby for parity to keep labor costs down... while paying off politicians to destroy parity in every other walk of life

Agreed. Funny, I am slightly interested in the process here but I really have less interest in supporting the league each day.

 

[deytookerjaabs]

Babe, I'm gonna leave you...

Well, your time is gonna come and as for me; good times, bad times, you know I've had my share.

 

[Actual Thought*]

There's nothing mediocre about today's hockey. It's hard hitting and fast, and some of the best hockey I've ever seen. After the "rule changes" after the last lockout, the calling of obstruction and interference really opened up the game - speed meant something again.

Claiming that "mediocre hockey is a direct result of catering to sunbelt teams" is just sour grapes and/or making excuses for teams that lose in the playoffs.

The game has never been better.

So, Detroit is now "just another mediocre team among many mediocre teams?" yeah, that's a shame

There were many more years the Wings didn't win the cup pre cap than years they did. However guys like Forsberg and Federov were second line players in their prime. No team in the NHL has that much talent today. Every cup won since the cap has been a cheapened championship. That includes the Wings in 08. Every record set by a player or team is cheapened by rule changes designed to make them easier to achieve and should have an asterisk next to them. Parity by definition is anti competition. Sports are about competition. Your right though, it is fast and hard hitting which is evidenced by all the head injuries running rampant through the league.

 

[THW]

So why do players sign with Buffalo or Ottawa?

And actually who has put a cap on spending to create a better team in a market that won't support it? Which are those markets?

Ottawa and buffalo are nice places or are close to areas that have culture centers and nightlife and money. They are not war zones and husks full of dilapidated buildings and crime. As far as the cap, that is why its in place, to allow the teams with bad management/bad owners/bad markets to play on a level field, when they should not be playing at all...

 

[atomic]

Ottawa and buffalo are nice places or are close to areas that have culture centers and nightlife and money. They are not war zones and husks full of dilapidated buildings and crime. As far as the cap, that is why its in place, to allow the teams with bad management/bad owners/bad markets to play on a level field, when they should not be playing at all...

well you could go back to having only 6 teams in the league. maybe then you wouldn't need a cap.

 

[smackdaddy]

Everytime I hear advocates of a cap-less league I'm reminded the only reason they would ever want to go back is so they could reclaim their unfair advantages. Once I've realized this, I've understood that every justification behind it is moot because their opinion is steeped in self-interest rather than in the interest of the league as a whole.

 

[Nab77]

There's nothing mediocre about today's hockey. It's hard hitting and fast, and some of the best hockey I've ever seen. After the "rule changes" after the last lockout, the calling of obstruction and interference really opened up the game - speed meant something again.

Claiming that "mediocre hockey is a direct result of catering to sunbelt teams" is just sour grapes and/or making excuses for teams that lose in the playoffs.

The game has never been better.

So, Detroit is now "just another mediocre team among many mediocre teams?" yeah, that's a shame

Yeah the Yotes definately played some the most entertaining hockey I've ever seen last season

 

[Dado]

You can't have superheros without having super villains.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

Heres the original... major loss of
confidence after that one as well.

Hindenburg - May 6, 1937

I don't even see that as the Hindenburg anymore. It's the cover of Led Zeppelin I

 

[Melrose Munch]

Ottawa and buffalo are nice places or are close to areas that have culture centers and nightlife and money. They are not war zones and husks full of dilapidated buildings and crime. As far as the cap, that is why its in place, to allow the teams with bad management/bad owners/bad markets to play on a level field, when they should not be playing at all...

well you could go back to having only 6 teams in the league. maybe then you wouldn't need a cap.

We had a cap with 30 teams for 4 years and expanded without a cap. With a cap, ratings are just slightly better. No one has shown parity has lead to increased TV ratings yet.

Everytime I hear advocates of a cap-less league I'm reminded the only reason they would ever want to go back is so they could reclaim their unfair advantages. Once I've realized this, I've understood that every justification behind it is moot because their opinion is steeped in self-interest rather than in the interest of the league as a whole.

You got your rich owner SM. Time for Oilers fans to get off that, its 2012, you have the dollar, you have Katz. If you are still afraid of a cap less league maybe the players aren't the problem.

 

[Positive]

The players don't owe the all mighty business owners the right to exploit their god given talent at whatever price they demand either. There are very few people who can do what NHL players can do and therefore they are the attraction. Would you pay to watch some 80 year old billionaire do anything? I would not. It is also worth noting that players in pro sports are no longer playing just for fun. They are basically treated like race horses. If they can be cobbled together with duct tape and chewing gum they are expected to play. Many have extreme health issues after their careers. Many die very young due to these issues.

If the owners aren't made to feel some pain with this lockout they will come back next time with another lockout. They will cry poor and it will never end. Personally I live in a hockey market. My team is a very successful business. Unfortunately they have plummeted as a result of a system designed to support unsuccessful ill advised businesses. As a fan I have been forced to accept rule changes that I don't like, parity that I see as a disease, and 2 lockouts in order to support rich morons who bought sunbelt hockey teams that will never garner more than casual interest. I am fed up.

To me it doesn't matter how 'rare' the skillset is. Some Olympic athletes have even rarer skillsets and most of these athletes make garbage for their 'god given talents'. It's about the sheer entertainment dollars that the NHL pulls in...or lack thereof, which should determine how much players 'deserve' to get paid.

Some like to argue that pro athletes are overpaid, perhaps EMTs or civil servants perform more important/dangerous duties and get paid less, etc. etc. I'm not going to go that route.

Instead I'll just say NHL players are overpaid simply because 1) the sport doesn't bring in the kind of entertainment dollars that justifies their premium pay, and 2) the next best-paying league, the KHL, pays a fraction of the salaries the NHL does.

If the NHL was the top dog in North American sports revenues, instead of bottom dog, then I'd say go ahead...pay the players whatever they like. But they aren't. Crap tv ratings, no traction in non-traditional markets, etc.

I find it shaky to argue that NHL players deserve to be paid a certain amount because they are akin to a rare, extremely desirable commodity....yet at the same time argue that there is casual or no interest in the commodity itself to a large portion of the populace.

As far as the 'danger pay' thing..no pro sport is in the top 10 as far as fatality rates (fishing, lumbering, mining and other laboring jobs have the highest rates), and I think post-career quality of life is probably better than you make it out to be as well.

Do professional athletes deserve to be well compensated? Sure they do. NHL players? Sure. But to what extent? For the reasons above, I'd say a $2 million average salary would be fine at this point. That can go up in the future if the television ratings stop losing out to sitcom reruns, episodes of Honey Boo Boo, dog shows, and whatever else.

 

[Melrose Munch]

So why do players sign with Buffalo or Ottawa?

And actually who has put a cap on spending to create a better team in a market that won't support it? Which are those markets?

And what major a-list free agents have gone to Ottawa. Notice I meant elite or big time, don't post minor players in response. Buffalo is never anyone's first choice.

 

[Melrose Munch]

To me it doesn't matter how 'rare' the skillset is. Some Olympic athletes have even rarer skillsets and most of these athletes make garbage for their 'god given talents'. It's about the sheer entertainment dollars that the NHL pulls in...or lack thereof, which should determine how much players 'deserve' to get paid.

Some like to argue that pro athletes are overpaid, perhaps EMTs or civil servants perform more important/dangerous duties and get paid less, etc. etc. I'm not going to go that route.

Instead I'll just say NHL players are overpaid simply because 1) the sport doesn't bring in the kind of entertainment dollars that justifies their premium pay, and 2) the next best-paying league, the KHL, pays a fraction of the salaries the NHL does.

If the NHL was the top dog in North American sports revenues, instead of bottom dog, then I'd say go ahead...pay the players whatever they like. But they aren't. Crap tv ratings, no traction in non-traditional markets, etc.

I find it shaky to argue that NHL players deserve to be paid a certain amount because they are akin to a rare, extremely desirable commodity....yet at the same time argue that there is casual or no interest in the commodity itself to a large portion of the populace.

As far as the 'danger pay' thing..no pro sport is in the top 10 as far as fatality rates (fishing, lumbering, mining and other laboring jobs have the highest rates), and I think post-career quality of life is probably better than you make it out to be as well.

Do professional athletes deserve to be well compensated? Sure they do. NHL players? Sure. But to what extent? For the reasons above, I'd say a $2 million average salary would be fine at this point. That can go up in the future if the television ratings stop losing out to sitcom reruns, episodes of Honey Boo Boo, dog shows, and whatever else.

This is a fair argument. They should not really be paid that much since to be blunt the NHL is a paupers league.

 

[CP]

My guess is this is just posturing by the PA and they won't go too far with desolving the union because of the risk of voided contracts, which my non-legal opinion is quite likely to happen.

If I were the owners, and if the contracts were legally voided, I'd explore a system where all players are hired by the NHL, not individual teams, and then dispersed to teams via a draft after having already signed an NHL contract. Players would have to play for the team they were sent to, or leave the league. Then competition wouldn't be between each team to get the best players, but between leagues (KHL, SEL, etc). I think the NHL would still be attractive to the worlds best players.

I'd also like to see all player have to sign the same basic non-guaranteed contract to play for each season - lets say for 500,000 - and then receive a ranking and large bonuses based on their play for that season at the end of the season. So the player ranked #1 by a knowledgeable panel may get a $9 million bonus. The #2 player might get a $8.9 million bonus, all the way down to the worst players who would not get any bonus over their base pay.

These are just a couple pipe-dream ideas, but I doubt it will ever come to that. As I mentioned above, I think the union is bluffing. I don't think the union will fall apart and allow ideas like these to be seriously explored. They have too much too lose.