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

[Boltsfan2029]

Has there been any talk of some form of arbitration? Seems the only way to get those guys to agree is to force them to

I can't believe either side would agree to binding arbitration. Too afraid to "lose."

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.

Interesting. There are lots of teams out there operating under a cap that aren't mediocre. Why can't one of the best run franchises excel under the same guidelines as teams that do excel under them?

So when NHL and NHLPA agreed to a new CBA back in 2005 with salary cap, how much of the deal was based on existing terms?

Well, I'm wondering now how in the world someone can say that deals are negotiated based of the prior deals and then look at the PA's offers and say they qualify. Seems to me those first 5 (well, OK, they were all basically the same as their first) were pretty far removed from the prior CBA. A total revamp of the system. So one has to wonder why they don't have to negotiate based off the old CBA, but the league does.

 

[Ducks DVM]

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.

Nonsense. Parity is about making sure the competition takes place on a level playing field without any undue advantages for any parties. It's like the Olympic swimmers from some countries having had the high tech swimsuits - it was no longer a fair competition. Everyone starts from the same point and sinks or swims on their own merits, not because they happen to have a financial advantage.

 

[Pepper]

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.

What exactly are you trying to argue here?

 

[Sydor25]

And this is why the owners would not vote "yes" to the NHLPA's proposal:

Darren DregerVerified‏@DarrenDreger

CBA term, contract length remain key issues,but, PA favors a $67.25 million cap,compliance buyouts and a cap on escrow.Huge hurdles for NHL.

Again, the NHLPA proposal will not reach 50% unless the HRR grows at a high rate.

https://twitter.com/DarrenDreger/status/280292522490736640

 

[Jaffray15]

If there's no season, I read something about this season contracts would be 'burned'.

So if a player signed a one year contract during the off season, they would become a FA the following year??

 

[NJDevs26]

Essentially that's what happened the last time...and guys on the last year of their contracts would also become FA. That's why a guy like Scott Niedermayer became a FA with one year left on his deal (2004).

 

[WhoozYerrDaddy]

Almost at 950 post Fugu.....do we have a good classic rock lyric picked out for the title of the new thread yet?

Would have to be 'Wont Get Fooled Again'

We'll be fighting in the street
With our children at our feet
And the morals that we worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Will sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Would have to be 'Wont Get Fooled Again'

We'll be fighting in the street
With our children at our feet
And the morals that we worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Will sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

And THAT is another great idea

 

[Butch 19]

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

hmm, yeah - file this under more sour grapes and/or making excuses for teams that lose in the playoffs.

:true story:

Yes, Phx was boring - but obviously not as boring as every team they beat in the POs.

 

[Ari91]

And this is why the owners would not vote "yes" to the NHLPA's proposal:




Again, the NHLPA proposal will not reach 50% unless the HRR grows at a high rate.

https://twitter.com/DarrenDreger/status/280292522490736640

They want a cap on escrow - if they're looking at the NBA, I wonder if they know that additional escrow isn't topped off by the NBA owners, it's taken out of the pension fund for the players. Essentially, the players have agreed to take all the money up front when they're young enough to easily make that money elsewhere, in favour of taking less money when they're old and retired and have little opportunities to make up the difference. So smart.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

And this is why the owners would not vote "yes" to the NHLPA's proposal:




Again, the NHLPA proposal will not reach 50% unless the HRR grows at a high rate.

https://twitter.com/DarrenDreger/status/280292522490736640

If I'm not mistaken, don't they also specify the cap would never drop below that figure, no matter the revenues?

 

[Ari91]

If I'm not mistaken, don't they also specify the cap would never drop below that figure, no matter the revenues?

I don't think they included that in their most recent proposal.

 

[Nab77]

hmm, yeah - file this under more sour grapes and/or making excuses for teams that lose in the playoffs.

:true story:

Yes, Phx was boring - but obviously not as boring as every team they beat in the POs.

Yeah I'm real sour about Phoenix having "success" after trying to win a playoff series for a decade+. Hey I've got nothing against Phoenix, just that winning or "parity" = entertainment.

 

[THW]

Nonsense. Parity is about making sure the competition takes place on a level playing field without any undue advantages for any parties. It's like the Olympic swimmers from some countries having had the high tech swimsuits - it was no longer a fair competition. Everyone starts from the same point and sinks or swims on their own merits, not because they happen to have a financial advantage.

Lets say this, you have an owner, he is wealthy enough by his own means to buy a team and fill it with the best players he can, the fans come in droves to watch a great team, run very well and who treats the fans and players with respect and admiration. If you tell the independently wealthy owner that he can only spend "X" amount on players and then he MUST give "X" amount of his profits, that he earned to other teams that are not run as well and who dont field a team that are capable of playing as well as the other teams in the league night in and night out, you are creating a league that doesnt support competition, its about a false parity. Parity is the downfall of sports, if you suck, why should you be rewarded? Not everyone is good, not every city deserves a team for whatever sport they want. If an owner cant afford to sign players, he should not be rewarded a crutch earned from other teams revenue. If you cant afford to field a team on par with the rest of the league, if the market does not support that team for any reason...you should not have a franchise, and to put a cap on the better run teams in markets that support those teams is dumb. Its the participation trophy. The owners that field teams and spend money and resources to put out a better product are being penalized for their success. If you want parity then why have a playoff? Why have a winner and loser for each game? Why have a trophy for the Champion of the League? Parity means no one is better or worse than anyone else and that is not sporting nor is it competition.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Lets say this, you have an owner, he is wealthy enough by his own means to buy a team and fill it with the best players he can, the fans come in droves to watch a great team, run very well and who treats the fans and players with respect and admiration. If you tell the independently wealthy owner that he can only spend "X" amount on players and then he MUST give "X" amount of his profits, that he earned to other teams that are not run as well and who dont field a team that are capable of playing as well as the other teams in the league night in and night out, you are creating a league that doesnt support competition, its about a false parity. Parity is the downfall of sports, if you suck, why should you be rewarded? Not everyone is good, not every city deserves a team for whatever sport they want. If an owner cant afford to sign players, he should not be rewarded a crutch earned from other teams revenue. If you cant afford to field a team on par with the rest of the league, if the market does not support that team for any reason...you should not have a franchise, and to put a cap on the better run teams in markets that support those teams is dumb. Its the participation trophy. The owners that field teams and spend money and resources to put out a better product are being penalized for their success.

The NFL would beg to differ.....and they're the benchmark of how a successful sports league is run.

 

[NinthSpoke06]

Lets say this, you have an owner, he is wealthy enough by his own means to buy a team and fill it with the best players he can, the fans come in droves to watch a great team, run very well and who treats the fans and players with respect and admiration. If you tell the independently wealthy owner that he can only spend "X" amount on players and then he MUST give "X" amount of his profits, that he earned to other teams that are not run as well and who dont field a team that are capable of playing as well as the other teams in the league night in and night out, you are creating a league that doesnt support competition, its about a false parity. Parity is the downfall of sports, if you suck, why should you be rewarded? Not everyone is good, not every city deserves a team for whatever sport they want. If an owner cant afford to sign players, he should not be rewarded a crutch earned from other teams revenue. If you cant afford to field a team on par with the rest of the league, if the market does not support that team for any reason...you should not have a franchise, and to put a cap on the better run teams in markets that support those teams is dumb. Its the participation trophy. The owners that field teams and spend money and resources to put out a better product are being penalized for their success.

If you don't like how professional sports in North America work, take your millions elsewhere and save your money. The only reason the big market teams revenue's are as large as they are is because the league is 30 teams big. If there were only 10 teams, those teams that have to share revenue wouldn't be making nearly as much money as they are now because they wouldn't have the big TV and sponsorship deals because less eyes would be seeing the product.

Well run teams can win at sports, by being just that, well run. Being able to throw an exorbitant amount of cash at any player in the league is not competition and takes no skill. That is the downfall of sports. That is why the MLB is struggling recently with viewership and attendance. I'll take the GM who was able to put together the best team facing the same rules as 29 other teams, over the GM who is able to throw the most money at players.

 

[KINGS17]

hmm, yeah - file this under more sour grapes and/or making excuses for teams that lose in the playoffs.

:true story:

Yes, Phx was boring - but obviously not as boring as every team they beat in the POs.

All other teams had to do to beat Phoenix was play the same up tempo game the Kings were playing with lots and lots of hits.

The idea that the salary cap promotes mediocrity is ludicrous.

 

[WildGopher]

Almost at 950 post Fugu.....do we have a good classic rock lyric picked out for the title of the new thread yet?

I just hope someone can come up with a title as good as the title for Thread #66 when this whole Coyotes sale saga hits Thread #666.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Lets say this, you have an owner, he is wealthy enough by his own means to buy a team and fill it with the best players he can, the fans come in droves to watch a great team, run very well and who treats the fans and players with respect and admiration. If you tell the independently wealthy owner that he can only spend "X" amount on players and then he MUST give "X" amount of his profits, that he earned to other teams that are not run as well and who dont field a team that are capable of playing as well as the other teams in the league night in and night out, you are creating a league that doesnt support competition, its about a false parity. Parity is the downfall of sports, if you suck, why should you be rewarded? Not everyone is good, not every city deserves a team for whatever sport they want. If an owner cant afford to sign players, he should not be rewarded a crutch earned from other teams revenue. If you cant afford to field a team on par with the rest of the league, if the market does not support that team for any reason...you should not have a franchise, and to put a cap on the better run teams in markets that support those teams is dumb. Its the participation trophy. The owners that field teams and spend money and resources to put out a better product are being penalized for their success. If you want parity then why have a playoff? Why have a winner and loser for each game? Why have a trophy for the Champion of the League? Parity means no one is better or worse than anyone else and that is not sporting nor is it competition.

Having the luck to have been an O6 team in a huge city with all the financial advantages it brings does not make a team "well run". Toronto, Montreal, and until recently Chicago and New York are all sterling examples of poorly run teams which simply have financial advantages due to circumstances. Allowing those teams to buy their way out of their ineptitude isn't competition, it's bullying. If those owners can't use their huge financial advantages to hire competent coaches, trainers, and scouting departments they don't deserve to win.

Also, as has been previously stated, the NFL model disagrees with you.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

I just hope someone can come up with a title as good as the title for Thread #66 when this whole Coyotes sale saga hits Thread #666.

I'm thinking a little Iron Maiden actually

 

[THW]

If you don't like how professional sports in North America work, take your millions elsewhere and save your money. The only reason the big market teams revenue's are as large as they are is because the league is 30 teams big. If there were only 10 teams, those teams that have to share revenue wouldn't be making nearly as much money as they are now because they wouldn't have the big TV and sponsorship deals because less eyes would be seeing the product.

Well run teams can win at sports, by being just that, well run. Being able to throw an exorbitant amount of cash at any player in the league is not competition and takes no skill. That is the downfall of sports. That is why the MLB is struggling recently with viewership and attendance. I'll take the GM who was able to put together the best team facing the same rules as 29 other teams, over the GM who is able to throw the most money at players.

The owners need no skill, they are money men and they are successful. As far as your MLB comparo, who are the most successful teams lately? Tigers...lots of money to put a good team on the field and fans support to make them financially successful. Yankees...same. Giants...same...Marlins...Red Sox...Rangers...Cardinals...all big teams that spend big money. You have to spend money to put out a good product, with a good product comes good fan support and good fan support means you are capable of sustaining yourself. The whole viewership and attendance being lower is something can be argued with bad economy, I bet if it was broken down by region, like Tigers being watched in Michigan, Yanks in New York, Boston, etc..viewership is roughly the same as always. People will watch a good team with good owners and management and the opposite see less support. Paying more for a team of great players makesother owners either spend more to put a better product on the field or fold. Thats basic business, make a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. See what kind of great player your GM uts on the ice if the owner says..."hit the cap floor so I dont get penalized and no more!" If you think that team is going to be a contender every year and fans will support that sub-par team, you are delusional.

 

[THW]

Having the luck to have been an O6 team in a huge city with all the financial advantages it brings does not make a team "well run". Toronto, Montreal, and until recently Chicago and New York are all sterling examples of poorly run teams which simply have financial advantages due to circumstances. Allowing those teams to buy their way out of their ineptitude isn't competition, it's bullying. If those owners can't use their huge financial advantages to hire competent coaches, trainers, and scouting departments they don't deserve to win.

Also, as has been previously stated, the NFL model disagrees with you.

The NFL is a smaller league with a better fanbase in a smaller area and more of their revenue sharing comes from an insanely great TV deal. If you check, you will see that the more successful teams are the teams that spend the money to put out the best product possible. Its not really the same.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

The owners need no skill, they are money men and they are successful. As far as your MLB comparo, who are the most successful teams lately? Tigers...lots of money to put a good team on the field and fans support to make them financially successful. Yankees...same. Giants...same...Marlins...Red Sox...Rangers...Cardinals...all big teams that spend big money. You have to spend money to put out a good product, with a good product comes good fan support and good fan support means you are capable of sustaining yourself. The whole viewership and attendance being lower is something can be argued with bad economy, I bet if it was broken down by region, like Tigers being watched in Michigan, Yanks in New York, Boston, etc..viewership is roughly the same as always. People will watch a good team with good owners and management and the opposite see less support. Paying more for a team of great players makesother owners either spend more to put a better product on the field or fold. Thats basic business, make a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.

Which completely misses the point that those owners are only competitors ON the field. They're business partners OFF the field. Sports leagues do NOT work like separate competing businesses ie. Wal Mart vs K Mart. They operate as complimentary franchises within a single business. Wal Mart would love to put K Mart out of business. McDonalds franchises are looking to put other McDonalds franchises (ie. their business partners) out of business.

 

[KINGS17]

The owners need no skill, they are money men and they are successful. As far as your MLB comparo, who are the most successful teams lately? Tigers...lots of money to put a good team on the field and fans support to make them financially successful. Yankees...same. Giants...same...Marlins...Red Sox...Rangers...Cardinals...all big teams that spend big money. You have to spend money to put out a good product, with a good product comes good fan support and good fan support means you are capable of sustaining yourself. The whole viewership and attendance being lower is something can be argued with bad economy, I bet if it was broken down by region, like Tigers being watched in Michigan, Yanks in New York, Boston, etc..viewership is roughly the same as always. People will watch a good team with good owners and management and the opposite see less support. Paying more for a team of great players makesother owners either spend more to put a better product on the field or fold. Thats basic business, make a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.

Yeah, it's even more fun when the guys building the mousetrap (GMs) have relatively the same set of tools and material to work with it constructing their team.

I understand it's a shame that the Red Wings or teams like them just can't buy any player they need in the off season, or make a trade at the deadline for whatever piece they happen to be missing without having to consider a salary cap.

Fans around the rest of the NHL really miss those days, I'm sure.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

The NFL is a smaller league with a better fanbase in a smaller area and more of their revenue sharing comes from an insanely great TV deal. If you check, you will see that the more successful teams are the teams that spend the money to put out the best product possible. Its not really the same.

Tell that to Danny Snyder and Jerry Jones.