New CBA bad for players?

[FlyersFan10*]

How many times did the Flames, Lightning and Ducks make the playoffs under the last CBA?

How many times did the Leafs, Red Wings and Flyers make the playoffs in the same stretch?

Ok, before you start dissing on the Flyers here, let's remember that if you go through the Philadelphia roster, the majority of the players were either drafted by the Flyers or were part of trades made. In turn, I will admit that the Flyers were able to keep the majority of their team in tact because they did have more revenue available to them.

However, why should Philadelphia be punished because they have been successful in terms of marketing, drafting, and spending. Everyone talks about "oh well Philadelphia is a large market and they can spend whatever they want" when really that isn't the case at all. They've acquired a lot of their talent through the draft and through trades. The fact that they are a large market team is irrelevant to their success because their success has come through good planning.

Unfortunately, professional sports has come to a point though where in order for teams to compete, they need a salary cap system in place. When one Canadian hockey teams pays taxes that total what all American teams pay COMBINED, you know that there isn't a level playing field. However, the biggest reason for a cap is to simply protect owners from themselves. Everyone blames the players for the financial mess the game is in, but the owners allowed it to spiral out of control.

Fact of the matter is that the players were gonna take up the bunghole this CBA, no matter what.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

Everyone blames the players for the financial mess the game is in, but the owners allowed it to spiral out of control.

That's not really true. When it comes to blame for the state of the league, the "players" are only on the hook for the fact that Goodenow and the agents were centrally coordinating salary demands causing the whole salary structure to be set by the highest paying teams. The rest of the blame still goes to those owners who spent more than revenues warranted.

But that's blame for the financial and competitive state of the league. That is VERY different for blame for the *lockout*, which the players are at least 95% responsible for if not more, for failing to admit what most people already knew, for using the future viability of the league as a bargaining chip for more money, for standing up for anachronistic principles only to cave on them later, etc etc etc. The league would have accepted today's deal two years ago. The PA needed to have sense beaten into them.

Owner negligence and centrally controlled salary negotiations on the PA's part broke the old system. But the PA seemed to think that means they must oppose every attempt to fix it, excusing their actions by "we didn't cause the problem". Since the "problem" manifested itself in 75% revenue going to player salaries, that refusal was greed on a grand scale, which the PA is now paying for.

 

[octopi]

Bad for players? Heck No

Not as nearly sweet as before? Well, duh

However it was pretty obvious salaries had to stop rocketing up sometime....

 

[Icey]

Actually it's bad for the players because the new deal will be worse than the deal the NHL offered before the drop dead date for the 2004-2005 season. Had they not been so boneheaded, they wouldn't be getting the shaft that they will be getting thanks to Bob......

let's see the deal is February had no arbitration, no revenue sharing, qualifying offers at 75%, and triggers that would kick in immediately and therefore revert back to Decemer 10th proposal, no system for declaring what is revenue and what is not, but heck it had a $42.5M cap.

The new deal has arbitration (baseball style), revenue sharing, qualifying offers at 100%, a system that both sides trust will determine revenue for each club and a 39.5M cap.

This is the better deal for the players.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

......under the old system Calgary couldn't have afforded to keep Iginla ...

huh ? they had no trouble keeping him at 13m for the last two seasons. CGY had no trouble affording Iginla.

dr

 

[Trizent]

THey kept him and lost money because of it.

 

[zeke]

Small market teams were always able to compete under the old system. Just look at Calgary, Tampa Bay and Anaheim.

Anaheim has made it to the playoffs 3 times in its 11 years.

Tampa Bay has made it to the playoffs 3 times in its 10 years.

Of course, neither of those teams are small market teams anyways. Those are mid-market teams.

Calgary is a small market team, though....and they've made it to the playoffs exactly once in the past 15 years.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

THey kept him and lost money because of it.

they didnt lose any money by having Iginla on their roster at that rate. sheesh.

dr

 

[zeke]

huh ? they had no trouble keeping him at 13m for the last two seasons. CGY had no trouble affording Iginla.

no trouble?

Iginla was nice enough to settle for less than market value, and not enough of a dick to hold out for more, like he easily could have.

Even then, Calgary struggled to be able to afford to even pay that.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Calgary is a small market team, though....and they've made it to the playoffs exactly once in the past 15 years.

CGY hasnt made the playoffs because of poor managment decisions. they lost money because of those same people.

having Smith, Housley, Kravchuk, Fuhr, Lowry, Bure and Vernon is what cost them so much money. Trading Giguerre and letting St Loius go were also big mistakes.

CGY is actually one of the best hockey markets in the world. I would say TOR is far and away the best market and CGY is not far behind. Never mind the fanatical hockey fans, but the economic conditions in the city are well documents. Lots of of corporate and personal wealth combined with hockey being the dominant sport means the market is healthy.

DR

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

no trouble?

Iginla was nice enough to settle for less than market value, and not enough of a dick to hold out for more, like he easily could have.

Even then, Calgary struggled to be able to afford to even pay that.

i disagree with your comment about CGY not affording him, but that aside ... why should Iginla be denied the opportunity to earn more if its out there ?

you think that just because he is a pro hockey player, that he should forgo extra million dollars like it was pocket lint ?

dr

 

[zeke]

GY hasnt made the playoffs because of poor managment decisions.

Meanwhile, the richer teams can make the same poor decisions, and still compete due to money.

CGY is actually one of the best hockey markets in the world.

In terms of revenue potential, Calgary is the smallest market in the NHL.

i disagree with your comment about CGY not affording him, but that aside ... why should Iginla be denied the opportunity to earn more if its out there ?

He should be free to earn as much as people are willing to pay him.

The NHL Owners are now collectively saying exactly how much they are willing to pay him.

you think that just because he is a pro hockey player, that he should forgo extra million dollars like it was pocket lint ?

Not in the least, I think he, and every other hockey player, should earn as much as they possibly can.

NHl growth and expansion, and the extra revenues they have brought in, have allowed these players' salaries to increase at a phenomenal level over the past decade.....which tells us one thing - that the best way for the most players to make the most money possible is to first make sure that there's a financially healthy league that is maximizing its revenues as a whole, which leads to them making the most money they can.

Salary escalation was quickly leading to a contraction situation, which woudl have reverted the NHL back to the small-scale level it was at a decade ago, and the players' salaries would have decreased accordingly.

Now, with a new CBA, the players can continue to make phenomenal salaries....with the guarantee of a large, financially stable league supporting those salaries, which ensures that all the players will continue to earn teh phenomenal salries that they deserve.

 

[kdb209]

let's see the deal is February had no arbitration, no revenue sharing, qualifying offers at 75%, and triggers that would kick in immediately and therefore revert back to Decemer 10th proposal, no system for declaring what is revenue and what is not, but heck it had a $42.5M cap.

The new deal has arbitration (baseball style), revenue sharing, qualifying offers at 100%, a system that both sides trust will determine revenue for each club and a 39.5M cap.

This is the better deal for the players.

Not better than the last real offer from the league (Feb 2) - 53-55% linkage, $40M cap, $29.8M floor (both excluding benefits - $42.2M cap / $32M floor with), enough revenue sharing to support a $30M floor, 50/50 profit sharing, a third of a season less of lost salary, 55% of '05 playoff revenue, and the players would be looking forward a 54% linkage to a much less damaged revenue stream.

The new CBA is not better than that.

And that was just the starting poinf from the league offer, not including any possibilities to have negotiated up from there.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

In terms of revenue potential, Calgary is the smallest market in the NHL.
.

back this up .... you clearly dont know the Calgary market if you belive this is true. but why dont you enlighten everyone how you came to this conclusion ?

dr

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by zeke

In terms of revenue potential, Calgary is the smallest market in the NHL.

back this up .... you clearly dont know the Calgary market if you belive this is true. but why dont you enlighten everyone how you came to this conclusion ?

dr

He obviously is clueless.

FWIW, Calgary was exactly in the middle of the league (tied with Ottawa for #15/16 out of 30 teams) in terms of revenues in 2003-04 according to Forbes. I know, I know, take Forbes with a grain of salt, but they are the best (only?) source of team-by-team revenues.

Team Total Revenue Operating Income
NY Rangers 118 -3.3
Toronto 117 14.1
Philadelphia 106 -4.1
Dallas 103 -0.3
Colorado 99 -1.1
Detroit 97 -16.4
Boston 95 2.3
Montreal 90 7.5
Tampa Bay 88 8.6
Los Angeles 80 -5.3
Vancouver 74 1.3
San Jose 74 1.3
Chicago 71 9.4
Minnesota 71 11.5
Ottawa 70 -5
Calgary 70 2.3
St. Louis 66 -28.8
Columbus 66 0.9
NY Islanders 64 -9.5
Washington 61 -14.7
New Jersey 61 -13.9
Florida 60 -3.7
Atlanta 59 0.9
Nashville 57 6.2
Phoenix 57 -7.8
Edmonton 55 3.3
Anaheim 54 -22.4
Pittsburgh 52 -0.6
Carolina 52 -18.2
Buffalo 51 -10.5

 

[Resolute]

Some corrections on the misconceptions in Calgary:

1. Calgary missed the playoffs for 7 years, not 15. We hadnt won a playoff series in 15 years.

2. Iginla did not take less to stay in Calgary. Iginla has never taken less to stay in Calgary. He held out once already, and threatened again on his last contract negotiations. Ultimately he signed for a little more than Theodore did - the two "MVPs" for that year, both of whom had the same agent. Quite frankly, if it wasnt for the CBA expiring, he probably would not have been a Flame for very much longer.

3. Calgary does not have the smallest revenue potential in the league. That would likely be Edmonton. In 2002-03, the Flames actually had higher revenues than the Oilers, despite the Oilers averaging abour 700 fans more per game and making the playoffs. Calgary's revenues that year were also equivalent to Anaheim.

4. Bad management decisions certantly kept us out of the playoffs, but like Zeke said, teams that can waste the money can overcome those decisions. Teams like the Flames cannot. Further, it wasnt bad management decisions that led Joe Nieuwendyk to stage an illegal holdout (think Yashin). Money also cost us Al MacInnis, Gary Suter, Mike Vernon, Theo Fleury, etc.

 

[AM]

I get a kick

i disagree with your comment about CGY not affording him, but that aside ... why should Iginla be denied the opportunity to earn more if its out there ?

you think that just because he is a pro hockey player, that he should forgo extra million dollars like it was pocket lint ?

dr

out of watching these guys brains work.

Hes now arguing counter to his original hypothesis!

Humerous.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Small market teams were always able to compete under the old system. Just look at Calgary, Tampa Bay and Anaheim. Heck you can shoot down the fat wallet argument by looking at the Rangers. Money never guaranteed success, just like a lack of it never guaranteed medocrity. Anyone who thinks that just because there is now a cap that all of a sudden Atlanta will be a Cup contender is just plain nuts.

In fact, the big market clubs may be in an even better position now. If a player is only going to get offered 1 million from every team then his decision will be more impacted by how much he will be able to make off of personal endorsements. The larger markets will offer more of an incentive in that regard.

Finally, a number of small market teams couldn't turn a profit with a payroll that is already under the proposed cap, will not be able to turn a profit any greater just because the Rangers won't be spending as much.

Where they the rule or the exception??