One set of boundaries - Parity on the Ice - Close but no Cigar

[Icey]

Aside from reading or hearing interviews with Tom Hicks claiming his hockey team lost money it's been documented the Stars are not profitable. We can talk about the losses being less than what they want us to beleive but a team that builds a new facility that goes to the playoffs should be making a healthy profit. In the Stars case this is simply not happening.

http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/1208/nhl_2.html

The skinny
On the ice and with its fans, the Dallas Stars have proven that hockey can make it big-time in the South. But the team's bankers are not impressed. The team has been losing money due to a high payroll and its 50% owned American Airlines Arena is stacked with debt.

So why is it you pull the numbers from two years ago instead of last year? Would that be because last year the team was the the fourth most valuable franchise in the league? The team doesn't lose money season after season. They actually lost more money last season by not playing than had they played. Doubt the Islanders could say the same. They lost $300,000 in the 2003-04 season, they $5.5M the season before and $6.3M the season before that.

And I am not sure what interviews you think you hear him give because Mr. Hicks rarely gives interviews and when he does he doesn't talk about how much money he has or doesn't have.

 

[ScottyBowman]

I had found this one myself, but apparently did not read far enough (previously only got to para 14). I am afraid this does not give your position much support. A miniscule portion of revenue sharing occurs through luxury taxes based on exceeding a threshold which is above the salary cap. THe other 90% + of revenue sharing occurs equally (more or less, with a few exceptions for Toronto currency exchange and injured player issues).

I repeat you are off on your MLB assertion. To suggest that the NBA's revenue sharing is based on exceeding the salary cap is plain wrong, and to suggest that it is based on exceeding a certain salary threshold is a gross overstatement of a very small portion of revenue sharing in the league.

Look. I basically said that when you are under the cap in the NBA, you receive a nice bonus check. It is not a gross overstatement. Its the truth. I never said anything about splitting tv revenue or anything else.

 

[txomisc]

I agree with that only if they put some clause in the CBA allowing you to go over the cap to sign your own players that you drafted. Otherwise, economic parity only benefits teams like the Blackhawks.

Well if always been a proponent of having some sort of clause that causes a lower percentage of a contract to count against the cap if you drafted said player. Maybe something like Brenden Morrow signed for 2 million a year well only 1.8 of that counts against dallas' cap but all 2 million of it would count against the cap for any other team.

 

[ScottyBowman]

The point has to be hammered home the Wings (Illitch) and the owners mentioned above did this business no favors by overspending, all they did was drive it into a lockout with lousy ratings no matter who played in any of these markets.

How is what I'm writing this not true when you write yourself:


The point is your team is not making money. I have heard Illitch make the comments in interviews and clearly I'm correct because you confirm it by Devellano's statements.

Illitch rarely gives media interviews. So I'm not sure how you could have heard Illitch make those comments in interviews.

 

[ScottyBowman]

Well if always been a proponent of having some sort of clause that causes a lower percentage of a contract to count against the cap if you drafted said player. Maybe something like Brenden Morrow signed for 2 million a year well only 1.8 of that counts against dallas' cap but all 2 million of it would count against the cap for any other team.

I never thought of that but 50% would sound like a good number.

 

[Icey]

sure, Tampa won the cup but they did something out of this world...they drafted well and developed their talent!! holy cow! who would have thought!! ...under the old CBA, how long until they have to sell off an important piece of their championship puzzle because he got too expensive?

Tampa drafted well???

St. Louis
Khabibulin
Sydor
Stillman
Fedotenko
Prospal
Modin
Boyle
Lukowich

Not ONE of those players were drafted by Tampa Bay. Those were major players in the Tampa Bay Stanley Cup, so don't kid yourself. Tampa Bay did exactly what other teams do, they traded well.

 

[Icey]

Illitch rarely gives media interviews. So I'm not sure how you could have heard Illitch make those comments in interviews.

Same way he heard Tom Hicks who also rarely does interviews.

 

[missK]

Tampa drafted well???

St. Louis
Khabibulin
Sydor
Stillman
Fedotenko
Prospal
Modin
Boyle
Lukowich

Not ONE of those players were drafted by Tampa Bay. Those were major players in the Tampa Bay Stanley Cup, so don't kid yourself. Tampa Bay did exactly what other teams do, they traded well.

While the list above is true, you seem to have forgotten three very important players that were drafted: Lecavalier, Richards (Finals MVP) and Kubina (other draftees on the roster were Cibak & Afanasenkov). Drafting and smart trades made up the team, the only UFAs on the roster were Andreychuk and Taylor, which means there were no big name UFAs with big contracts.

EDIT: Sorry I forgot that St. Louis was a UFA but again he was signed to league minimum at the time ($250K).

 

[Kritter471]

While the list above is true, you seem to have forgotten three very important players that were drafted: Lecavalier, Richards (Finals MVP) and Kubina (other draftees on the roster were Cibak & Afanasenkov). Drafting and smart trades made up the team, the only UFAs on the roster were Andreychuk and Taylor, which means there were no big name UFAs with big contracts.

But the question wasn't about UFAs. It was about "they drafted well and developed their own talent." So Tampa's rate of drafted players on the roster was 25 percent, if there were five guys on the roster who they drafted, yes?

That's on par with, or slightly worse than, the so-called "big market" teams that everyone loves to rally against. For the Stars, in their 1999 Cup run, they had 9 guys who were key contributors in the playoffs who were originally drafted/first signed by the Stars (Modano, Lehtinen, Langenbrunner, Hatcher, Matvichuk, Chambers, Sim, Turek, Sloan). Another Stars draft pick (Lukowich) played in the playoffs but did not get his name on the Cup. Another slew of Stars picks came up and down throughout the year.

But for arguments sake, let's say nine guys. So that's about 45 percent of the roster that was "home grown." Yes, Hull was the major piece added in the 1998 offseason and that was through the UFA market, but most of the other pieces came, much like Tampa, through trades.

Please feel free to correct me if Tampa had more draftees playing for them in the playoffs (I'm on a dial-up modem at home and it's insufferably slow to look up player by player).

 

[missK]

But the question wasn't about UFAs. It was about "they drafted well and developed their own talent." So Tampa's rate of drafted players on the roster was 25 percent, if there were five guys on the roster who they drafted, yes?

That's on par with, or slightly worse than, the so-called "big market" teams that everyone loves to rally against. For the Stars, in their 1999 Cup run, they had 9 guys who were key contributors in the playoffs who were originally drafted/first signed by the Stars (Modano, Lehtinen, Langenbrunner, Hatcher, Matvichuk, Chambers, Sim, Turek, Sloan). Another Stars draft pick (Lukowich) played in the playoffs but did not get his name on the Cup. Another slew of Stars picks came up and down throughout the year.

But for arguments sake, let's say nine guys. So that's about 45 percent of the roster that was "home grown." Yes, Hull was the major piece added in the 1998 offseason and that was through the UFA market, but most of the other pieces came, much like Tampa, through trades.

Please feel free to correct me if Tampa had more draftees playing for them in the playoffs (I'm on a dial-up modem at home and it's insufferably slow to look up player by player).

Guess what? I didn't make the initial comment, I was just supplying additional information. Actually a large majority of the Lightning players were cast offs who didn't work out with other teams or couldn't crack those team's everyday lineups. Players like St. Louis, Cullimore, Sarich, Nolan Pratt, Boyle & Perrin to name some. These players were traded for or signed and given a chance to play in Tampa when they didn't have those chances elsewhere. So to a certain extent, Tampa nurtured their talents, they didn't draft them but the Lightning coaches and staff gave them the tools to elevate their play.

 

[I in the Eye]

Guess what? I didn't make the initial comment, I was just supplying additional information. Actually a large majority of the Lightning players were cast offs who didn't work out with other teams or couldn't crack those team's everyday lineups. Players like St. Louis, Cullimore, Sarich, Nolan Pratt, Boyle & Perrin to name some. These players were traded for or signed and given a chance to play in Tampa when they didn't have those chances elsewhere. So to a certain extent, Tampa nurtured their talents, they didn't draft them but the Lightning coaches and staff gave them the tools to elevate their play.

A player nurtured from youth (under or around 25) and kept with the team long term should also be considered 'homegrown', IMO... An adopted child brought into a family from a young age should also be considered a part of the homegrown family... not an outside *******... The adopted child may not have been 'drafted' (through conception), but the adopted child raised and nurtured with the family from a young age is just as much 'homegrown' as the child who's been conceived, IMO...

 

[GSC2k2*]

Look. I basically said that when you are under the cap in the NBA, you receive a nice bonus check. It is not a gross overstatement. Its the truth. I never said anything about splitting tv revenue or anything else.

Really ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan4
It's not the payroll numbers that matter, it's the teams revenues. So while Wirtz may be a cheap souless *******, the Hawks still bring in too much revenue to qualify for any revenue sharing (at least I hope).

And your reply ...

Thats not how it works in the NBA or baseball. Its based on your payroll.

Trying not to make a big deal out of this, but oh well...

Frankly, i picked your post out of this overall pro-PA strokefest of a thread (with all the usual suspects jumping all over each other to congratulate each other on their brilliant points) because your factual inaccuracies made a convenient example. This entire thread is filled with people making stuff up out of whole cloth, led by the main agent provocateur himself, Massager, who has not had a decent argument to make for a few months now and is reduced to simply posing "questions". It all works very nicely for him, mind you. One second, he is posing a question (to which he knows the answer) about whether the proposed system constitutes two different caps for small market and big market teams, and next thing you know you have a usually sensible poster like Boltsfan doing this:

Rumor is big market cap is $36M, small market cap is $29M. For the 2005-2006 season, how will it be determined which teams get $36M and which get $29M?

 

[Icey]

Guess what? I didn't make the initial comment, I was just supplying additional information. Actually a large majority of the Lightning players were cast offs who didn't work out with other teams or couldn't crack those team's everyday lineups. Players like St. Louis, Cullimore, Sarich, Nolan Pratt, Boyle & Perrin to name some. These players were traded for or signed and given a chance to play in Tampa when they didn't have those chances elsewhere. So to a certain extent, Tampa nurtured their talents, they didn't draft them but the Lightning coaches and staff gave them the tools to elevate their play.

And that was EXACTLY my point to the original comment of Tampa Bay did it right by DRAFTING and DEVELOPING their own talent. They did not. They traded well and took other teams "rejects". They are smart and have a great development team but to credit them with drafting well is wrong. They draft no better than average, so lets skip the praise on their drafting.

A player nurtured from youth (under or around 25) and kept with the team long term should also be considered 'homegrown', IMO... An adopted child brought into a family from a young age should also be considered a part of the homegrown family... not an outside *******... The adopted child may not have been 'drafted' (through conception), but the adopted child raised and nurtured with the family from a young age is just as much 'homegrown' as the child who's been conceived, IMO...

Again.....that is called development and not drafting. I doubt that adopted mother talks about the labor and delivery of that adopted child. They raised the child not gave birth to him/her. Same idea here. They DEVELOPED that player not drafted them. Two different concepts that some seem not to understand.

 

[I in the Eye]

(I'm on a dial-up modem at home).

Welcome to the 90's

 

[I in the Eye]

Again.....that is called development and not drafting. I doubt that adopted mother talks about the labor and delivery of that adopted child. They raised the child not gave birth to him/her. Same idea here. They DEVELOPED that player not drafted them. Two different concepts that some seem not to understand.

I don't disagree...

IMO, TB has a strong development team... an average scouting team... but they are very good at homegrowing and nurturing the talent that they have acquired (either via the draft or trades)...

 

[missK]

I don't disagree...

IMO, TB has a strong development team... an average scouting team... but they are very good at homegrowing and nurturing the talent that they have acquired (either via the draft or trades)...

I definitely agree with this statement. Thanks for the help!

 

[Pepper]

Instead of reaching for a solution that would give all fans the best of both worlds, we have a solution that turns every team into the Carolina Hurricanes.

Really, the only major benefactors are the owners.

You know, it's so hard to take you seriously when you make braindead comments like that.

Now I know you're a bitter pro-PA, big team fan but for ***** sake, get a grip man.

The league will be more even than ever before and it gives ALL fans something to look forward to. Carolina was one of the worst teams in the league, if there's a redistribution of talent how on earth will every team become a poor team like Canes??

That bitterness just makes your posts so damn hard to take seriously.

 

[AM]

thats probably

Revenue sharing doesn't go team by team, it's a flat rate divided by 30. A small market can't lower ticket prices and bring in $50M in revenue and than expect the big teams to say 'here you go, here's $15M so you can reach the floor'

All teams put, for example, 30% of their local revenues into revenue sharing. Than you divide the total by 30 teams, and that's how much each team get's back. So small market teams put in less than they take out, big market teams the opposite. But it doesn't mean that a small market can have no revenues and take out more than everyone else because they need it. And, the teams like Vancouver who might be right in the middle as far as revenue, probably get nothing. They will put it the same amount as they take out sometimes.

a more feasible idea.

 

[kdb209]

That is my point. Their was more parity during the last decade in hockey than there ever was. To judge parity, I look at the standings and look at how many teams were under 60 pts and what the difference in pts was between the top playoff team and the bottom playoff team.

For example in 83-84, the Detroit Red Wings were in the playoffs with 69 pts.

84-85 Detroit made it in with 66 pts

85-86 Toronto made it with 70 pts

Fast forward it to 2000

The bottom seed had 84 pts

My point is that teams are much closer right now than they were back in the 80's record wise. I don't get the argument about parity when we have 16 teams finishing with above .500 records.

Your point is meaningless. You cannot compare the points of the 8th seed playoff teams in '84 and '00 (or '04) in any meaningfull way.

In '84/'85/'86 playoff positions were by division - the top 4 in each made the playoffs. A #4 in a division made the playoffs over a #5 in another division with a better record. In '85, Minnesota and the Rangers (each 62 pts) made the playoffs over Hartford (69 pts). In '86, Toronto (57 pts), Winnipeg and Vancouver (each 59 pts), and the Rangers (78 pts) made the playoffs over Buffalo (5th in the Adams with 80 pts). This situation cannot happen anymore (excluding the almost impossible case of a division winner being 9th in a conference).

And more importantly - expansion. In '84/'85/'86 there were only 21 teams - 16 out of 21 (76%) made the playoffs. Today there are 30 teams and still only 16 make the playoffs - 16 out of 30 (53%). Of course you would expect the #16 team in the 80s to have a worse record than the #16 today. The playoffs were a joke in the 80s - play an entire 80 game season just to eliminate 5 teams, give me a freakin break.

And finally, points for OTLs have meant an overall point inflation, so 60 pts in the 80s is not 60 points today. The average team in '04 got a 5 pt boost due to OTLs.

 

[NYIsles1*]

And I am not sure what interviews you think you hear him give because Mr. Hicks rarely gives interviews and when he does he doesn't talk about how much money he has or doesn't have.

Ok, here are his comments in June 2004 where he notes himself the Stars lose money.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=88655&hubName=nhl
Hicks predicts difficult labour talks

"Ticket prices are too high and the players have gotten way too much money. That has to change," said Hicks, who notes that his team is among the top three in terms of revenues but still loses money.

"If you look at the Stanley Cup Finals, it was not about payroll, it was about players. We're going in a direction that will give us better, younger, more aggressive players." Hicks adds he's hopeful hockey fans will stick by hockey even through a work stoppage because they realize "it's time to fix the sport".

 

[Boltsfan2029]

One second, he is posing a question (to which he knows the answer) about whether the proposed system constitutes two different caps for small market and big market teams, and next thing you know you have a usually sensible poster like Boltsfan doing this

'Eh, 'scuse me. I've maintained all along that there is one cap for all teams. After Messenger posted this particular... theory, I believe you agreed with him (stating your head was going to explode). Being confused, I tried to clarify so my peabrain would remain intact. Note I stated it was a "rumor."

But thanks for the "usually sensible poster" comment.

I think.

 

[GSC2k2*]

'Eh, 'scuse me. I've maintained all along that there is one cap for all teams. After Messenger posted this particular... theory, I believe you agreed with him (stating your head was going to explode). Being confused, I tried to clarify so my peabrain would remain intact. Note I stated it was a "rumor."

But thanks for the "usually sensible poster" comment.

I think.

I know you have. I was merely trying to illustrate my point that Massager's new technique is to create a swirl of questions that tend to obscure the inanity of the topic and the fact that he has been and remains so very very misguided from the beginning.

I didn't agree with him on this item, mind you. I agreed with him about the idea that the $34-36 salary cap range means that there will be potentially different caps based on a team's particular revenue, albeit within that narrow cap. His position was that the luxury tax created in effect a second cap for the "small market" teams (whatever the heck that is). Ludicrous and quite a different thing.

It was intended as a compliment, so you're welcome.

 

[Macman]

You know, it's so hard to take you seriously when you make braindead comments like that.

Now I know you're a bitter pro-PA, big team fan but for f'cks sake, get a grip man.

Is it possible for you to write a post without being insulting? I've read this entire thread and it's getting tiresome. None of us really knows how the cap will work and how it will affect the NHL in the long term. Everybody has an opinion and I don't really see where your's is any better than anybody elses, so can the sarcasm and insults and help make these boards a little better.

 

[Pepper]

Is it possible for you to write a post without being insulting? I've read this entire thread and it's getting tiresome. None of us really knows how the cap will work and how it will affect the NHL in the long term. Everybody has an opinion and I don't really see where your's is any better than anybody elses, so can the sarcasm and insults and help make these boards a little better.

When a notorious PA-bigot starts spewing crap like "every team will be like Carolina" it's painfully obvious that it's not about lack of knowledge, it's only about this particular person being bitter that his team is one of the biggest losers.

So I'm not gonna let that go through without replying, if not for anything else than preventing some new fan first time reading these boards from thinking that new CBA will make all teams like Carolina is currently because it's nothing but utter BS.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Tampa drafted well???

St. Louis
Khabibulin
Sydor
Stillman
Fedotenko
Prospal
Modin
Boyle
Lukowich

Not ONE of those players were drafted by Tampa Bay. Those were major players in the Tampa Bay Stanley Cup, so don't kid yourself. Tampa Bay did exactly what other teams do, they traded well.

I noticed you left LeCavalier and Richards off the list . . . . . besides, Tampa used players they drafted as assets to trade for some of the players in the list above. Drafting well doesn't mean your entire team is comprised of your own draftees. . . . sometimes you have to traded those well drafted players for missing components. Pittsburgh and Washington have stocked their farm system with high quality draft picks --- I fully except half of those picks to be parlayed into other players through trades.