OT: Lebron James Advocates NBA Contraction

[Blackhawkswincup]

We could easily take on 2 football teams here. I don't think an AFC team would find it hard to find fans in Chicago.

Heck, if the Cardinals were still around, I would surely be a fan of them if the Cubs/Bears on the northside and Sox/Cards on the south stuck around.

^
Bear fans would never quit supporting Bears and the vast majority of city is Bears fans. It is a non-starter

And I thank god the Cards moved as a Southsider because the idea of growing up a Cards fan sickens me.

I haven't met a Chicago Cardinal fan since an old guy lived next to my grandparents when they lived in Chicago when I was 6.

 

[Stephen]

LJ isn't exactly an intellectual giant.

Well said. Asking for Lebron's opinion on running a professional sports league is about as valid as asking the tricycle riding bear how to run the circus.

 

[kombayn]

^
Bear fans would never quit supporting Bears and the vast majority of city is Bears fans. It is a non-starter

And I thank god the Cards moved as a Southsider because the idea of growing up a Cards fan sickens me.

I haven't met a Chicago Cardinal fan since an old guy lived next to my grandparents when they lived in Chicago when I was 6.

Yeah but the fact remains the Chicago Cardinals could have been better than the Chicago Bears if they didn't become the St. Louis Football Cardinals followed by the Phoenix Cardinals followed by the Arizona Cardinals who had a glimmer of a Super Bowl hope because two football Hall-of-Fame players played our their mind football for four straight games but in the end the coaching blew it for them by not taking some kind of chance that put pressure on the Steeers two-minute offense.

 

[HabsByTheBay]

The Bears have won 1 championship in the last 50 years and have had long stretches during that time where they weren't even terribly competitive.

Hard to say whether a second Chicago team, provided it was actually good, wouldn't steal some fans, but fans have a way of showing up when a team's good.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Ryan Field (47, 500) ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Field_(stadium)

 

[IU Hawks fan]

^
Bear fans would never quit supporting Bears and the vast majority of city is Bears fans. It is a non-starter

And I thank god the Cards moved as a Southsider because the idea of growing up a Cards fan sickens me.

The vast majority of Bears fans are so because there has never been another option in their lifetimes. There is a large amount of people who are very apathetic towards the organization and would easily jump ship if given another team to root for. Sure, this season everything is fine and dandy, but if you asked someone last year whether they would ever think to root for someone else, and I think a large percentage would. A majority? **** no! 20%? Possibly. You look at the number of people who can't get tickets to Bears games and have the expendable income for season tickets, those season tickets would sell out instantly given the wealth of the market. Remember, it's a TV driven league. You think people in Chicago aren't gonna watch the team that's the only game on TV if they like the sport that much? If it's the only game on and the Bears aren't playing, Chicago will watch. Guaranteed. No one says you can't root for both. It wouldn't be like Cubs/Sox or Giants/Jets because the team would be so new at the start. It could develop to that over time, though.

Ryan Field (47, 500) ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Field_(stadium)

What about it?

No ones saying the 2nd team would play in Evanston

 

[Melrose Munch]

The vast majority of Bears fans are so because there has never been another option in their lifetimes. There is a large amount of people who are very apathetic towards the organization and would easily jump ship if given another team to root for. Sure, this season everything is fine and dandy, but if you asked someone last year whether they would ever think to root for someone else, and I think a large percentage would. A majority? **** no! 20%? Possibly. You look at the number of people who can't get tickets to Bears games and have the expendable income for season tickets, those season tickets would sell out instantly given the wealth of the market. Remember, it's a TV driven league. You think people in Chicago aren't gonna watch the team that's the only game on TV if they like the sport that much? If it's the only game on and the Bears aren't playing, Chicago will watch. Guaranteed. No one says you can't root for both. It wouldn't be like Cubs/Sox or Giants/Jets because the team would be so new at the start. It could develop to that over time, though.



What about it?

No ones saying the 2nd team would play in Evanston

You could say the same for the Leafs though.

 

[blankall]

People talking about watered down talent obviously never watched hockey prior to 1995. Even the scrubiest of current fourth liners would be head over heals better than many of the players gracing the NHL prior to 1995. You had defencemen that couldn't skate backwards, goalies that would fall over on every break away, etc etc...

Athleticism and skill are at all time highs in the NHL.

 

[MoreOrr]

People talking about watered down talent obviously never watched hockey prior to 1995. Even the scrubiest of current fourth liners would be head over heals better than many of the players gracing the NHL prior to 1995. You had defencemen that couldn't skate backwards, goalies that would fall over on every break away, etc etc...

Athleticism and skill are at all time highs in the NHL.

Exactly, that "watered down talent" argument is one of those pseudo-reasons for why contraction could make sense. First someone needs to prove that the talent is in fact "watered down", and more importantly that it's an impression that the talent isn't strong League-wide which is the cause for why certain teams are struggling economically. Oh sure, certain franchises aren't currently icing competitive teams, but is that because there isn't enough talent out there, No. It's like it is in every sport, teams go through cycles of being good or bad, and some well-run teams rarely have bad Seasons, while some poorly run teams seem to always have bad Seasons.

 

[Fugu]

People talking about watered down talent obviously never watched hockey prior to 1995. Even the scrubiest of current fourth liners would be head over heals better than many of the players gracing the NHL prior to 1995. You had defencemen that couldn't skate backwards, goalies that would fall over on every break away, etc etc...

Athleticism and skill are at all time highs in the NHL.

Obviously, eh?

This is a red herring. Talent levels among peers is the point of contention, not as compared to a pool of talent and the number of teams needing to be filled out. I agree that the late 1970's and 1980's were the most unbalanced ever in terms of talent levels per team. Thanks to a doubling of league size, without the influx of European and American players, you had a lack of parity that should make the "we want parity" crowd of the last ten years blush.

The question though is whether or not there are enough players to spread out over 30 teams, given that there is a limited number of countries producing hockey players, and that some hockey producing countries numbers are coming way down from their PEAK in the 90's (e.g., Czech Rep, Russia). If anything, the 1990's should have had the greatest parity ever witnessed because more players were coming from more places than ever before or since.

 

[Fugu]

Exactly, that "watered down talent" argument is one of those pseudo-reasons for why contraction could make sense. First someone needs to prove that the talent is in fact "watered down", and more importantly that it's an impression that the talent isn't strong League-wide which is the cause for why certain teams are struggling economically. Oh sure, certain franchises aren't currently icing competitive teams, but is that because there isn't enough talent out there, No. It's like it is in every sport, teams go through cycles of being good or bad, and some well-run teams rarely have bad Seasons, while some poorly run teams seem to always have bad Seasons.

Bah humbug.

Yup. That's why every franchise gets an Ilya Kovalchuk, who will only get paid a bit more than average. If some of the contracts under the economic system don't blow your socks off and indicate what supply/demand do, then I'm not sure what other proof you'd accept.

 

[MoreOrr]

Bah humbug.

Yup. That's why every franchise gets an Ilya Kovalchuk, who will only get paid a bit more than average. If some of the contracts under the economic system don't blow your socks off and indicate what supply/demand do, then I'm not sure what other proof you'd accept.

Sorry, Fugu, but you lost me there. I didn't say that certain teams don't have any talented players. I mean, with the Salary Cap/Floor and all, all teams should technically be icing similar talent levels, but the reality is virtually always the same, that in many cases (due to years of either being good or bad) certain organizations are able to put together the key elements to ice strongly competitive teams, while others don't. One could almost say that it's a hit or miss situation, but the fact that certain organizations almost constantly 'hit' while others more often 'miss' tells us that there is method to it all. So my point was that it has nothing to do with a lack of talent League-wide.

The question though is whether or not there are enough players to spread out over 30 teams, given that there is a limited number of countries producing hockey players, and that some hockey producing countries numbers are coming way down from their PEAK in the 90's (e.g., Czech Rep, Russia). If anything, the 1990's should have had the greatest parity ever witnessed because more players were coming from more places than ever before or since.

There was no Salary Cap in the 90s.

 

[Fugu]

Sorry, Fugu, but you lost me there. I didn't say that certain teams don't have any talented players. I mean, with the Salary Cap/Floor and all, all teams should technically be icing similar talent levels, but the reality is virtually always the same, that in many cases (due to years of either being good or bad) certain organizations are able to put together the key elements to ice strongly competitive teams, while others don't. One could almost say that it's a hit or miss situation, but the fact that certain organizations almost constantly 'hit' while others more often 'miss' tells us that there is method to it all. So my point was that it has nothing to do with a lack of talent League-wide.

Or that a cap was necessary.

I do think that the salary inflation under both systems has an underlying root cause of competition for "good enough" talent. Hence my comment about ridiculous contracts under both economic systems.

There was no Salary Cap in the 90s.

There were more players available than ever before, and teams had rights to their RFA's through age 31! Considering how things have played out since the lockout, do you at least admit that 31 is essentially the best years of 90% or more of guys who will ever play in the NHL. That was far better protection of talent for weaker teams than a cap will ever be, imo.

 

[MoreOrr]

Or that a cap was necessary.

I do think that the salary inflation under both systems has an underlying root cause of competition for "good enough" talent. Hence my comment about ridiculous contracts under both economic systems.

There were more players available than ever before, and teams had rights to their RFA's through age 31! Considering how things have played out since the lockout, do you at least admit that 31 is essentially the best years of 90% or more of guys who will ever play in the NHL. That was far better protection of talent for weaker teams than a cap will ever be, imo.

So your explanation for why there is apparently more parity in the League now is because the talent-base is spread thin and thus no teams are really able to dominate over others continually? Perhaps I'm oversimplifying your point, because I never imagined you to be on that side of this argument.

 

[Dado]

I mean, with the Salary Cap/Floor and all, all teams should technically be icing similar talent levels, but the reality is virtually always the same...

That hypothesis values good ownership and good management as having Zero Value.

Which is obviously ridiculous.

Which means a salary cap will never provide a meaningful increase in Parity.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

You could say the same for the Leafs though.

Yeah, exactly.

 

[MoreOrr]

That hypothesis values good ownership and good management as having Zero Value.

Which is obviously ridiculous.

Which means a salary cap will never provide a meaningful increase in Parity.

Perhaps I'm just stating things in a confusing way today (or perhaps always... haha) because I have a headache, or perhaps I'm just not understanding things correctly, for the same reason. But what I said, or at least intended, is the exact opposite of what you're implying that I said, in the first part of what you said regarding "Zero Value". And the last part of what you said seems to be a contradiction of the first part.

I'm saying that ownership and good management are significant elements, regardless of a Salary Cap or not. A Salary Cap does level the playing field somewhat, in fact in some cases allowing strong management (with lower economic competitiveness) to have a better competitive edge. The money differential just becomes one less factor to effect the outcome. And strong management can thus become a more significant element. One can also suppose that access to a strong management team would be more feasible than access to dollars that simply aren't there.

 

[Dado]

I'm saying that ownership and good management are significant elements, regardless of a Salary Cap or not.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I did in fact get that message from your post, I just worded my response less clearly. You're good, my bad.

The only place I would differ with you - and that's cool, differences make a market - is that I am convinced that the harder the salary cap, the MORE valuable good ownership and management becomes.

IMO there is little doubt that the salary cap era will see LESS variety at the top level than we saw pre-lockout. We've already had back2back identical cup finals, and just one season later, those same two teams are again top of the league (as but one example thereof).

 

[MoreOrr]

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I did in fact get that message from your post, I just worded my response less clearly. You're good, my bad.

The only place I would differ with you - and that's cool, differences make a market - is that I am convinced that the harder the salary cap, the MORE valuable good ownership and management becomes.

IMO there is little doubt that the salary cap era will see LESS variety at the top level than we saw pre-lockout. We've already had back2back identical cup finals, and just one season later, those same two teams are again top of the league (as but one example thereof).

And again, I don't see where that differs from what I said, though perhaps you're saying it a bit stronger than I did.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I would argue that contraction is not the best way to "water up" the talent level. While it might provide a (very) small boost in the short term, to the effect of perhaps 1 new third-line player per team, it also has the effect of shrinking the development network from pee-wee all the way up to the AHL. In the long run, the effects are highly unpredictable.

Given the amount of talent floating around Europe, I'd say the NHL would do better to increase its revenue streams and beat back the KHL and Swedish Elite league from keeping NHL-quality players.

 

[Dado]

As I understand it, you're saying a salary cap levels the field somewhat, despite differences in owernship/management - I'm saying the opposite - that a salary cap INCREASES the tilt of the playing field by making ownership/management MORE important.

 

[MoreOrr]

As I understand it, you're saying a salary cap levels the field somewhat, despite differences in owernship/management - I'm saying the opposite - that a salary cap INCREASES the tilt of the playing field by making ownership/management MORE important.

No, what I said was that a Salary Cap provides more potential advantage for strong management to have an edge, and that access to putting together a strong management team is more feasible than access to dollars that simply aren't there. So if you don't have to worry about the dollar differential, you only have to concern yourself with assembling a strong management team (not an easy task, but again easier than finding dollars that aren't there).

Here's another way of saying it:
Money is essentially a 'set variable', particular cities/franchises will either have tons of it to spend or they won't have tons of it to spend.
Good management is not a 'set variable', any city/franchise can potentially have it, though generally not all will have it at any particular moment in time.

Could teams like the Sabres, Oilers, Predators have potential of spending at the top of the League, almost certainly no. Could those same teams have the potential of having the best management at the top of the League, certainly they could, though not necessarily would it be the case.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

The Bears have won 1 championship in the last 50 years and have had long stretches during that time where they weren't even terribly competitive.

Hard to say whether a second Chicago team, provided it was actually good, wouldn't steal some fans, but fans have a way of showing up when a team's good.

Sorry but not quite. They won in 1963 and then 85

 

[HabsByTheBay]

Sorry but not quite. They won in 1963 and then 85

Wow, that's impressive pedantry.