PA's turn to make an offer the NHL cannot refuse..

[I in the Eye]

A fair starting point, goofball. Something required in all competition.

Do you think its fair if someone in monopoly gets to start with more money than everyone else? Or if a sprinter gets a headstart?

You act like extra money is an inherent part of someone's skills. It's not. Stop pretending that it is. Your argument is no different than someone claiming its okay for a team to buy goals for cash in a game, just less certain of success.

Nice post, ***hole... You assume that each season you start from scratch... Like every game of monopoly, everyone puts their $ back, all their houses back, etc... and starts from the same beginning... To compare the two, you'd have to do the same with hockey... In hockey, each season is built upon the season before - so no, I don't think that every team should start with the same $ from the beginning...

goofball...

 

[Crazy_Ike]

If the money that was allowed to be used only came from hockey, you would have a point. But its not. Most the money ISN'T coming from hockey since the owners are losing more of it than they're gaining.

Since some owners are allowed to draw on money not available to other owners (no matter how well they run their team), it's not a fair playing field. All competition should do its utmost to provide a fair playing field for its competitors. That has nothing to do with the competitors' skills themselves.

For example, cars in racing are kept to a strict set of rules, to remove as much possible mechanical inequity as possible. There is nothing trying to force the DRIVERS to be absolutely equal, which is the absurdity you're trying to pass off.

When there's a salary cap, it IS a fair playing field, as long as its low enough for everyone to get close to with the revenue they make from hockey. Also high degrees of revenue sharing accomplishes the same thing, when there's enough revenue to go around (which there isn't in today's NHL).

Pretty simple.

Money is not an inherent part of skill. Sorry.

 

[WC Handy*]

Meh... I've been called a lot worse by a lot smarter people than you

I'm trying to understand where you're coming from... To have a good debate on this... But IMO, your thoughts are all over the place...

You believe that money alone gives teams an unfair advantage on the ice... and if not money alone, this is still the only variable that you're interested in doing something about... the only variable you consider unfair... I'm trying to figure out why... as it's not being communicated clearly...

Or at least I'm not understanding it (as you say, it's natural for me to be an idiot)... So please do put it in laymen's terms... Assuming, of course, that you even understand why...

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that having good management is not an unfair advantage?

 

[WC Handy*]

For example, cars in racing are kept to a strict set of rules, to remove as much possible mechanical inequity as possible. There is nothing trying to force the DRIVERS to be absolutely equal, which is the absurdity you're trying to pass off.

You sure we shouldn't just break Jeff Gordon's and Kurt Busch's fingers? Maybe put a blindfold on Jimmie Johnson?

 

[Weary]

For example, cars in racing are kept to a strict set of rules, to remove as much possible mechanical inequity as possible. There is nothing trying to force the DRIVERS to be absolutely equal, which is the absurdity you're trying to pass off.

And the NHL approves equipment and rink layouts to avoid mechanical inequity. Racing teams are free to spend as much as they want. They can pay their drivers any amount. Why shouldn't hockey teams do the same? The NHL and racing already operate in equivalent manners.

 

[WC Handy*]

And the NHL approves equipment and rink layouts to avoid mechanical inequity. Racing teams are free to spend as much as they want. They can pay their drivers any amount. Why shouldn't hockey teams do the same? The NHL and racing already operate in equivalent manners.

Any comparison to NASCAR only hurts the pro-PA argument. There's a reason why the biggest spending teams always win in NASCAR... because they can hire the best team (from drivers to tire changers to engine builders).

 

[Weary]

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that having good management is not an unfair advantage?

If having more money is an unfair advantage, then better management is an unfair advantage as well.

 

[Weary]

Any comparison to NASCAR only hurts the pro-PA argument. There's a reason why the biggest spending teams always win in NASCAR... because they can hire the best team (from drivers to tire changers to engine builders).

Well if NASCAR weren't so successful, it might. But NASCAR is going gangbusters despite the heavy spenders winning the vast majority of the races.

 

[WC Handy*]

Well if NASCAR weren't so successful, it might. But NASCAR is going gangbusters despite the heavy spenders winning the vast majority of the races.

Do you honestly not see the difference between the two sports?

 

[kdb209]

And the NHL approves equipment and rink layouts to avoid mechanical inequity. Racing teams are free to spend as much as they want. They can pay their drivers any amount. Why shouldn't hockey teams do the same? The NHL and racing already operate in equivalent manners.

No. There is a fundamental difference between the NHL and NASCAR (and IRL and Champ and Formula 1 and etc). Racing teams are not a limited set of franchises - anyone with $$$'s can set up a racing team and try to compete. If one racing team goes bankrupt it does not have a negative impact on the rest of the sport. It's not like a bankrupt team means only 32 cars race at Indy.

 

[Weary]

Do you honestly not see the difference between the two sports?

Um...weren't you the one who decided to compare NASCAR with the NHL? Can I assume you no longer believe comparing the two is a valid exercise?

 

[Crazy_Ike]

If having more money is an unfair advantage, then better management is an unfair advantage as well.

No it's not. It's a fair advantage, just like being a better tennis player than your opponent.

But if tennis players with more money could buy a racket other tennis players couldn't afford, and then won more because of it, that would not be a fair advantage.

Players in a team game are like equipment in an individual sport - pieces of the winner. Hence the racing analogy. You're perfectly allowed to use better equipment on your car as long as everyone has access to it (or to equivalent). The problem is teams in the NHL don't all have the same access.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

If the money that was allowed to be used only came from hockey, you would have a point. But its not. Most the money ISN'T coming from hockey since the owners are losing more of it than they're gaining.

Since some owners are allowed to draw on money not available to other owners (no matter how well they run their team), it's not a fair playing field. All competition should do its utmost to provide a fair playing field for its competitors. That has nothing to do with the competitors' skills themselves.

That's the problem with corporate ownership. But couldn't the NHL cap every team at their own break-even point (thus negating the "unfair" $$$ advantage, which is that some owners have bigger and better companies and more cash on hand beyond the hockey team)? I'm not sure if you are pro-owner or pro-player, but at least from what you say it seems you realize that creating more hockey revenue and spending more of your hockey revenue are not unfair advanatages, and that is what some people seem to want to put an end to. Share revenues and cap each team at it's own break even point...then outside money doesn't come into play and $$$ is not an advantage because every team has the ability to create more revenues if they do a good job.

 

[WC Handy*]

Um...weren't you the one who decided to compare NASCAR with the NHL? Can I assume you no longer believe comparing the two is a valid exercise?

The comparison I made is valid. The teams that spend more money typically do well... just like in the NHL.

The comparison you made is invalid because of reasons already explained by kdb209.

 

[Weary]

No. There is a fundamental difference between the NHL and NASCAR (and IRL and Champ and Formula 1 and etc). Racing teams are not a limited set of franchises - anyone with $$$'s can set up a racing team and try to compete. If one racing team goes bankrupt it does not have a negative impact on the rest of the sport. It's not like a bankrupt team means only 32 cars race at Indy.

OK. That's a fundamental difference. But it doesn't change the fact that the high dollar teams far outspend the other competition. Yet the sports thrive.

 

[WC Handy*]

OK. That's a fundamental difference. But it doesn't change the fact that the high dollar teams far outspend the other competition. Yet the sports thrive.

Do you honestly not see the difference between the two sports?

 

[Crazy_Ike]

But couldn't the NHL cap every team at their own break-even point (thus negating the "unfair" $$$ advantage, which is that some owners have bigger and better companies and more cash on hand beyond the hockey team)?

Isn't that the basis behind the team-based caps system?

I was under the impression that this is in fact something the two sides have discussed.

 

[Weary]

Players in a team game are like equipment in an individual sport - pieces of the winner. Hence the racing analogy. You're perfectly allowed to use better equipment on your car as long as everyone has access to it (or to equivalent). The problem is teams in the NHL don't all have the same access.

Isn't management also part of the team? If players should be distributed "equally" amongst the teams, why should general managers, coaches, trainers, and scouts be any different?

 

[Weary]

Do you honestly not see the difference between the two sports?

You've asked this question before. It was pointed out that you were the one who started the NASCAR/NHL comparison.

Here's what I can garner from what you said:

• It's OK to say: The NHL shouldn't be like NASCAR because in NASCAR the high spending teams win a lot.
• It's not OK to say: NASCAR is a highly popular sport even though the high spending teams win a lot.
• The reason that the first one is legitimate and the second one isn't is that anyone can start a racing team and no one cares if that team goes bankrupt.

And if that's accurate, then it's fair to say that I don't understand.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

Er.. they aren't any different? What's your point? If there was a problem with financial availability for any of those things, then they too would be subject to restrictions. But there isn't, so there isn't. The costs for GMs, coaches, trainers, scouts etc is so dwarfed by a team's payroll it's just not much of an issue. Every team can afford them no matter how good they are.

You're not still confusing skill with finances again, are you?

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by kdb209
No. There is a fundamental difference between the NHL and NASCAR (and IRL and Champ and Formula 1 and etc). Racing teams are not a limited set of franchises - anyone with $$$'s can set up a racing team and try to compete. If one racing team goes bankrupt it does not have a negative impact on the rest of the sport. It's not like a bankrupt team means only 32 cars race at Indy.

OK. That's a fundamental difference. But it doesn't change the fact that the high dollar teams far outspend the other competition. Yet the sports thrive.

The sport thrives because fans are (for the most part) fans of the sport, not of any particular driver - and those that are pick them for arbitrary reasons, not the dictates of geography. Who would consistantly root for driver A (who can't afford to be competetive) and rarely wins rather than switching allegences to drivers B (or C or D) whoever may be the popular winning driver this year. The health (and revenues) of the sport are pretty divorced from the success (or failure) of any one driver/team.

 

[I in the Eye]

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that having good management is not an unfair advantage?

Will you just answer this... I'm trying to understand your POV here...

Again:

You believe that money alone gives teams an unfair advantage on the ice... and if not money alone, this is still the only variable that you're interested in doing something about... the only variable you consider unfair... I'm trying to figure out why... as it's not being communicated clearly...

To answer yours... I don't think that having good management is an unfair advantage... Just an advantage... as is having more $... It's not, IMO, an unfair advantage... It's just an advantage...

Do all franchises have the same opportunity to have an ultra-rich owner? If so, how is one franchise having one, and another franchise not unfair?

Look, I'm all for a salary cap... Hell, I'm an owner supporter... But not all of Bettman's justifications for a salary cap add up... IMO, parity is one of them... IMO, 'unfair' money advantage is another...

 

[I in the Eye]

If having more money is an unfair advantage, then better management is an unfair advantage as well.

I agree with this... What makes one unfair... and the other not?

 

[I in the Eye]

That's the problem with corporate ownership. But couldn't the NHL cap every team at their own break-even point (thus negating the "unfair" $$$ advantage, which is that some owners have bigger and better companies and more cash on hand beyond the hockey team)? I'm not sure if you are pro-owner or pro-player, but at least from what you say it seems you realize that creating more hockey revenue and spending more of your hockey revenue are not unfair advanatages, and that is what some people seem to want to put an end to. Share revenues and cap each team at it's own break even point...then outside money doesn't come into play and $$$ is not an advantage because every team has the ability to create more revenues if they do a good job.

I agree with this completely... I support using only hockey-generated $ on hockey-related operations... I personally don't have a problem with teams using 'outside' money (as a fan, looking at things from purely an 'on-ice') point of view... I don't think it's "unfair"... However, I think that it can perhaps do harm to the economics of the game...

 

[SENSible1*]

The whole point should be to reward good management over money.