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

[I in the Eye]

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

And that's what the NHL does... However, the teams that consistently perform poorly, or mediocre, blame money... not management...

Good management is rewarded by more success, and more $... Mediocre management is rewarded by mediocre success, and mediocre $... and Poor management is rewarded by poor success, and poor $...

 

[Weary]

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.

You are off-base here. I have to assume that you aren't familiar with NASCAR fans. Suffice it to say is that most have a favorite driver. Also many do pick their favorite driver for geographical reasons -- although I will concede it's probably not as prevalent a reason for them as it is for hockey fans.

The health (and revenues) of the sport are pretty divorced from the success (or failure) of any one driver/team.

The same goes for the NHL as well. A few franchises could fold and it really wouldn't matter. That's the ugly truth that no one wants to face.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

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...

Yea that's the only problem with allowing teams to spend above and beyond everything hockey related. That's when money becomes an unfair advantage.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

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

Right. BUT, it is clear that good management leads to more hockey revenues, so why shouldn't teams with good management be able to spend more of their hockey revenues that they earned fairly?

This is why capping all teams at the same, low level doesn't make much sense.
Just as it doesn't make sense to allow corporate owners to spend beyond what they have from their hockey team.

I think if you cut off every owner from outside funds than everything is completely fair in every way. Good management becomes the only way to win and the only way to earn more revenues and gain that fair spending advantage. And if your team has horrible management and other teams are spending more, it's no ones fault but yours.

 

[SENSible1*]

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?

Who said the players would be distributed evenly under a cap?

The smart teams would consistenly have a better group of players, just as they should.

Reward Brains, not Bucks.

 

[kdb209]

Right. BUT, it is clear that good management leads to more hockey revenues, so why shouldn't teams with good management be able to spend more of their hockey revenues that they earned fairly?

This is why capping all teams at the same, low level doesn't make much sense.
Just as it doesn't make sense to allow corporate owners to spend beyond what they have from their hockey team.

I think if you cut off every owner from outside funds than everything is completely fair in every way. Good management becomes the only way to win and the only way to earn more revenues and gain that fair spending advantage. And if your team has horrible management and other teams are spending more, it's no ones fault but yours.

Good management can lead to more revenues - only up to a point. There is no way, no matter how good the management, a team in Nashville can match the revenues of a team in New York or Toronto or Detroit - it's purely a matter of simple demographics.

 

[I in the Eye]

Money is not an inherent part of skill. Sorry.

Ya... money grows on trees, underneath chocolate skies, and across from strawberry rivers...

$ and skill are related. Sorry.

Even if you win the lottery, you won't have that money very long without a certain level of competence...

 

[Crazy_Ike]

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

One is skill as relates to hockey. One is not.

Your ability to make money in Wal-Mart chains (or worse, just marry into the family) or pizza franchises or massive multinational media empires should not translate to an uneven playing field in hockey.

(edit) So from your response above you clearly feel that if someone makes more money at anything, they deserve to be more successful at something unrelated? Rich tennis players should always get first serve? Rich pro golfers start on the forward tees?

 

[I in the Eye]

Good management can lead to more revenues - only up to a point. There is no way, no matter how good the management, a team in Nashville can match the revenues of a team in New York or Toronto or Detroit - it's purely a matter of simple demographics.

But can a team in Nashville generate enough revenue to have success?

And if given a team with the same lenthly history as NY or Toronto or Detroit, why couldn't Nashville do what they have done? IMO, hockey markets are grown... not born...

 

[SENSible1*]

Right. BUT, it is clear that good management leads to more hockey revenues, so why shouldn't teams with good management be able to spend more of their hockey revenues that they earned fairly?

This is why capping all teams at the same, low level doesn't make much sense.
Just as it doesn't make sense to allow corporate owners to spend beyond what they have from their hockey team.

I think if you cut off every owner from outside funds than everything is completely fair in every way. Good management becomes the only way to win and the only way to earn more revenues and gain that fair spending advantage. And if your team has horrible management and other teams are spending more, it's no ones fault but yours.

All teams have equal opportunity to make good hockey decisions.

All teams do not have equal opportunity to generate revenue.

Limiting the effect of revenue disparity helps provide teams with better equality of opportunity.

 

[SENSible1*]

But can a team in Nashville generate enough revenue to have success?

And if given a team with the same lenthly history as NY or Toronto or Detroit, why couldn't Nashville do what they have done? IMO, hockey markets are grown... not born...

And how do you protect the markets as they are growing if you don't take away the advantage money provides from the established markets?

 

[I in the Eye]

One is skill as relates to hockey. One is not.

Your ability to make money in Wal-Mart chains (or worse, just marry into the family) or pizza franchises or massive multinational media empires should not translate to an uneven playing field in hockey.

Your ability to get everything you can out of everything you have to generate success (and $) is not a skill that relates to hockey?

 

[I in the Eye]

And how do you protect the markets as they are growing if you don't take away the advantage money provides from the established markets?

The Nashville market, is IMO, naturally growing... regardless of what they are doing with their money advantage in Toronto or NY...

 

[djhn579]

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

Interesting POV. And no mater what anyone says here, the chances of anyone changing their mind as a result of this discussion is slim. I'll give it a try anyway...


When you are talking about individual players, and individual managers, and even individual owners, it's still a human being using his inherent physical and mental ability. They all use their intelligence, strength and experience to make their decisions either on the ice or in the boardroom. Every player on the ice has different ability. Some are stronger, some are faster, some are smarter, but in the end it is their ability that allows them to compete in the game.


When you talk about money, that is a bit different. A person can raise money using their natural ability, but I'm interested in a hockey game, not a competition to see who has the most money. That is what makes having more money than other teams is an unfair advantage. We want to see who can put together the best team using their ability, and then let the players play the game. We don't want to see who has the most money and see how the best athletes can beat up on lesser athletes.

If you and I were to decide we wanted to play a game, would you want to play a game where I'm much better than you and would beat you 95% of the time? Or would you rather play a game where you had a 50/50 chance of winning?

 

[WC Handy*]

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.

And I'm going to ask it again...

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

The structure of NASCAR (teams not affiliated with markets, technically an individual sport) allow it to not be negatively effected by the fact that certain teams can spend a lot more than others.

 

[WC Handy*]

And that's what the NHL does... However, the teams that consistently perform poorly, or mediocre, blame money... not management...

Good management is rewarded by more success, and more $... Mediocre management is rewarded by mediocre success, and mediocre $... and Poor management is rewarded by poor success, and poor $...

Just few pages back you admitted that money was a factor in success and now it sure looks like you're saying that it's not...

 

[I in the Eye]

If you and I were to decide we wanted to play a game, would you want to play a game where I'm much better than you and would beat you 95% of the time? Or would you rather play a game where you had a 50/50 chance of winning?

Thanks for your response djhn579...

Regardless of the game we decide play, I'd want it to be fair... If we both decided on tennis, and your parents were rich and you got tennis lessons from a pro, to ask you to take it easy on me, is IMO, not fair... If you got a state-of-the-art racket, and I got a ****** one... IMO, too bad... I'm not 4 years old...

A lot of these teams that have a lot of money have been around for decades... They've got history, they've got fanbases around North America (and the world)... I personally have no problem with them using their $ advantage (as I've maintained all along, $ advantage is not as great as competence advantage)... just like I have no problem with you playing tennis hard against me... and with your super racket... I decided to play tennis with you, therefore, I knew what I was getting into... I could actually learn from you... and in time, I have enough confidence in what I am capable of to beat you... I could even save up my money and buy the same racket that you've got...

If I love tennis, I'll play tennis against you - regardless if I lose 95% of the time... In time, it will be 90%, 80%, etc... IMO, it's up to me to become better and beat you... It's not up to you to come down to my level...

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by kdb209
Good management can lead to more revenues - only up to a point. There is no way, no matter how good the management, a team in Nashville can match the revenues of a team in New York or Toronto or Detroit - it's purely a matter of simple demographics.

But can a team in Nashville generate enough revenue to have success?

And if given a team with the same lenthly history as NY or Toronto or Detroit, why couldn't Nashville do what they have done? IMO, hockey markets are grown... not born...

It depends upon your definition of Success - and the current economic realities of the league. If your definition of success is maybe making the playoffs, but with no realistic expectation of advancing, then maybe yes. If your definition is to (with good management) build a team that can be competitive, have a realitic chance to go deep in the playoffs, keep that team together, and have more than a once in a decade kind of success, then no. But in any kind of economic market similar to last CBA (especially if you project the increasing differences in revenue and spending forward), no, Nashville (or Carolina or Tampa or Edmonton or Calgary or <insert your favorite small market team here> ) cannot generate enough revenues to be successful - if being successful means having to compete against the unchecked spending of the biggest markets.

"hockey markets are grown... not born...". There is no way Nashville (1M people) can grow to match the likes of the Detroit (4M), Toronto (5M), or New York (15M+) metropolitan areas. The differences in corporate support available just magnifies the differences.

 

[I in the Eye]

Just few pages back you admitted that money was a factor in success and now it sure looks like you're saying that it's not...

It looks like I'm saying that money is important... but competence is much more important...

 

[WC Handy*]

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...

Not only have I communicated my stance very clearly in this thread, but I have also explained to you why being able to spend money excessively is an unfair advantage. Feel free to read the previous few pages since you have obviously forgotten.

 

[WC Handy*]

The Nashville market, is IMO, naturally growing... regardless of what they are doing with their money advantage in Toronto or NY...

Given the fact that you've admitted in this thread that money provides an advantage how can you say that the Nashville market isn't effected by Toronto or New York?

Everything Toronto and Nashville does effects the value of the players Nashville wishes to retain or the players they'd like to approach on the free agent market.

Then you've got to factor in the fact that Nashville isn't an attractive location to free agents because free agents are well aware that money provides a significant advantage.

There's no question that Nashville's chance to succeed and grow as a market are both drastically effected by Toronto and New York and every other franchise in the league. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

 

[I in the Eye]

Not only have I communicated my stance very clearly in this thread, but I have also explained to you why being able to spend money excessively is an unfair advantage. Feel free to read the previous few pages since you have obviously forgotten.

I took your suggestion and re-read the previous few pages... You don't seem to understand what I'm asking... Maybe I'm not communicating what I'm looking for clearly... Forget it... I'll debate this with others...

 

[I in the Eye]

Given the fact that you've admitted in this thread that money provides an advantage how can you say that the Nashville market isn't effected by Toronto or New York?

Everything Toronto and Nashville does effects the value of the players Nashville wishes to retain or the players they'd like to approach on the free agent market.

Then you've got to factor in the fact that Nashville isn't an attractive location to free agents because free agents are well aware that money provides a significant advantage.

There's no question that Nashville's chance to succeed and grow as a market are both drastically effected by Toronto and New York and every other franchise in the league. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

To make a long story short, because competence is far more important than money...

 

[djhn579]

Thanks for your response djhn579...

Regardless of the game we decide play, I'd want it to be fair... If we both decided on tennis, and your parents were rich and you got tennis lessons from a pro, to ask you to take it easy on me, is IMO, not fair... If you got a state-of-the-art racket, and I got a ****** one... IMO, too bad... I'm not 4 years old...

A lot of these teams that have a lot of money have been around for decades... They've got history, they've got fanbases around North America (and the world)... I personally have no problem with them using their $ advantage (as I've maintained all along, $ advantage is not as great as competence advantage)... just like I have no problem with you playing tennis hard against me... and with your super racket... I decided to play tennis with you, therefore, I knew what I was getting into... I could actually learn from you... and in time, I have enough confidence in what I am capable of to beat you... I could even save up my money and buy the same racket that you've got...

If I love tennis, I'll play tennis against you - regardless if I lose 95% of the time... In time, it will be 90%, 80%, etc... IMO, it's up to me to become better and beat you... It's not up to you to come down to my level...

Then it comes back down to the game you want to watch. I want to watch hockey players compete at the game of hockey. I've got no problem with a team having a better coach, a better manager, better team doctor. I've got no problem with teams having better players. What I don't agree with is some teams using money for advantage. That is not hockey, and to top it off, many of the teams spending that money are losing money.

Where your analogy with tennis fails is that in time, most teams are not going to get better. The better players will leave teams for those that decide to spend and the team that lose those players will continue to lose more often than the teams that spend.

Luckily, the NHL is going to resolve this one way or another.

 

[WC Handy*]

I took your suggestion and re-read the previous few pages... You don't seem to understand what I'm asking... Maybe I'm not communicating what I'm looking for clearly... Forget it... I'll debate this with others...

You can keep putting on this act all you want. You're not fooling anyone. Everyone else who has read this thread knows that I already answered your question.