Question for pro-owner fans

Status
Not open for further replies.

London Knights

Registered User
Jun 1, 2004
831
0
gscarpenter2002 said:
The Mummy SPEAKS!!!!!!! Too bad you still don't have the stones to address me directly, since i have already figured out what you are all about...

As for locking in spending to what a team's individual revenues are, there are conflicting reports about that. Some say it is lague wide, some say it is team by team, some (like me) think it is both.

THe point, genius, was not that Carolina would spend $37 million, but rather that they would have no trouble with $19.8 plus benefits.

Regarding Carolina, they have 7 players under contract for 05-06 at the post-rollback salary of $11,886,400, with QO's for 10 more at $8.5 million. After signing 16 players even at the $400k new minimum, they would be at $19.2 million. They are already effectively at the floor. So (more or less) is Nashville, with $10.3 million for 9 players, $8.7 million in QO's, and a mimimum additional commitment of $5.6 million for their 14 more players.

And you quote FORBES???? Who were not even provided access to the books? :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

Oh, and how well or poorly run Carolina is was about as far from the point as you could get. A pitiful attempt to change the subject. :biglaugh:


Not that I don't agree with the points you have brought up, as I quite agree and have admired your arguments in the thread, but I thought that the NHL's major point of contention with Forbes was that they overvalued profits in regards to the Levitt report aswell. So is it not possible that FORBES' numbers actually underestimate the losses of a team such as Carolina?
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
mooseOAK said:
You certainly can't deal in absolutes like no and never.

The system worked if all teams are able to maintain their core group of players and build around them and not have to worry about them being snatched away by teams with unlimited bank accounts.
Certainly one measurement but not the most crucial one ..

Everyone will admit that the true goal of the CBA is to make 1 complete 30 healthy team league .. with all terms earning a profit to do business ..

Player turnover IMO is secondary to that goal and will always happen, and lost players via UFA can be replaced with new ones if BOTH the Budget and the Hard Cap allow for it.

Even core teams need to be disassembled perhaps for budget constraints of your individual market even if you have lots of cap room remaining ..
 

reckoning

Registered User
Jan 4, 2005
7,012
1,251
thinkwild said:
It is an interesting question reckoning. I was going to start a thread about defining benchmarks to determine if the cap system is working. Can we define the measures now that in a few years we can look back on and say, yes, the benchmarks were met, the system did work. Can we define the measure so that we can say, if this happens, there is more competitive balance. How can we know, other than intuitively, if it is true?

The 4 triggers, deemed essential to the leagues existence by fans when the league proposed them, will be interesting to monitor. What else?

The system worked if:

- no team misses the playoffs for 4 years?
- no team moves?
- no team fails to meet the minimum requirements Bettman mentioned to qualify for revenue sharing assistance?
- no teams lose their best players because of money?
- big markets dont get all the stars?

What are the measures that if met we can say - it worked?

Interesting points, but let me focus on the first: " no team misses the playoffs for 4 years". In the last 4 years only 4 teams never made the playoffs: two of them were recent expansion teams who had to start from the bottom up because the league didn`t give much to choose from (Atlanta and Columbus). The other two were Florida and the Rangers, and I don`t think anyone would blame the Rangers problems on lack of spending power.

My point is for all of Bettman`s rhetoric about competitive balance and parity, the lockout was about money, nothing else. The owners would gladly see the same teams miss the playoffs every year so long as the league was profitable. Check out the gap between best and worst teams in the standings and compare them to any other year from the past. There has been more parity over the last 5 years than in any other era in the NHL`s history. In fact, one couldargue that there`s been too much parity which has led to blandness.
 

flambers

Registered User
Jun 4, 2005
1,479
0
reckoning said:
Every article has mentioned possible caps and floors, while specific details on how much revenue sharing there will be are still sketchy. That`s why I asked the question. Please educate me.

If there`s going to be revenue sharing at the same level of the NFL, then that might help the lower end teams. But I doubt it will be that high.


First of all you have no idea what you are talking about, until we see the final CBA how could anyone know. Everything is rumours at this point but the end result is a Cap System, with Linkage (as rumoured). Which is a great thing for Hockey.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,814
1,464
Ottawa
reckoning said:
Interesting points, but let me focus on the first: " no team misses the playoffs for 4 years". In the last 4 years only 4 teams never made the playoffs: two of them were recent expansion teams who had to start from the bottom up because the league didn`t give much to choose from (Atlanta and Columbus). The other two were Florida and the Rangers, and I don`t think anyone would blame the Rangers problems on lack of spending power.

There was a lot of expansion teams in the last decade. In the next decade, with expansion teams developing and maturing , under the same system we would have probably seen the stats change because there were no expansion teams.

I didnt really think through these points. I'm just wondering what those thinking a cap was necessary, would consider successful measures.

My point is for all of Bettman`s rhetoric about competitive balance and parity, the lockout was about money, nothing else. The owners would gladly see the same teams miss the playoffs every year so long as the league was profitable. Check out the gap between best and worst teams in the standings and compare them to any other year from the past. There has been more parity over the last 5 years than in any other era in the NHL`s history. In fact, one couldargue that there`s been too much parity which has led to blandness.

I agree. $300mil going to the players, the owners wanted back.

I think it can be argued quite well. But if we dont have some sort of measure, we will never know.

Matt Witting did a study to measure this in the 4 major sports. he used standard deviation of winning percentages and times in the final over 5 and year periods as measures. He found the cap sports has less parity as measured by this stat. Someone in Australia at Berkeley did a similar study for the rugby league and corroborated the finding. It would be interesting if someone here tracked it for hockey.

But there could be other types of measures too. We should define them now, so we will know in the future if it worked. Its unlikely we will know if it worked just by looking at the agreement that is very likely no one will really be able to fully understand anyway.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
London Knights said:
Not that I don't agree with the points you have brought up, as I quite agree and have admired your arguments in the thread, but I thought that the NHL's major point of contention with Forbes was that they overvalued profits in regards to the Levitt report aswell. So is it not possible that FORBES' numbers actually underestimate the losses of a team such as Carolina?
Point taken, as i was aware of when i posted. THe point was that Massager was grasping at discredited sources to bolster a non-existent argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->