Weary said:
You've seen the finished CBA already? Could you tell us everything else that is or is not in it?
RFA UFA system obsolete?
- Thread starter Wisent
- Start date
- Status
You've seen the finished CBA already? Could you tell us everything else that is or is not in it?
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 29,098
- 13,550
What I'm saying is that if you wish to read the word opportunity to mean some chance greater than zero percent, then the old CBA offered that to every team every season. But if you read it to mean a fair chance, then that is going to take a system that significantly changes very bad and very good teams from one season to the next.norrisnick said:
Weary said:
It's great that we have you to tell us what Bettman meant, but what you are saying is only your opinion.
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 29,098
- 13,550
You are bouncing back and forth between extremes. If teams are managed well or poorly that will generally be indictors of how they perform, but neither side will be given too big of an advantage or handicap financially under the new system.Weary said:
A system that makes it possible to change bad teams to good ones. The simple act of making it possible for Edmonton, Carolina, Pittsburgh to afford their own players and a key free agent here or there would do that. It doesn't mandate that those teams that miss the playoffs make it the next year, but it does allow for that to happen.
Opportunity is a word that is not an extreme. It allows for some, but doesn't necessitate a guarantee to be competitive for the Cup every year.
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 29,098
- 13,550
Not really, no. There were teams that were not able to realistically retain players and their competitiveness compared to other teams (without incurring major losses that is).Weary said:
Continuum.
No parity.....................some parity....................Absolute parity/equality
...............old........................................new
That's where things were and where we are trying to go.
I'd love to watch a league where teams have little to no chemistry, especially in the early part of the season! No really, it'd be highly entertaining watching players put pass after pass in the wrong place! 
And players are important in marketing! In this country, team rosters can (and often do) change dramatically from one season to the next! Usually the players go abroad, so just imagine having to face all your old players the following season as would happen in NHL (apart from the odd guy who may return home)! You think fans over here enjoy most of their talent leaving, along with the uncertainty over whether they will ice a competitive team? Trust me, some teams will have less of a chance than others perennially, even under a cap, due to factors other than money! If several top players want a Cup, they'll all end up on the same few teams for less money, ala Paul Kariya! Those teams that would benefit would most likely be those with history, those with the best coaches, those with the best lifestyle (how many players would hate living in, say, Florida or California) etc.! And no, as I've said, I don't believe a cap would result in total parity, no matter how strict!
And players are important in marketing! In this country, team rosters can (and often do) change dramatically from one season to the next! Usually the players go abroad, so just imagine having to face all your old players the following season as would happen in NHL (apart from the odd guy who may return home)! You think fans over here enjoy most of their talent leaving, along with the uncertainty over whether they will ice a competitive team? Trust me, some teams will have less of a chance than others perennially, even under a cap, due to factors other than money! If several top players want a Cup, they'll all end up on the same few teams for less money, ala Paul Kariya! Those teams that would benefit would most likely be those with history, those with the best coaches, those with the best lifestyle (how many players would hate living in, say, Florida or California) etc.! And no, as I've said, I don't believe a cap would result in total parity, no matter how strict!
Wisent
Registered User
That's what I'm saying. He can have an UFA status after the first contact. I mean that he schouldn't get guaranteed raises, not that he schouldn't get a raise (if he plays like he is deserving some). Obviously there should be some raise after the rookie contract expires, but after that I don't see a neccesity for a guaranteed raise. Guaranteed raises, or an arbitration like system would probably be the end of the cap system again.Newsguyone said:
I'll just add one more Bettman quote here. This is from his season cancellation letter to season ticket holders:
I can find nothing that indicates Bettman wants continuity from year to year. His statements indicate he wants equality instead. Notice that he didn't use the word 'opportunity' here. He wants you to be 'confident that your favorite team can compete.' That's not a recipe for continuity.
Our intention throughout the collective bargaining process has been, and continues to be, the creation of an enduring partnership with our players that will allow you to enjoy a world-class product, at affordable prices, and enter each season confident that your favorite team can compete for the most cherished trophy in pro sports, the Stanley Cup.
I can find nothing that indicates Bettman wants continuity from year to year. His statements indicate he wants equality instead. Notice that he didn't use the word 'opportunity' here. He wants you to be 'confident that your favorite team can compete.' That's not a recipe for continuity.
Weary said:
enter each season confident that your favorite team can compete for the most cherished trophy in pro sports, the Stanley Cup
The important word in this sentence is "CAN", which has the same effect as using "opportunity" in the previous quote.
I think your trying to read more into these quotes than is actually there. There is no system that will allow every team to have the same chances of wining the cup each season, unless you can clone every player so every team has exactly the same talent.
Maybe, he just means that every team will be able to draft, develop and hold on to their players and that is what will allow them the opportunity to compete every season. This would be quite a change from where certain teams had a significant advantage due to how much non-hockey revenue they were wiling to spend.
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 29,098
- 13,550
That would be inconsistent with what he said. If he had had just said that every team "can compete...for the Stanley Cup," I might be inclined to agree with you. But he prefaced that with "each season." To have teams that stunk up the joint one year able to compete for the Stanley Cup the next has little to do with retaining players.djhn579 said:
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 29,098
- 13,550
There are free agents every season. The age limit is lowering. And in the new CBA more than 5 teams will be realistically able to bid on them. It isn't going to be a free for all every season, but the ability to add key pieces will exist on a wider scale than before.Weary said:
Epsilon
#basta
norrisnick said:
His point is that the closer something gets to a free for all, the easier it is for bad teams to rapidly get better and contend. Looking at the NFL and NBA provides ample evidence to support this position.
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 29,098
- 13,550
That may be, but the league has never argued that NHL is to be a free for all every season. He is trying to make the statements of "every team will have the opportunity to/can compete every season" to mean "every team will compete every season."Epsilon said:
King'sPawn
Enjoy the chaos
- Jul 1, 2003
- 21,874
- 20,745
Weary said:
Now you're really nitpicking.
Bettman can certainly say, "We're trying to negotiate a CBA that rewards the good, smart GMs who use their money for the right talent, so they can get lucky enough to win a Stanley Cup once in a while." Because that's the reality of the CBA, with this level playing field: the smarter GMs will be rewarded with the cup.
But you, myself, and anyone else, being the normal fans we are, don't like to hear that. Fans of rebuilding teams want to know they "have a chance" at the cup. It's really hard to convince people of a struggling franchise to lay down a lot of money to go to a game and watch some youngsters learn what it takes to make it in the NHL.
But just because he wants to spin the new CBA with some positive light, doesn't mean he's wanting to create some system that yields high turnover of players.
The high turnover will result from GMs who can't handle their money, or players who think they're worth more than they're paid... but of course, since teams can't go beyond a particular number now, that player will be hard pressed to find a better deal if he were to walk.
gary69
Registered User
King'sPawn said:
If GMs are so important, how many "smarter" GM are there (relative to other GMS)? If every team has one, then every team wins a Stanley Cup once in 30 years or thereabouts? If there are less of these smarter GMs, and they don't move around, then it's the same teams winning all over again?
I agree with you, that this kind of talk is just spinning the CBA in positive light.
- Status
