Since support for a cap seems to be such a "Canadian" thing..

[se7en*]

And I hate when fans of the spenders whine about "Why should they pay to help small-market teams?" to which I retort "Why should small-markets pay for their stupidity?" These guys have got to grow up man! Nashville, Edmonton, et al, are just as much part of the NHL as anyone else.

 

[mr gib]

1. Lynch was far from the kingpin of the Broncos defense. In fact, he arguably the most overrated player in the league.
2. Of course upper payroll teams are going to lose some starts. Isn't that the whole idea, to spread talent more evenly around the league and put a premium on player development?

alas - there will be no humour

 

[Go Flames Go*]

Jarome Iginla is a flame for life there is no leaving for him. Uncle Sutter has begun the mafioso familia with the Flames you cannot leave until he wants you gone.

 

[Da McBomb]

The part about Gretzky though......Tell me if you haven't heard the following from every musical performer to play in Rexall/Skyreach etc:

"No one rocks like Edmonton woooooooooooooooooo!!"
*crowd goes insane under the pretense that no one, anywhere, rocks like Edmonton*

Thats a valid statement.. but I think my statement about players really enjoying their time in a hockey crazed city like Edmonton has alot of merit. Even recently, if you look at the players who have left edmonton (Weight, Guerin, Ninimma, Cujo, Marchant).. they all said they loved playing in a place where hockey matters so much. Steve Staios who played in Atlanta before Edmonton said how much more he's enjoyed playing here where every hockey story makes the front page and not just a small little blurb on the very last page of the sports section.

 

[Sotnos]

You're also taklking about players who were done in Tampa Bay. Lynch was a health risk and Sapp's act had played itself out. I felt Lynch could have been dealt with differently, but I understand why the team did what it did. Sapp was handled perfectly. They guy was a huge problem for the Bucs and they couldn't get rid of him quick enough. If you're looking for a hockey equivalent, Lynch would have been comparable to Kevin Stevens and Sapp would have been comparable to Alexei Yashin.

*football talk* Not that I want to get this totally off-track, but I can't resist a discussion on Sapp and Lynch. You are right that Lynch got treated like a dog, period. I can somewhat understand moving him, BUT from a PR standpoint (which this new manager has zero clue about) that was just a mess. If you get rid of a guy like that, I hate to think what's next...let's move Brooks and get rid of all the guys with some decency on the team. I don't think Sapp was a "problem", there were bigger problems around here last season, problems with bigger mouths than he. Anyway, I'm not in their locker room, thank god, so what do I know? *end football talk*

Alrighty, so anyway, on to hockey...having read opinions of Bolts fans on several different boards, I'd have to say very few of them think we'd be worse off under a cap system. I can count on one hand the number of them who are pro-NHLPA. IMO, it's far more likely that we'd be able to keep Khabibulin (for example) if there is some deflation of salaries & a cap. Under the current system, I'd say it's almost a given that someone would make him a crazy offer that Tampa had no hope of matching once his contract is up.

However, I haven't seen a Cap scenario really laid out where Tampa is grouped in with the have-nots as opposed to the haves unless there's a salary rollback involved, so I'm not completely sold on the Cap idea. I'm definitely pro-owner myself, BUT I'm not convinced that a cap is the one and only way. I just want to see hockey and see my team's future lie in the hands of the GM, and not be subject to losing a ton of players because the money's just not there despite good fan support (which we have now, thankfully). I don't want Tampa to be anyone's farm team as it has been in the past.

As someone else has said, I don't see this as a Canadian/American issue at all, it's small market vs. large market. We have enough Canadian vs. American arguments around here, but this shouldn't be one of them.

 

[I in the Eye]

I've enjoyed reading your thoughts on this thread, but I find I disagree on several points. This post I'm taking bits from was a response to Iconoclast's response to you... and I find I agree with most of what he wrote.

Hi quat,

I tend to find that mainly alcoholics and/or womanizers tend to agree with the majority of my points - so you're in good company

I am definitely open to the possibility that I'm not right... as this is all just my opinion...

In this senario, the Owners have given up far to much to get a cap. They certainly would be well aware of the negative effects of losing star players they just finished developing for nothing, so I find it very unlikely they would sign anything like this. I think you may underestimate the postition of strength the Owners are negotiating from this time.

I do agree that they will accept something different than they have offered to date, but it will be nothing like this.

I don't think that I am underestimating the position of strength the owners are negotiating from... I was very careful to use the word negotiation in my previous post... If the owners negotiate the terms of a hard cap, then I think that they will need to severely concede control of player rights... IMO, that's the only way that they'll get a hard cap through negotiation...

But the owners do have outstanding leverage to get whatever CBA they prefer implemented - if they are willing to utilize this leverage fully... And that will, IMO, mean 2+ years without hockey (as Gretzky also predicts)... That will likely mean taking the steps to break the union... IMO, it will be disasterous to the league - and very expensive (in terms of opportunity cost and legal fees) and exhausting for the owners to follow through with...

If the owners can get their hard cap cost certainty without having to drag this out for a significant amount of time (and with losing the least amount of money as possible), IMO, they will... If the players cave to the owners outstanding leverage a year from now, and say, ok you'll get your hard cap - you won - strictly tie or salaries to an arbitrary number - but in exchange, we control our rights - we live in North America, where slavery is dead... We will fight to the bitter end if you want to control both our earning power, and where we will work... We will do whatever we can to prevent this from happening, as it is inhumane this day and age - we will not concede both and this may bring the whole ship down if need be- You may end up winning when all is said and done, but what you've won will be a shadow of it's former self... I think that the owners would concede the point... To not will cost the owners millions and millions more...

From my point-of-view, $ means more to the owners than keeping a home-grown star on their team... If both can happen, even better (as fans will be happier), but if they had to choose one or the other, $ will win the battle every time... Cost certainty is the quest, with as minimal hardship as possible to achieve it... If the players offered a hard cap cost certainty CBA to end the war (and prevent further causalties on either side), IMHO, the owners would go for it...

I don't think you are being very reasonable here. You expect a GM to stand up to a star player for years at a time, pretty much regardless of what other GM's are doing around the league?

Maybe I'm not being very reasonable, but I think that I am being fair, IMO... As it's nothing that I don't expect from myself... which may explain my ulcer

Perhaps I do have an unrealistic expectation for GMs (and myself)...

IMO, some environments are very difficult to operate in... I appreciate that... But, IMO, a competent individual finds a way to make the environment work for them... A competent individual can always find success - no matter the terrain... A GM will keep his job if he can develop a high quality on-ice product at a minimal cost... An owner would love that most of all... IMO, the tools were there in the last CBA to make it work - IF the GM's used the tools to make it work... Yes, there is great pressure to not 'do the right thing'... But such is life, IMO... If a GM doesn't have the balls to do what is needed, he should find work elsewhere...

I don't (nor can't) believe that an environment is so difficult to operate in that success is out of an individual's control...

The environment (and outside forces) doesn't determine your destiny, IMO... Your environment doesn't determine your success or failure (it only plays in how difficult it will be to achieve your destiny)... IMO, your ability to utilize the environment to get the most you can out of what you have available, determines your destiny...

We don't have control over everything, but we do, IMO, have control over our own success and failure...

Lowe believes that he lives in a dismal predetermined world (NHL environment) where he is just a pawn... How can any other outcome but mediocrity be inevitable?

IMO, there is no coincidence in the universe. IMO, nothing 'just' happens - rather, we make them happen...

It is my contention that we create our reality in more ways than we can understand...

But with this said, I'm all for making the NHL environment easier to operate in - if for no other reason, than the owners have the power and ability to make it easier... IMO, anything but a hard cap...

 

[kruezer]

Yep, that's why the two sides are debating this CBA.

Let me guess: fan of an also-ran?

Find a shrewd GM, draft well, develop players, make wise deals...and EARN a trip to the Finals, eh? Instead of looking for handouts from superior teams.

Funny (sad, actually) how it is ONLY fans of some inferior teams who even bring this concept up.

I have to agree in a way Trottier, it shouldn't be about spreading talent evenly per se, it should be about everyone having equal access to the talent available and selecting the players they want wisely from there. This is why league wide revenue sharing (everything goes into the pot, and everyone splits it evenly) would have a much larger impact than a cap IMO, Really I think the thing in the NFL that helped it grow so much was the revenue sharing, not the cap. If the league really is 'trying to help out each other' why don't they? Having a league where everytime a team comes to town there is reason for the fans to come out is what the NHL lacks. They really need complete revenue sharing and a hardcore marketing program, (also some rule crackdowns I could go on about forever) try and actually grow as a league, not as single organizations at the expense of each other.

 

[I in the Eye]

Here is a paper I found on Free Agency in Professional Sports...

http://www.uta.edu/depken/P/freeagency4.pdf

Very interesting read, IMO...

Hopefully adds a bit of substance in addition to all of our opinions (with regards to the impact of free agency)...

 

[PecaFan]

Interesting article, but man, some of the things in there just make me shake my head.

"Free agency was introduced in hockey in 1995".

Uh, ok.

"while salaries increase with free agency ... no team in the four major U.S.
professional sports has been bankrupted by free agency."

That's a great standard there. As long as the company hasn't filed for bankruptcy, then X is fine, and there's no problem with it? Gee, Union Carbide didn't file for bankruptcy after killing 20,000 innocent civilans in Bhopal, I guess that means it's not something worth worrying about.

"[free agents] are rarely paid more than the revenue they generate for their teams"

In what possible way can this ever be quantified? Scott Lachance brings in $2 million in revenue, while Martin Lapointe brings in $5.5 million? I say this is pure hogwash. The vast majority of free agents bring in *zero* revenue. They are simply cogs in a gear. Remove them, put in another cog, and everything works exactly the same as before. There's like one guy who'd stop watching hockey if Scott Lachance retired, or bought tickets solely because of him.

Only the superstars, the best of the best, are the ones that directly bring in revenue. And most of those guys aren't even free agents, they're usually guys you drafted or traded for and then developed.

 

[I in the Eye]

Interesting article, but man, some of the things in there just make me shake my head.

Agreed...

Interesting read with a few insightful tidbits of information, if nothing else...

 

[mileflames]

Clark $825,000.00
Commodore$515,000.00
Donovan $850,000.00
Eriksson $600,000.00
Ference $625,000.00
Gelinas $1,950,000.00
Iginla $7,500,000????
Kiprusoff $2,950,000.00
Langkow $2,950,000.00
Leopold $950,000.00
Loyns $440,000.00
Lydman $2,400,000.00
Montador $425,000.00
Nieminen $600,000.00
Nilson $1,250,000.00
Regehr $1,750,000.00
Reinprecht$1,900,000.00
Ritchie $550,000.00
Simon $1,900,000.00
Turek $1,000,000.00
Warrener $2,200,000.00
Wiemer $1,250,000.00
Yelle $1,800,000.00

$37,180,000.00 that is close to what the cap will be...

$2m more with Kobasew and Phaneuf.
The flames will have to send some guys down to the AHL - save money
If there is a cap Iggy would go for about 6m a year.

About $36M a year for the Flames, the Oil are around $30m right now.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Especially ones that don't apply!

The nerve of people, objecting to silly comparisons with leagues that are in different worlds of popularity, fanbase, and revenues!

and yet the nhl still manages to dole out more money for its players.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Favre was traded to Green Bay from Atlanta.

yeah but I don't think he ever played a game there.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

john lynch - warren sapp

add Jerry Rice, Tim Brown and Joe Montana while your at What do they all have in common? Theyw ere all moved, yes, but they were all over the hill.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

c'mon humour me here - you here about this in the nfl all the time - not the greatest examples but lynch is the kingpin in the bronco's defense and the buc's have been done since he left and the fan's are pissed - that's all i'm saying - the upper payroll nhl teams are gonna lose some star's

stars that they robbed from the lower payroll teams. now the Leafs will have to decide which star they can't afford. So guys is it gonna be Sundin, Belfour or Mogilny? Yep, how unfair. I'll be sure to send a prayer out to leafs fans at this great injustice.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Here is a paper I found on Free Agency in Professional Sports...

http://www.uta.edu/depken/P/freeagency4.pdf

Very interesting read, IMO...

Hopefully adds a bit of substance in addition to all of our opinions (with regards to the impact of free agency)...

I'm not knocking the report but did anybody else get the feeling that the writer doesn't watch sports?

 

[arnie]

Favre is the exception not the rule. Green Bay sacrifice a lot of good players to keep him also.

You're whole argument is ridiculous. First, the reason that players switch teams so often in the NHL is not the cap but rather the low UFA age. This is going to happen in hockey no matter what the outcome of the CBA talks are. Second, go tell the Penguins about keeping players after losing Jagr, Kovalev, Francis, Lang, and Kasparitis.

It all boils down to one simple thing: The Pittsburgh Steelers are in the AFC championship game yet again. The Pittsburgh Penguins were the worst team in the NHL. You make all the inane arguments against a cap that you want, but this says it all.