Stan Fischler's latest take on the lockout

Status
Not open for further replies.

MarkZackKarl

Registered User
Jun 29, 2002
2,978
12
Ottawa
Visit site
Lets use some logic here, just for a second:

Teams that are good have more good players. Good players cost more than average players.

Teams with top half payrolls either have
a) a lot of good players
b) a lot of old players
c) a lot of good and a lot of old players


Of course the Stanley Cup champs (on average) will have higher payrolls. They have better teams. The whole point that regular fans seem to misunderstand is: How does the team GET to being a Stanley cup champion? Is it by drafting and trades and good management and patience? Why yes, yes it is. Money doesn't matter in the league, only when you keep your winning team together. Teams that win use their playoff revenues to keep the core intact. I still can't see why people cannot grasp this easy concept.

Bettman's Pejorative Slured plan is to basically eliminate elite teams, put very little to no emphasis on drafting, cause any club that assembles a good bunch of talent to be dismantled, punish teams that make the playoffs by forcing them to share revenues with teams that were not good enough to make the playoffs, and capping salaries low so each owner can be guaranteed a profit no matter how stupid they are.

What kind of idiotic position is this, and why would anyone support it? It goes against any rational thought, and all the things that even the pro-owners (poor souls) want! Everyone is always *****ing about them wanting teams with smart management and drafting to be rewarded, successful teams. Every single point that I posted that Bettman wants punishes exactly that.

Its pretty clear, and the vast majority can't see it. Guess its too "complicated".
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
Scaredsensfan, with your track record when it comes to 'logic' I wouldn't make such bold statements.

Bettman is proposing a system which puts even more emphasis on good drafting and good management in general. He wants a system under which teams like Oilers, Pens, 'Hawks etc. don't have to trade away their best players because they know they are going to lose them later to big-spenders anyway via free agency. Do you seriously think Oilers wanted to trade Guerin, Weight, Niinimaa, Hamrlik, Mironov etc. away? They simply had to do it because they were afraid they would lose them for nothing.

What you STILL fail to see is that good drafting becomes even more essential in league's proposal whereas under PA's proposal you can still patch up horrible management by bringing in UFAs with big money.

Look at the Cup winners of the past decade, every team (with the possible exception of Tampa) has used money to either sign big name UFAs or trade for star players from smaller teams who had to trade them before losing them to UFA. If you think that's a healthy system, you're obviously even more confused than I thought.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
scaredsensfan said:
Lets use some logic here, just for a second:

Teams that are good have more good players. Good players cost more than average players.

Teams with top half payrolls either have
a) a lot of good players
b) a lot of old players
c) a lot of good and a lot of old players


Of course the Stanley Cup champs (on average) will have higher payrolls. They have better teams. The whole point that regular fans seem to misunderstand is: How does the team GET to being a Stanley cup champion? Is it by drafting and trades and good management and patience? Why yes, yes it is. Money doesn't matter in the league, only when you keep your winning team together. Teams that win use their playoff revenues to keep the core intact. I still can't see why people cannot grasp this easy concept.

Bettman's Pejorative Slured plan is to basically eliminate elite teams, put very little to no emphasis on drafting, cause any club that assembles a good bunch of talent to be dismantled, punish teams that make the playoffs by forcing them to share revenues with teams that were not good enough to make the playoffs, and capping salaries low so each owner can be guaranteed a profit no matter how stupid they are.

What kind of idiotic position is this, and why would anyone support it? It goes against any rational thought, and all the things that even the pro-owners (poor souls) want! Everyone is always *****ing about them wanting teams with smart management and drafting to be rewarded, successful teams. Every single point that I posted that Bettman wants punishes exactly that.

Its pretty clear, and the vast majority can't see it. Guess its too "complicated".

What a load of excrement. Maybe I misunderstand (George Bush is posting here now?) what you are thinking in regards to salaries of the future, but based on the way the cap is proposed salaries on big ticket players would come way down for the most part and rookie salaries would be taken to a level where they should be. Salary demands would be forced to drop and come into line across the board.

How does the system punish the teams that draft well? The institution of serious controls on rookie salaries keeps those costs down, so no team will have a rookie come in a toss the salary structure out of whack. The teams that develop these young players now have a structure and mechanisms that allow the teams to retain their services. The ones that this deal will hurt are the older players who are living off of reputation or are over-paid for their contribution. Players like Bondra and Smolinski come to mind. This will not hurt the earning potential of players like Hossa and Havlat at all IMO. The Senators, like every other team in the league, will just have some choices to make and will pick the players that they view as being most important to the team.

The best part is that some team will be stupid and pay one guy $10 million, eating up 1/4 of their payroll, but for the most part teams will shy away from this and develop salary structures that work across the league. Those that pay the clown $10 million will be stuck with him and have to live with the mistake. Over-paying any player will be a punishment that a team has to live with for the remainder of the contract.

Frankly, the teams that have a good organization will be the ones who win in the future. Those who have had the mentality of paying and over-paying for older players will have to revamp their organization in a hurry to compete. The premium will be placed on young talent who can provide the same things that the grizzled vets can, but have the upside of more ability down the road. Calgary and Chuck Kobasew/Dave Lowry come to mind as an example. Lowry got pushed out the door because a younger player came in and provided the same things Lowry did and has the potential to get much better results when he finds his scoring touch. The one thing he lacks is the experience and leadership of Lowry, but teams will have to find this in other players than the grizzled has-beens that are floating around (Mike Keane as an example).

I see the Senators in the catbird seat when the new system comes in. They have some great youth that is still affordable and will fit perfectly into a $38 million salary. They will have to cut loose junk like Bonk, Bondra and Smolinski and will likely have to make a decision on Alfredsson, but I think these work for the club in the long run. I think trading Bonk, Bondra, Smolinski and Alfredsson will recoup the Senators assets that will make thenm even better in the long run and sustain the team. The prospects and draft picks that come back will be key in continually developing the players required to support Redden, Chara, Hossa, Havlat, Fisher, White, Spezza, etc. They also get the excuse to dump players that have not exactly been playoff giants for them and get something back of value. If I were a Sens fan I would be happy about the prospects, not whining and crying over it. Heck, if I were a Sens fan I would be thankful to still have a hockey club and that the NHL is doing what needs to be done to build a market where Ottawa can compete. But that's just me, and I obviously misunderstand what has happened in Ottawa over the past three years.
 

The Maltais Falcon

Registered User
Jan 9, 2005
1,156
1
Atlanta, GA
scaredsensfan said:
Bettman's Pejorative Slured plan is to basically eliminate elite teams, put very little to no emphasis on drafting, cause any club that assembles a good bunch of talent to be dismantled, punish teams that make the playoffs by forcing them to share revenues with teams that were not good enough to make the playoffs, and capping salaries low so each owner can be guaranteed a profit no matter how stupid they are.
Look at the NBA and NFL. There are still elite teams and bottom-feeders in both leagues. The notion that if a cap is put in place that all teams will go 41-41 and the Stanley Cup winner will be no less random than a series of coin tosses is a myth. And a salary cap will not guarantee a profit to owners. The only thing it guarantees is a relationship between revenues and player costs. Revenues and operating costs will still be a function of the market and economy as a whole - something a cap cannot address.

And for the umptyupmth time, please stop calling into question the intelligence of those who think differently from you. It's wholly unnecessary.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
The Maltais Falcon said:
And for the umptyupmth time, please stop calling into question the intelligence of those who think differently from you. It's wholly unnecessary.

It's not only unnecessary, it's downright amusing considering the fact that the poster in question has not exactly shown anything when it comes to intelligence...

I think Sens would be one of the biggest benefictors of the system proposed by Bettman, that would prevent Rangers, Leafs and Wings from poaching their assets when they reach reaching UFA age with ridiculous salary offers.
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
PecaFan said:
Interesting question. I guess I'd have to see as many teams in the bottom half of the league salary wise winning the Cup under the last CBA as are in the the top half.

IMO, at this point, this is too open for interpretation... IMO, we'll likely have different opinions while looking at the same thing... We'll be going around in a circle and getting nowhere...

I think first, there should be an agreement and understanding of the general concept: competence is much more important than $ in determining success or failure...

If we can first agree on this concept, then IMO, it would be worthwhile to specifically apply the concept to hockey... To see if it is in line... To see if it supports the agreed to, accepted theory...

But what compelling evidence would someone want to see to change their belief?

I don't think anyone would (or should) simply take my word for it... I am very confident that I can back up my claim...

But what would someone want to see? I'm looking for something concrete and undeniable... something that can't be argued... something very specific that has the potential to change someone's belief...

Quotes from respected business authors? Footnotes to empirical research done by respected research firms?

Would anything I provide be enough to change someone's belief?... Or is it impossible to provide physical evidence to prove or disprove a psychological belief to any meaningful degree of certainty?

Do we simply choose to believe or not believe something for both rational and irrational reasons?

Why do people believe that $ is the key determinent for success or failure, when decades of study and research repeatedly says otherwise? When competence time and again has been proven to be the most important variable?

Is it because Bettman said so? Because Bettman is our leader, and we need to believe that our leader is acting in our best interest when he says he is?

Perhaps a hard salary cap is needed to get the league economics under control... If a hard cap isn't implemented, hockey will die... I can accept and appreciate that argument... I don't know the ins and outs of the 'hockey business' to say with any degree of certainty one way or the other... I don't believe it, but that's just my personal belief and opinion from an outsider... Regardless, the 'competitive balance' argument is a fallacy (and I could back up my claims if I knew specifically what someone would want to see)... If the league truly wanted to improve 'competitive balance', they would be capping competence, well before they decided to cap salaries...

IMO, it's a convenient argument to garner support while they attempt to make their investments more attractive... It's the promise of gold at the end of the rainbow... when IMO, the owners will pocket the real gold - leaving the fools gold and dirt to the fans... IMHO, a hard cap's impact on the actual game is an afterthought...

Be careful what you wish for... Believe half of what you see, and none of what you here... Be weary of thieves bearing gifts... a hard cap is as useless as t**s on a nun ;) [enter other random 'wisdom quotes' here], etc...
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Pepper said:
Do you seriously think Oilers wanted to trade
Pepper said:
good trade .. Oilers came out just fine. How did BOS do ? they have nothing now.
Pepper said:
If this considered a bad trade, its the Oilers fault for making a bad trade. VAN got Jovo and Morrison for their salary dumps (Bure and Mogilny), CGY got Iginla and Regehr for their salary dumps (Joe N and Fleury), OTT got Spezz and Chara for their salary dump (Yashin).
Pepper said:
Niinimaa,
good trade .. Oilers came out just fine. Or is Raffi Torres not an integral part of their forward corps.
Pepper said:
good trade.. Oilers came out just fine. Who wouldnt prefer Eric Brewer over Roman Hamrlik ?
Pepper said:
good trade ... Mironov is a bumb and not even in the NHL anymore. Why would you want EDM to still have him ?

bah, too bad that EDM couldnt afford these guys, but in the end they are better off for it.

dr
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
DR said:
good trade .. Oilers came out just fine. How did BOS do ? they have nothing now.
If this considered a bad trade, its the Oilers fault for making a bad trade. VAN got Jovo and Morrison for their salary dumps (Bure and Mogilny), CGY got Iginla and Regehr for their salary dumps (Joe N and Fleury), OTT got Spezz and Chara for their salary dump (Yashin).
good trade .. Oilers came out just fine. Or is Raffi Torres not an integral part of their forward corps.
good trade.. Oilers came out just fine. Who wouldnt prefer Eric Brewer over Roman Hamrlik ?
good trade ... Mironov is a bumb and not even in the NHL anymore. Why would you want EDM to still have him ?

bah, too bad that EDM couldnt afford these guys, but in the end they are better off for it.

dr

All of those were good trades? Wow! Welcome to Fantasy Island.

And I think you miss the point. Those trades were all forced on the teams in question because they could not afford players that they had developed (for the most part) themselves and invested time and money into. Those teams became, and continue to be, feeder systems for the big market teams. Its only a matter of time before more of the talent in Calgary, Vancouver and Edmonton head off to bigger markets under the existing CBA. Then the vicious cycle continues.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
DR said:
good trade .. Oilers came out just fine. How did BOS do ? they have nothing now.

You're ONCE AGAIN (I've explained you this many times) missing the point.

It's not about whether the trade was good or bad, it's about Oilers having no choice! They might get lucky with a trade or two but in the end they still have no choice than to trade them.
 

RangerBoy

Dolan sucks!!!
Mar 3, 2002
44,910
21,233
New York
www.youtube.com
Pierre Dagenais speaks again...the truth hurts

“Guys have started to talk in the last three weeks,†says Dagenais. “It could open Bob Goodenow’s eyes. I’d be curious to see if they took a poll of the players on a Cap.†They may be surprised to see how many players in my situation would vote in favor of a Cap.â€

http://www.msgnetwork.com/content_n...ticle&sports=ice-hockey&team=other&league=nhl
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,087
13,874
Missouri
RangerBoy said:
Pierre Dagenais speaks again...the truth hurts

“Guys have started to talk in the last three weeks,†says Dagenais. “It could open Bob Goodenow’s eyes. I’d be curious to see if they took a poll of the players on a Cap.†They may be surprised to see how many players in my situation would vote in favor of a Cap.â€

http://www.msgnetwork.com/content_n...ticle&sports=ice-hockey&team=other&league=nhl

I'm sure he misunderstood the question. I mean look at his answer. The guy can hardly string two english words together.
 

X0ssbar

Guest
RangerBoy said:
Pierre Dagenais speaks again...the truth hurts

“Guys have started to talk in the last three weeks,†says Dagenais. “It could open Bob Goodenow’s eyes. I’d be curious to see if they took a poll of the players on a Cap.†They may be surprised to see how many players in my situation would vote in favor of a Cap.â€

http://www.msgnetwork.com/content_n...ticle&sports=ice-hockey&team=other&league=nhl

Got to admire Dagenais. Here is one player who took a position in favor of a cap has yet to back down to the pressure of the NHLPA. I agree with him, I think there are a lot more players like him - more than most think - out there who feel a cap isn't the end of the world.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Pepper said:
You're ONCE AGAIN (I've explained you this many times) missing the point.

It's not about whether the trade was good or bad, it's about Oilers having no choice! They might get lucky with a trade or two but in the end they still have no choice than to trade them.
so what ? wa wa wa

even if they had a choice, they would have been stupid not to make all those trades, so whats the problem ?

dr
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
DR said:
so what ? wa wa wa

even if they had a choice, they would have been stupid not to make all those trades, so whats the problem ?

dr

Jesus you're thick....What's the problem? THE PROBLEM IS THAT THEY HAVE NO CHOICE TO TRADE THEM EVEN THOUGH THEY WOULDN'T WANT TO DO IT!

Stop being an idiot for crying out loud!
 

eye

Registered User
Feb 17, 2003
1,607
0
around the 49th para
Visit site
Top Shelf said:
Got to admire Dagenais. Here is one player who took a position in favor of a cap has yet to back down to the pressure of the NHLPA. I agree with him, I think there are a lot more players like him - more than most think - out there who feel a cap isn't the end of the world.


I missed this one. The boys are really starting to crack and their agents won't be far behind. Look for big results in CBA concessions within the next few days. Thanks Pierre Dagenais and Mike Modano.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->