Strachan sets Alberta straight

[ScottyBowman]

Nice sentiment but it's not going to happen, there will be a cap and you guys will no longer be able to trade for leading scorers at the trade deadline. Doesn't matter if it's wrong or right, YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO DO IT AGAIN.

I bet it just sucks realizing that although 4 teams make a lot of money 26 others are going to stop it. Sounds like the whining is coming from you realizing your buying days are over. I love it.

Alberta does know how it feels to be the leafs, we rake in the money, hear the whining from the rest of Canada, but the difference is, WE SHARE THE MONEY.

Sorry pal but I was never proud of the Wings or other teams "buying" players. I've even said I'm embarrassed at our bloated payroll. The problem is with the Oilers and other small teams is that they can't draft worth squat and a salary cap isn't going to save them.

 

[se7en*]

Scotty, they couldnt draft worth squat under Sather, true, and yes it still hurts - but the last few years since new management took over has seen a vast improvement in drafting. Why does that part always get ignored?

 

[Charge_Seven]

Sorry pal but I was never proud of the Wings or other teams "buying" players. I've even said I'm embarrassed at our bloated payroll. The problem is with the Oilers and other small teams is that they can't draft worth squat and a salary cap isn't going to save them.

But it will improve the Red Wings, the Leafs, and the Rangers drafting when we infuse $5,000,000 into scouting...

 

[Mr Sakich]

Honest question, why does it seem that Flames and Oilers fans are more obsessed with getting a salary cap to "level the playing field" than they are about getting some revenue sharing? Wouldn't revenue sharing help them a little bit more?

Say what you want, but the Oilers had a payroll in the low $30's last season and by all accounts are barely scraping by. If they can't afford the $40 or $42.5 million salary caps that were proposed, then why insist on it instead of pushing for revenue sharing?

Even if Detroit has to chop their payroll to get under a salary cap, they're still miles ahead of the Oilers since the Red Wings can actually draft decent players, so a cap won't make the Oilers instant contenders.

Sure, Doug Weight wouldn't have signed a $7, $8, or $9 million contract with a salary cap in place, maybe only $5 million, which still would have been too much for the Oilers to afford. Teams that actually can afford a $40 million cap will still have an advantage over the Oilers without actual revenue sharing.

good question about revenue sharing. I think the answer is that the big revenue teams have been bought with big dollars and it would be unfair to them if they are forced to become a medium revenue team because of revenue sharing. I don't think the big mrkets want to engage in any menaingfull revenue sharing so it is a non-starter for the flames and oilers.

As for the oilers barely scraping by, they had a payroll of 32 mill US last year. That exact same amount translates to 36-37 mill this year because the decline in the US dollar. They were also one of the very few teams to turn a profit. I saw a list somewhere on this site and it seems to me the oilers had the 8th largest profit in the nhl last year so it is hard to call them poor sisters.

What oilers ownership has asked for is this - reduce the disparity between the large spenders and the small spenders. We don't want a situation the blue jays are in where there is zero hope for a penant because the yankees and sox spend 3 times as much. The oil would be perfectly happy if they spent 36 mill and the top spender was 50 mill. At least we are in the same ballpark.

 

[Sammy*]

Al doesnt seem to be able to figure out part of the whining revolves around the fact that save for last year, the Oilers virtually sold out every game & maximized revenues, yet still lost money.
The issue of competitivness is another one, namely the small market teams have very little chance signing their own stars or UFA's of any note.
So tell me Al, what do you think is a fair annual return on a 70 mil investment?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

....The oil would be perfectly happy if they spent 36 mill and the top spender was 50 mill. At least we are in the same ballpark.

coulda fooled me .... last i heard most the NHL choked on a salary cap of 42.5m (actuallya 37m soft cap),

if the Oil and their cronies were OK with a 36/50 difference, there would be hockey right now.

dr

 

[CGG]

Problem with that is Detroit has not drafted a good player in a while...the best two players were Zetterburg and Datsyuk and both are still fairly uncertain in terms of their impact in the league (neither has played really well in the playoffs where it counts).

Also Doug Weight did sign in Edmonton for $5 million a year for a couple of years at least...they lost him when he wanted more than $5 million a year.

Ugh. Which team would you rather have? And keep in mind that at least for the last 10 years, Edmonton has picked way before Detroit:

DETROIT RED WINGS - Drafted players only

Sillinger
Fedorov
Drake
Primeau
Kozlov
Lapointe
McCarty
Holmstrom
Datsyuk
Zetterberg
Hudler
Grigorenko

Boughner
Lidstrom
Konstantinov
McGillis
Dandenault
Fischer
Kronwall

Osgood

EDMONTON OILERS - Drafted players only

Buchberger
Podein
Matlby
Rucinsky
Arnott
Satan
Smyth
Laraque
Pisani
Horcoff
Comrie
Hemsky
Stoll

Poti
Semenov

Markkanen

Can anyone even name another defenseman currently in the NHL drafted by Edmonton? Also, kinda hard to say a lot of recent Edmonton picks have had piles of playoff success too, isn't it?

(I left off Yzerman and Messier, who both might be done due to the lockout).

 

[guymez]

Sorry pal but I was never proud of the Wings or other teams "buying" players. I've even said I'm embarrassed at our bloated payroll. The problem is with the Oilers and other small teams is that they can't draft worth squat and a salary cap isn't going to save them.

There probably isn't a single team in the league that hasn't had their share of busts from the draft. For me the main issue is the fact that big market teams could cover up their poor drafting by throwing gobs of money at the free agent pool. Edmonton and Calgary didn't have that option.

 

[Other Dave]

For me the main issue is the fact that big market teams could cover up their poor drafting by throwing gobs of money at the free agent pool.

Leafs aside, can you name another big market team that has been successful in that strategy?

 

[CGG]

Leafs aside, can you name another big market team that has been successful in that strategy?

Obviously the New York Rangers. Seven consecutive seasons of not finishing last overall. Success if you ask me. I bet the Oilers would be better if they could have gone out and signed Quintal, Fraser, Keane, Kasparitis, deVries, Malakhov, Lefebvre and Holik.

 

[Cloned]

Leafs aside, can you name another big market team that has been successful in that strategy?

It's not just limited to advantages in FA. "Small-market teams" also have problems with keeping players, trading for players, etc. because money plays a central role in deciding to a large extent what players a team can acquire or keep -- through any means, whether that be signing, trading, qualifying, etc.

It's the fact that teams like Detroit, Colorado, and Philly are able to acquire key players through these means AND are able to acquire role players through those same means that contributes to the competitive imbalance.

 

[NYIsles1*]

There probably isn't a single team in the league that hasn't had their share of busts from the draft. For me the main issue is the fact that big market teams could cover up their poor drafting by throwing gobs of money at the free agent pool. Edmonton and Calgary didn't have that option.

At the free agent pool, at the trade deadline. How many times a year do Edmonton and Calgary have to beat teams that re-load because good is never good enough as they absorbe contracts.

What's even worse is when a so-called big market drives down the entire league because in the end most of these teams that keep spending reportedly lose money, Detroit lost money (19m) according to Forbes. For all of Toronto's revenue streams if they only make a profit of 10-15m the overhead to run the Leafs must be too high.

In the long run when this is over and Detroit-Toronto cannot buy their way out of a bad season or operate at 30-40m will the people in Detroit even support them half as much as Calgary or Edmonton support their teams?

Given the problems in the late seventies and early eighties in Detroit, I do not think so.

 

[guymez]

Leafs aside, can you name another big market team that has been successful in that strategy?

Hey...I never said the teams (including the Leafs) that do it, were using a sucessful strategy. The point is....they do throw gobs of money at the free agent pool to help cover their drafting failures.
That is the sole reason was salaries were escalating exponentially. That is also the reason for the revolving door when it comes to star players leaving teams like the Oilers. Strachan would never admit this, but teams like the Leafs are part of the reason the league is where it is right now.

 

[guymez]

At the free agent pool, at the trade deadline. How many times a year do Edmonton and Calgary have to beat teams that re-load because good is never good enough as they absorbe contracts.

What's even worse is when a so-called big market drives down the entire league because in the end most of these teams that keep spending reportedly lose money, Detroit lost money (19m) according to Forbes. For all of Toronto's revenue streams if they only make a profit of 10-15m the overhead to run the Leafs must be too high.

In the long run when this is over and Detroit-Toronto cannot buy their way out of a bad season or operate at 30-40m will the people in Detroit even support them half as much as Calgary or Edmonton support their teams?

Given the problems in the late seventies and early eighties in Detroit, I do not think so.

Well...Toronto fully supported some pretty bad teams in the 80's.
If I am understanding you correctly.... then what you are saying is that Detroit will not support a team which is fiscally responsible. Thats a bit of a reach, isn't it?

 

[ScottyBowman]

At the free agent pool, at the trade deadline. How many times a year do Edmonton and Calgary have to beat teams that re-load because good is never good enough as they absorbe contracts.

What's even worse is when a so-called big market drives down the entire league because in the end most of these teams that keep spending reportedly lose money, Detroit lost money (19m) according to Forbes. For all of Toronto's revenue streams if they only make a profit of 10-15m the overhead to run the Leafs must be too high.

In the long run when this is over and Detroit-Toronto cannot buy their way out of a bad season or operate at 30-40m will the people in Detroit even support them half as much as Calgary or Edmonton support their teams?

Given the problems in the late seventies and early eighties in Detroit, I do not think so.

The problems had to do with a horrible owner and why would anyone pay to go see garbage? Can you blame Hawks fans for not going to see the games? I certainly can't. Blind alliegence is the worst thing.

 

[copperandblue]

Thats a bit of a reach, isn't it?

He said based on what happened in the '80's.

If you look back at the situation the Wings were in before they started ramping up their payroll, it may not be such a stretch....

 

[Kestrel]

Unfortunately, anyone who suggests that the Flames and Oilers should be a little more self-sufficient encounters a barrage of ad hominem arguments. Even if you used to live in Calgary, would go back there in a heartbeat, and think Alberta is the best province in the entire country in which to reside, it matters not. No one from outside of Alberta, it seems, is allowed to call the Oilers and Flames what they really are -- the league's biggest whiners.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, so if someone's already mentioned this, I apologize - but I find it interesting that Strachan claims anyone commenting on the Oilers or Flames is subject to ad hominem arguments, then proceeds to call those respective teams the league's biggest whiners - an ad hominem in and of itself. For those that don't know, an ad hominem is rejection of a claim or argument on the basis of an irrelevant fact about the party presenting the argument.

For example - "Bettman's not the guy to be negotiating for the owners - he's making a lot of money out of this" - Bettman may or may not be the guy who should be negotiating the owners' side, but whether or not he's making a lot of money at the job has no relevance to the argument.

The Oilers and Flames may or may not be the league's biggest whiners - but that has nothing to do with whether or not a CBA should be hammered out that allows them to compete. So, let's complain about ad hominems from Alberta, and reinforce the complaint with an ad hominem! I don't know much about this author, I don't follow him - but it's quite amusing to see professional literary hypocrisy on such fine display.

 

[guymez]

He said based on what happened in the '80's.

If you look back at the situation the Wings were in before they started ramping up their payroll, it may not be such a stretch....

It seems to me to be rather simplistic to say that that issue was based soley on the fact that they didn't overspend. I am sure there were other issues surrounding the team at that time.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Even if the Flames and Oilers had drafted better they would have needed to trade away many of the best ones anyhow, at least by the time they reached arbitration eligibility.

 

[NYIsles1*]

The problems had to do with a horrible owner and why would anyone pay to go see garbage? Can you blame Hawks fans for not going to see the games? I certainly can't. Blind alliegence is the worst thing.

Islander fans stayed home rather than support ownership who iced a 15m dollar product but those owners made no effort at all, that's horrible ownership. In the early 80's were the Wings owners spending significantly less than the avg team?

I think Wirtz does a poor job, not because he will not spend 60m but because he will not spend the league avg and give his team a reasonable chance. There is a difference.

My point is after all these years of expecting to add big name players and ice a high payroll team will Wings fans support a team with a payroll in the middle that cannot absorbe a contract any longer.

 

[HF2002]

Well if Alberta wasn't 'propping up' the rest of Canada through transfer payments on things that actually matter, like health care, roads, etc. then maybe they could throw some bucks at a hockey team.

Proppping up the rest of Canada? Is that you, Ann Coulter?

 

[AM]

I believe

coulda fooled me .... last i heard most the NHL choked on a salary cap of 42.5m (actuallya 37m soft cap),

if the Oil and their cronies were OK with a 36/50 difference, there would be hockey right now.

dr

They never talked about the number.... it came down to "other issues".

 

[AM]

The bottom line

unless the owners get a CBA to market the NHL in cities like Edmonton and Calgary, you can forget about the NHL being a "major sport".

I think this comes in the area of... major duh!

Also, no one from TO should say a word about "bang for your buck" management.

 

[Roughneck]

Couldn't the province establish a lottery with proceeds to go to the teams? Oil prices are running around $50 US a barrel and there's more oil in Alberta than in the entire Middle East. Couldn't some of the oil companies be talked into propping up the teams?

Boy, Stachan really researched the Flames and Oilers for this article didn't he.

A lottery, jeez, why didn't the teams think of that? Oil companies investing in the teams, again, who would have thought?

This man is brilliant I tell you!

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Even if the Flames and Oilers had drafted better they would have needed to trade away many of the best ones anyhow, at least by the time they reached arbitration eligibility.

You mean like OTT has done ?

Why cant CGY and EDM at least be expected to get to OTT's level of production ?

dr