Speculation: Summer 2018 Roster Discussion Part IV

[Pinkfloyd]

You're just parroting blatantly pro-owner propaganda here. The NHL existed without a salary cap for more than 80 years and was actually doing better relative to the NFL and NBA in terms of revenue back then than it is now. Major League Baseball has never had a salary cap and continues to have financially viable franchises in smaller markets without any labor strife. Sure, hockey is less popular than baseball but if there are four teams in Toronto instead of teams in Glendale, Sunrise and Raleigh, who cares? Almost no one wants to play in those cities or watch those teams anyway.

The NHL can absolutely have a thriving 30-team league if around 75% of HRR is going to the players (which is around what the figure was in the pre-cap free market system) instead of an artificially capped 50%. If an owner can't "afford" to keep operating a team under those conditions too bad. No one has a right to own a NHL team. And if there isn't a single person in the world willing to operate a NHL team in that city then that's a shame but it's the cost of doing business. No one has ever paid a dollar to watch Daryl Katz or Ted Leonsis - they pay to see Connor McDavid and Alex Ovechkin and those are the people who deserve a lion's share of the revenue generated.

This argument is a lot of crap. The league survived for 50 years without the PA, it doesn't mean that it's the right way to go to be without them. The revenue argument is complete hogwash that has no factual backing in any real sense. Comparing the leagues when the NHL is a foreign sport to those that are not viewed as such is just trying to mislead.

The second part is ideologue speak with no real basis for that opinion. However, even if there were, what exactly do they have to leverage that figure in collective bargaining? The answer is not a damn thing. The mindset of too bad if you can't afford it is not in the best interests of the players. If they can't afford to operate the team, the players are out of a job. There is absolutely no way that the league would have been able to be a thriving 30 team league without a cap or at 75% of HRR going to the players. They weren't thriving then or did you miss the numerous sales, relocations, and near-relocations that occurred preceding the lockout?

 

[hockeyball]

But there would be no capital in the first place without the players. Franchises have no value if the league isn't populated by players who customers are willing to pay large amounts of money to see and who TV networks are willing to pay even larger amounts of money to broadcast. All value is generated by the players.

Goes both ways, there would be no league without the investors. I mean, I can buy an argument that the players deserve MORE of the share, I cannot buy an argument that they deserve the vast majority of it. In the end, this is a business, and a business exists to make profit. If it's not making profit, it doesn't deserve to exist. Take the Sharks for example, they struggled for decades to return a profit, now that they are, they are trying to recoup from the years they did not, that's perfectly understandable.

Basically, if you want to see Hockey cease to exist except in only the most die hard communities (Toronto), what you are proposing is the way to achieve that.

 

[Maladroit]

This argument is a lot of crap. The league survived for 50 years without the PA, it doesn't mean that it's the right way to go to be without them. The revenue argument is complete hogwash that has no factual backing in any real sense. Comparing the leagues when the NHL is a foreign sport to those that are not viewed as such is just trying to mislead.

The second part is ideologue speak with no real basis for that opinion. However, even if there were, what exactly do they have to leverage that figure in collective bargaining? The answer is not a damn thing. The mindset of too bad if you can't afford it is not in the best interests of the players. If they can't afford to operate the team, the players are out of a job. There is absolutely no way that the league would have been able to be a thriving 30 team league without a cap or at 75% of HRR going to the players. They weren't thriving then or did you miss the numerous sales, relocations, and near-relocations that occurred preceding the lockout?

No factual backing? In 2004, just prior to the lockout and implementation of a cap, the NHL made $2.2 billion in revenue. The NBA made $2.6 billion the same year. In 2017 the NHL made $4.5 billion in revenue compared to the NBA's $7.4 billion. The NHL has gone from making 85% of the NBA's revenue pre-cap to around 60% today. So this idea that the league would be in financial ruin without a cap has no basis in reality. If anything the opposite is closer to the truth. A big issue of course is that the NHL is run by provincial morons who refuse to grow the sport in innovative ways and expand to international markets the way the NBA has but that's neither here nor there.

I literally said in the post you quoted that there would likely need to be relocations but I see no reason why players should be bothered by that. A relocation does not reduce the number of total player jobs. If an owner or a city cannot financially support a hockey team without artificially reducing player salaries then that owner or city should not have a hockey team. The players shouldn't be in the business of running a charity for billionaires. Also the abolition of a salary cap ceiling also means the abolition of a salary cap floor. Financially struggling teams could opt to ice a bare bones roster for a few years if they think that will help them pay down debt and remain viable.

 

[Maladroit]

Goes both ways, there would be no league without the investors. I mean, I can buy an argument that the players deserve MORE of the share, I cannot buy an argument that they deserve the vast majority of it. In the end, this is a business, and a business exists to make profit. If it's not making profit, it doesn't deserve to exist. Take the Sharks for example, they struggled for decades to return a profit, now that they are, they are trying to recoup from the years they did not, that's perfectly understandable.

Basically, if you want to see Hockey cease to exist except in only the most die hard communities (Toronto), what you are proposing is the way to achieve that.

Players should be making whatever the market bears. Prior to the salary cap that was around 75% of HRR but that number could be higher or lower today depending on what a (relatively) free market determines the value of player salaries should be. What's patently unfair, at least in my opinion, is the current system where 31 owners have colluded to place an artificial cap on player salaries that ensure they are paid less than they are worth in aggregate. If you can't pay your employees what they're worth you shouldn't be running a business.

 

[hockeyball]

No factual backing? In 2004, just prior to the lockout and implementation of a cap, the NHL made $2.2 billion in revenue. The NBA made $2.6 billion the same year. In 2017 the NHL made $4.5 billion in revenue compared to the NBA's $7.4 billion. The NHL has gone from making 85% of the NBA's revenue pre-cap to around 60% today. So this idea that the league would be in financial ruin without a cap has no basis in reality. If anything the opposite is closer to the truth. A big issue of course is that the NHL is run by provincial morons who refuse to grow the sport in innovative ways and expand to international markets the way the NBA has but that's neither here nor there.

I literally said in the post you quoted that there would likely need to be relocations but I see no reason why players should be bothered by that. A relocation does not reduce the number of total player jobs. If an owner or a city cannot financially support a hockey team without artificially reducing player salaries then that owner or city should not have a hockey team. The players shouldn't be in the business of running a charity for billionaires. Also the abolition of a salary cap ceiling also means the abolition of a salary cap floor. Financially struggling teams could opt to ice a bare bones roster for a few years if they think that will help them pay down debt and remain viable.

There is an enormous difference between basketball and hockey. Basketball can support a non-cap system, hockey, especially in the US, cannot. Basketball, like soccer, is an inexpensive sport that almost anyone can play given a flat surface, a ball, and a basket. Hockey requires a huge investment from parents/supports for a decade plus. This isn't the kind of sport that anyone can play, and especially in markets without a hockey team footing the bill to grow the sport. It's closer to polo or golf than it is to Basketball in that regard. The cap helped make the sharks the perennial contender they are today. Without the cap, you could not afford to start teams in new markets to grow the sport because no one would be able to field a competitive team in those markets. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

Also, take that 4.5 billion and divide it by 30, and that is only $150 million per team. Not counting what teams spend for improvements, additional marketing, community facilities and events, etc. That's not a lot of money for a very expensive sport. It doesn't take much of a slip up for a team to go from making a profit, to losing a lot of money very quickly. $4.5 billion sounds like a lot, but in context, it isn't much at all.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

No factual backing? In 2004, just prior to the lockout and implementation of a cap, the NHL made $2.2 billion in revenue. The NBA made $2.6 billion the same year. In 2017 the NHL made $4.5 billion in revenue compared to the NBA's $7.4 billion. The NHL has gone from making 85% of the NBA's revenue pre-cap to around 60% today. So this idea that the league would be in financial ruin without a cap has no basis in reality. If anything the opposite is closer to the truth. A big issue of course is that the NHL is run by provincial morons who refuse to grow the sport in innovative ways and expand to international markets the way the NBA has but that's neither here nor there.

I literally said in the post you quoted that there would likely need to be relocations but I see no reason why players should be bothered by that. A relocation does not reduce the number of total player jobs. If an owner or a city cannot financially support a hockey team without artificially reducing player salaries then that owner or city should not have a hockey team. The players shouldn't be in the business of running a charity for billionaires. Also the abolition of a salary cap ceiling also means the abolition of a salary cap floor. Financially struggling teams could opt to ice a bare bones roster for a few years if they think that will help them pay down debt and remain viable.

That kind of comparison in revenue makes no sense to do and has no practical application for anything. The NHL is not the NBA and they're not even really close to similar. Whether or not the league would be in financial ruin has absolutely nothing to do with what their revenue figure is in comparison to the NBA.

If you think that the issues that plagued the league leading up to that lockout would have only led to relocations then you're just fooling yourself. The league, especially with a more cavalier environment, would have contracted teams if it moved forward without any sort of cost controls to player salaries and an evening out of the playing field. They weren't going to have owners willing to buy teams off of failing markets in perpetuity with that sort of arrangement. If the only way to turn a profit is to put a bunch of teams in the same set of markets as clusters, it's doomed to fail because they will become saturated. The Canadian market is only going to hold so many teams before it loses its profitability. If you think that the players are running a charity for billionaires then you have no earthly idea of the concept of a professional sports organization. The players provide a product by playing a game. The owners provide an infrastructure for which there is a platform for those players to play a game and make money in the process. In this scenario when one side is providing entertainment by playing a game and the other side is providing significant financial backing to make sure that they have a place to play and someone to broadcast the damn thing that costs a lot more than anything any of these players will ever make, the one running a charity are the owners.

I'm not pro-owner but when someone goes off the deep end with made up arguments that believe for no real reason that the players should have every right to do and go anywhere while also making three-fourths of the revenue when they're only one of the three pillars needed for something like this to get off the ground then when I argue the other way on it, it's going to look pro-owner. The reality is that they've negotiated a lot of the framework for what the next CBA's should look like and neither side really has something that they absolutely need to have to succeed moving forward. They've split the revenue. From a PR perspective, either side going away from that split is not going to get much support from the fans. Unless the players are willing to give up guaranteed contracts then they simply don't have the capital necessary to abolish the cap, as if they honestly would want that at this point, or get really anything that you're saying they should go for the throats on. They simply don't have the leverage to ask anything big from the owners. Getting locked out doesn't work for the players unless their ask is deemed reasonable. No cap is not reasonable and neither is 75% of revenue.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Players should be making whatever the market bears. Prior to the salary cap that was around 75% of HRR but that number could be higher or lower today depending on what a (relatively) free market determines the value of player salaries should be. What's patently unfair, at least in my opinion, is the current system where 31 owners have colluded to place an artificial cap on player salaries that ensure they are paid less than they are worth in aggregate. If you can't pay your employees what they're worth you shouldn't be running a business.

What market? Free market doesn't exist. And no, they didn't collude to place an artificial cap on player salaries. It was collectively bargained by both the players and the owners. You need to get a better grasp on the concept of this business.

 

[Maladroit]

There is an enormous difference between basketball and hockey. Basketball can support a non-cap system, hockey, especially in the US, cannot. Basketball, like soccer, is an inexpensive sport that almost anyone can play given a flat surface, a ball, and a basket. Hockey requires a huge investment from parents/supports for a decade plus. This isn't the kind of sport that anyone can play, and especially in markets without a hockey team footing the bill to grow the sport. It's closer to polo or golf than it is to Basketball in that regard. The cap helped make the sharks the perennial contender they are today. Without the cap, you could not afford to start teams in new markets to grow the sport because no one would be able to field a competitive team in those markets. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

I don't disagree with any of this, that's kind of what I'm saying here - even in spite of the obvious and intractable differences in popularity between hockey and basketball in North America the NHL was essentially on par with NBA revenue prior to the salary cap. It's only more recently, under a cap system, that the NBA has pulled away from the NHL in revenue. I'm not saying the salary cap is the reason the NHL has fallen behind in relative terms but it's clear from the historical data that not having a cap didn't destroy the NHL financially given that it was actually closer in financial might to its closest pro sports league competitor back then.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I don't disagree with any of this, that's kind of what I'm saying here - even in spite of the obvious and intractable differences in popularity between hockey and basketball in North America the NHL was essentially on par with NBA revenue prior to the salary cap. It's only more recently, under a cap system, that the NBA has pulled away from the NHL in revenue. I'm not saying the salary cap is the reason the NHL has fallen behind in relative terms but it's clear from the historical data that not having a cap didn't destroy the NHL financially given that it was actually closer in financial might to its closest pro sports league competitor back then.

The difference in the revenue lately has nothing to do with the salary cap. It has everything to do with the popularity of each individual sport and how much TV companies in America are willing to pay for them. They will pay more for basketball because it is and always was a more popular spot with more marketable players. None of those things are really things that the NHL can control.

 

[hockeyball]

I don't disagree with any of this, that's kind of what I'm saying here - even in spite of the obvious and intractable differences in popularity between hockey and basketball in North America the NHL was essentially on par with NBA revenue prior to the salary cap. It's only more recently, under a cap system, that the NBA has pulled away from the NHL in revenue. I'm not saying the salary cap is the reason the NHL has fallen behind in relative terms but it's clear from the historical data that not having a cap didn't destroy the NHL financially given that it was actually closer in financial might to its closest pro sports league competitor back then.

You do not disagree, but you quote a section where I said "Without the cap, you could not afford to start teams in new markets to grow the sport because no one would be able to field a competitive team in those markets. " while arguing there should not be a cap, that doesn't make any sense. The cap allows small market teams to be successful, grow, and turn into bigger markets. Without the cap, that doesn't happen. Basketball doesn't need to do that, everyone already watches basketball. It's a totally different situation with totally different goals.

 

[Maladroit]

That kind of comparison in revenue makes no sense to do and has no practical application for anything. The NHL is not the NBA and they're not even really close to similar. Whether or not the league would be in financial ruin has absolutely nothing to do with what their revenue figure is in comparison to the NBA.

If you think that the issues that plagued the league leading up to that lockout would have only led to relocations then you're just fooling yourself. The league, especially with a more cavalier environment, would have contracted teams if it moved forward without any sort of cost controls to player salaries and an evening out of the playing field. They weren't going to have owners willing to buy teams off of failing markets in perpetuity with that sort of arrangement. If the only way to turn a profit is to put a bunch of teams in the same set of markets as clusters, it's doomed to fail because they will become saturated. The Canadian market is only going to hold so many teams before it loses its profitability. If you think that the players are running a charity for billionaires then you have no earthly idea of the concept of a professional sports organization. The players provide a product by playing a game. The owners provide an infrastructure for which there is a platform for those players to play a game and make money in the process. In this scenario when one side is providing entertainment by playing a game and the other side is providing significant financial backing to make sure that they have a place to play and someone to broadcast the damn thing that costs a lot more than anything any of these players will ever make, the one running a charity are the owners.

I'm not pro-owner but when someone goes off the deep end with made up arguments that believe for no real reason that the players should have every right to do and go anywhere while also making three-fourths of the revenue when they're only one of the three pillars needed for something like this to get off the ground then when I argue the other way on it, it's going to look pro-owner. The reality is that they've negotiated a lot of the framework for what the next CBA's should look like and neither side really has something that they absolutely need to have to succeed moving forward. They've split the revenue. From a PR perspective, either side going away from that split is not going to get much support from the fans. Unless the players are willing to give up guaranteed contracts then they simply don't have the capital necessary to abolish the cap, as if they honestly would want that at this point, or get really anything that you're saying they should go for the throats on. They simply don't have the leverage to ask anything big from the owners. Getting locked out doesn't work for the players unless their ask is deemed reasonable. No cap is not reasonable and neither is 75% of revenue.

The NHL was close and similar to the NBA in the revenue it was generating though! And that was prior to the salary cap. Which is exactly my point - the idea that the NHL would wither away and die without a cap is a lie being sold by the owners that can be invalidated with even a cursory glance of what league revenues looked like prior to the 2004-05 lockout.

What market? Free market doesn't exist. And no, they didn't collude to place an artificial cap on player salaries. It was collectively bargained by both the players and the owners. You need to get a better grasp on the concept of this business.

Yes I'm well aware of what a CBA is. But I'd call it collusion because the relationship between the NHL and its players is drastically different than almost any other employment arrangement. If I'm a data scientist at Facebook who isn't happy with my salary and benefits, I have the option to go work for Google or any number of other companies who may be willing to pay more. NHL players don't have that option. The NHL (and the other three major pro sports leagues) operates essentially as a cartel that has taken significant financial steps to ensure there are no other pro hockey leagues in North America that are in serious competition with it. They then use that leverage to lock the players out knowing they have no other options but to accept the crappy deal the owners put on the table.

Collusion may not be a strictly accurate term legally but it is worth noting that during the 2012 lockout there was talk of decertifying the union and the players individually filing antitrust lawsuits against the NHL essentially alleging collusion. And that likely would have been a winning argument in the 9th Circuit or other liberal jurisdictions.

 

[Maladroit]

You do not disagree, but you quote a section where I said "Without the cap, you could not afford to start teams in new markets to grow the sport because no one would be able to field a competitive team in those markets. " while arguing there should not be a cap, that doesn't make any sense. The cap allows small market teams to be successful, grow, and turn into bigger markets. Without the cap, that doesn't happen. Basketball doesn't need to do that, everyone already watches basketball. It's a totally different situation with totally different goals.

I'm arguing purely from the player perspective here. And from the players' perspective who cares if there are more teams in Toronto, or a team in Quebec City or Houston or Portland or whichever cities can financially support a team in a capless league as opposed to Glendale or Sunrise or Raleigh or Columbus? I agree from a competitive balance standpoint and from a standpoint of putting teams in small markets the current setup is the way to go. But it comes at the cost of player salaries and I don't see why players should value either of those things over their own bottom line when they're the only reason anyone shows up to games or invests emotionally and financially in these teams.

 

[Hinterland]

Kucherov>Matthews
Stamkos>Marner
Point>Nylander

Tampa Bay is better up front, whether you consider their big 3 or their top-12; especially in a scenario where Tavares is choosing between teams and neither roster has him yet.

Toronto had to lose JVR and Bozak to sign Tavares, while Toronto would have had to lose Johnson and Callahan. Toronto literally had to lose more effective players in order to pay Tavares less money than he would have made in Tampa after taxes.

On top of that, the respective defense cores of each team make this argument a joke. Sergachev and Stralman are the 3rd and 4th best defensemen on Tampa Bay and both just might be Toronto’s best defenseman if they joined them next year. Hedman and McDonagh are also undoubtedly leagues above Morgan Rielly.

There is no way in which Toronto was the best objective choice. The only thing that Toronto offered, that nobody else could, was that they were his hometown team. They didn’t offer him the most money after taxes, and they didn’t offer him the best chance at winning. He completely shunned the teams that offered him the most money and the best chance at winning, and ended up narrowing the list down to his childhood team and the team that drafted him; neither of whom were the best objective choices.

It was a dick move to string along Dallas, San Jose, Tampa, and Boston when he obviously had no real interest in signing with any of them. The whole process was a joke, reminiscent of the NBA, and it looks bad on the 4 GMs that were stalked and photographed at a meeting with a player who had absolutely no interest in signing with them.

Good post. I agree 100% except that the 2018 version of Kucherov so far is a lot worse than Matthews. Even during the playoffs he didn't seem to care. Tampa can only hope that his new contract will motivate him. He really needs a Center who can create some scoring chances. Stamkos was garbage in that regard last season. Tampa really needs to put him back on wing and go with Point, Cirelli and Johnson at Center.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The NHL was close and similar to the NBA in the revenue it was generating though! And that was prior to the salary cap. Which is exactly my point - the idea that the NHL would wither away and die without a cap is a lie being sold by the owners that can be invalidated with even a cursory glance of what league revenues looked like prior to the 2004-05 lockout.



Yes I'm well aware of what a CBA is. But I'd call it collusion because the relationship between the NHL and its players is drastically different than almost any other employment arrangement. If I'm a data scientist at Facebook who isn't happy with my salary and benefits, I have the option to go work for Google or any number of other companies who may be willing to pay more. NHL players don't have that option. The NHL (and the other three major pro sports leagues) operates essentially as a cartel that has taken significant financial steps to ensure there are no other pro hockey leagues in North America that are in serious competition with it. They then use that leverage to lock the players out knowing they have no other options but to accept the crappy deal the owners put on the table.

Collusion may not be a strictly accurate term legally but it is worth noting that during the 2012 lockout there was talk of decertifying the union and the players individually filing antitrust lawsuits against the NHL essentially alleging collusion. And that likely would have been a winning argument in the 9th Circuit or other liberal jurisdictions.

No, it really wasn't. You're making a connection that simply isn't there. The salary cap is not why the revenue difference between the NBA and the NHL is what it is now. There simply is no evidence for that. Nobody said that the NHL would wither away and die. That's just you exaggerating to try and make a point. But the reality is that the league would not exist as it is today without a salary cap. There would be fewer teams and fewer teams that were actually competitive. The league would not be anywhere near as stable from a financial perspective and not in a position to make the most amount of money for as many markets as possible. League revenues are not the determining factor of whether or not a league has stability financially.

As for your second part, that's just hilarious drivel. There is no other workable structure here to actually have a legitimate professional sports league. Once you have a league, you have a collective of players and owners with a finite amount of places to work. The reality is that if the players legitimately tried to go the decert route, they'd be voting against their own self-interests. This is how you make the most money for what this all is. Without this framework in place, nobody is making money because nobody is investing in it. And without networks investing in it and without a legitimate major professional sports league with credibility, fans won't invest into it either. What you're talking about would legitimately kill the business of sports if any of them tried it out and there would have been no way in hell a court would've sided with the players in that case because they were still acting as a union even in a situation where they decertified the union and would throw it out and tell them to make a deal on their own.

 

[Hinterland]

Stamkos, Kucherov and Hedman are the only players on that list comparable to Matthews, Marner and Nylander and they're all anywhere from six to seven years older than the Leafs guys. I'm not saying Stamkos and Hedman are going to fall off a cliff in two years but given what we know about aging curves it's an extremely good bet that the Leafs trio will be more valuable and impactful players over the next seven years than the Bolts trio.



They may not get out of the second round next year but there's no question their seven-year outlook is better than Tampa's just given the vast discrepancy in age of the teams' top players. Tampa also doesn't have a third forward (prior to adding Tavares) at the caliber of Marner or Nylander. Tavares is probably going to get to play with Marner in Toronto while the Stamkos/Kucherov top line means his linemates in Tampa would have been no better than what he had to work with on the Islanders.

Terrible post. Stamkos and Kucherov played like AHLers during the playoffs and Tampa still beat New Jersey with ease. Point is easily better than all of those players except maybe Matthews and Kucherov. The guy deserves some credit. He plays some of the toughest minutes leaguewide and still scored 66 points (without top linemates) in his 2nd season. If you ask me, he's also better than Matthews. I'd take Point over Matthews any day if given the choice. He's not better than Kucherov when Kucherov is at his best but he clearly wasn't as of late.
Stamkos has some serious issues and is gonna decline rapidly if not put back on Wing. Similar to Giroux he needs that change to keep going.

People here were laughing at me last year when I said that Point is easily better than Gaudreau. You better believe me now.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Stamkos, Kucherov and Hedman are the only players on that list comparable to Matthews, Marner and Nylander and they're all anywhere from six to seven years older than the Leafs guys. I'm not saying Stamkos and Hedman are going to fall off a cliff in two years but given what we know about aging curves it's an extremely good bet that the Leafs trio will be more valuable and impactful players over the next seven years than the Bolts trio.



They may not get out of the second round next year but there's no question their seven-year outlook is better than Tampa's just given the vast discrepancy in age of the teams' top players. Tampa also doesn't have a third forward (prior to adding Tavares) at the caliber of Marner or Nylander. Tavares is probably going to get to play with Marner in Toronto while the Stamkos/Kucherov top line means his linemates in Tampa would have been no better than what he had to work with on the Islanders.

Brayden Point is significantly better than Nylander and he is the same age as Nylander. If anything, Toronto doesn’t have a 3rd forward at the caliber of Kucherov, Stamkos, or Point. Also, Kucherov is a late bloomer, and he is only 4 years older than Marner. I would easily take the next 7 years of Kucherov over the next 7 years of Marner without thinking twice. Matthews Vs. Stamkos is the only thing that makes that argument close and quite honestly, I think I still would take the next 7 years of Point, Stamkos, and Kucherov.

Terrible post. Stamkos and Kucherov played like AHLers during the playoffs and Tampa still beat New Jersey with ease. Point is easily better than all of those players except maybe Matthews and Kucherov. The guy deserves some credit. He plays some of the toughest minutes leaguewide and still scored 66 points (without top linemates) in his 2nd season. If you ask me, he's also better than Matthews. I'd take Point over Matthews any day if given the choice. He's not better than Kucherov when Kucherov is at his best but he clearly wasn't as of late.
Stamkos has some serious issues and is gonna decline rapidly if not put back on Wing. Similar to Giroux he needs that change to keep going.

People here were laughing at me last year when I said that Point is easily better than Gaudreau. You better believe me now.

I don’t think Point is better than Matthews, but I think the gap between Point and Nylander is larger than the gap between Point and Matthews.

 

[Maladroit]

No, it really wasn't. You're making a connection that simply isn't there. The salary cap is not why the revenue difference between the NBA and the NHL is what it is now. There simply is no evidence for that. Nobody said that the NHL would wither away and die. That's just you exaggerating to try and make a point. But the reality is that the league would not exist as it is today without a salary cap. There would be fewer teams and fewer teams that were actually competitive. The league would not be anywhere near as stable from a financial perspective and not in a position to make the most amount of money for as many markets as possible. League revenues are not the determining factor of whether or not a league has stability financially.

As for your second part, that's just hilarious drivel. There is no other workable structure here to actually have a legitimate professional sports league. Once you have a league, you have a collective of players and owners with a finite amount of places to work. The reality is that if the players legitimately tried to go the decert route, they'd be voting against their own self-interests. This is how you make the most money for what this all is. Without this framework in place, nobody is making money because nobody is investing in it. And without networks investing in it and without a legitimate major professional sports league with credibility, fans won't invest into it either. What you're talking about would legitimately kill the business of sports if any of them tried it out and there would have been no way in hell a court would've sided with the players in that case because they were still acting as a union even in a situation where they decertified the union and would throw it out and tell them to make a deal on their own.

I never said the salary cap is what's driving present day revenue discrepancy between the NHL and NBA. In fact I specifically said that's not the reason for the difference. My point remains that prior to the salary cap the NHL was financially healthy in the aggregate as evidenced by its revenue essentially matching the NBA's at the time. That doesn't mean every single franchise was healthy but that hasn't been the case under the salary cap either. Atlanta was relocated under the cap. Arizona has been hanging on by the skin of its teeth as a Bettman vanity project for a decade now, all while a salary cap was in place. Carolina and Florida have had similar struggles. If the abolition of a cap means those teams have to move to cities that can actually support them, so be it. I don't see how that isn't a huge net positive for league revenues to have the Panthers playing in Quebec City or the Hurricanes in southern Ontario.

There's no other workable structure for a pro sports league? That's news to the MLB which has never had a salary cap and generates more annual revenue than any other league in the world save for the NFL. There is nothing sacrosanct about a salary cap that magically keeps a league financially stable. The owners figured they could extract a cap from the players by locking them out for an entire season and they were correct. The union should be prepared to lose the entire 2019-20 season to a strike in order to undo it.

 

[Hinterland]

I don’t think Point is better than Matthews, but I think the gap between Point and Nylander is larger than the gap between Point and Matthews.

You can see it one way or the other I guess but Point is a very underrated player. Personally I'm a lover of oldschool hockey and really dislike smallish players. They tend to use their lack of size as an excuse for not having to battle/backcheck. Despite all that I like Point a lot. Point is different. NHL.com has him listed at 5'10 and 166 lb but he's still one heck of a competitor and strong on the puck. He's even a respectable fighter. One of the best PK and shutdown guys leaguewide in his 2nd year while playing almost 20mins per game and in all situations. Matthews is a lot less versatile and played significantly easier minutes. For a small guy to be that good in all areas...you just can't give Point enough credit. And he's only gonna get better.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I never said the salary cap is what's driving present day revenue discrepancy between the NHL and NBA. In fact I specifically said that's not the reason for the difference. My point remains that prior to the salary cap the NHL was financially healthy in the aggregate as evidenced by its revenue essentially matching the NBA's at the time. That doesn't mean every single franchise was healthy but that hasn't been the case under the salary cap either. Atlanta was relocated under the cap. Arizona has been hanging on by the skin of its teeth as a Bettman vanity project for a decade now, all while a salary cap was in place. Carolina and Florida have had similar struggles. If the abolition of a cap means those teams have to move to cities that can actually support them, so be it. I don't see how that isn't a huge net positive for league revenues to have the Panthers playing in Quebec City or the Hurricanes in southern Ontario.

There's no other workable structure for a pro sports league? That's news to the MLB which has never had a salary cap and generates more annual revenue than any other league in the world save for the NFL. There is nothing sacrosanct about a salary cap that magically keeps a league financially stable. The owners figured they could extract a cap from the players by locking them out for an entire season and they were correct. The union should be prepared to lose the entire 2019-20 season to a strike in order to undo it.

And again, revenue does not signal whether the league is financially healthy or not. The assumption that a failing team would just somehow still exist elsewhere is a false assumption to make.

And the MLB isn't different from the NHL as a workable structure for a sports league in the context of what I responded to. MLB is no different in that they have the same sort of relationship to its players as the NHL does.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Does anyone else feel like this thread has gotten extraordinarily off-topic?

 

[Jannik Hansen]

Does anyone else feel like this thread has gotten extraordinarily off-topic?

I came here to see projected lineups and instead had to read a novel.

 

[hohosaregood]

We'll win the cup next year based on our 7 first line wingers. No worries boiz

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

I came here to see projected lineups and instead had to read a novel.

Kane-Thornton-Pavelski
Hertl-Couture-LaBanc
Meier-Tierney-Donskoi
Sorensen-Gambrell-Karlsson
Goodrow

Vlasic-Braun
Ryan-Burns
Dillon-DeMelo
Heed

Jones
Dell

All of these are pretty much set in stone except Donskoi and LaBanc are possibly interchangeable, as well as Gambrell and Goodrow.

 

[Jannik Hansen]

Kane-Thornton-Pavelski
Hertl-Couture-LaBanc
Meier-Tierney-Donskoi
Sorensen-Gambrell-Karlsson
Goodrow

Vlasic-Braun
Ryan-Burns
Dillon-DeMelo
Heed

Jones
Dell

All of these are pretty much set in stone except Donskoi and LaBanc are possibly interchangeable, as well as Gambrell and Goodrow.

Was Kane-Thornton-Pavelski the line you used after you acquired Kane? And how likely do you think it is that you extend Pavs?

 

[Lebanezer]

Was Kane-Thornton-Pavelski the line you used after you acquired Kane? And how likely do you think it is that you extend Pavs?

Thornton was injured when the Sharks acquired Kane so they haven’t played together yet. Chance Pavs is re-signed is probably around 95%. Unless he absolutely falls off a cliff he’ll get a new contract.