This is why a cap neccessary

[buce]

As long as you have teams with incredibly diverse budgets, the league will continue to be unfair. Who the hell wants a league where 40% of the teams never have a chance. The NHLPA of course wants the same deal baseball has and points to it as a success. Baseball is the worse example of sports system and it will come crashing down in 2006. It has become absolutely ridiculous. When studying economics there is always talk about how governments raise money through taxes. It's always better to broaden the tax base then to raise taxes to a higher level. Create an environment through low taxes where more business are able to open up. It's the same in sports. Is it better to have fewer teams of higher paid players? I think a league is healthier if there are more teams competing. The track the NHLPA wants to go down is a system where salaries keep spiralling out of control and the risk of losing some teams is not a concern. I find it crazy that this association doesn't care that they could lose 50-100 members through contraction. Keeping as many players employed should be their first concern.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Baseball/MoneyMatters/2005/01/28/913366-ap.html

Click to read more...

 

[vanlady]

As long as you have teams with incredibly diverse budgets, the league will continue to be unfair. Who the hell wants a league where 40% of the teams never have a chance. The NHLPA of course wants the same deal baseball has and points to it as a success. Baseball is the worse example of sports system and it will come crashing down in 2006. It has become absolutely ridiculous. When studying economics there is always talk about how governments raise money through taxes. It's always better to broaden the tax base then to raise taxes to a higher level. Create an environment through low taxes where more business are able to open up. It's the same in sports. Is it better to have fewer teams of higher paid players? I think a league is healthier if there are more teams competing. The track the NHLPA wants to go down is a system where salaries keep spiralling out of control and the risk of losing some teams is not a concern. I find it crazy that this association doesn't care that they could lose 50-100 members through contraction. Keeping as many players employed should be their first concern.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Baseball/MoneyMatters/2005/01/28/913366-ap.html

The fact that 10 years ago Pittsburg had the highest payroll and was driving up salaries with the Mario Lemieux contract, but the Av's (Quebec) were going bankrupt proves that bottom feeding teams can rebound.

 

[wazee]

The fact that 10 years ago Pittsburg had the highest payroll and was driving up salaries with the Mario Lemieux contract, but the Av's (Quebec) were going bankrupt proves that bottom feeding teams can rebound.

The Nordiques were a young team on the rise when they were sold and moved. I fail to see how that proves your point.

 

[vanlady]

The Nordiques were a young team on the rise when they were sold and moved. I fail to see how that proves your point.

So are Atlanta and Florida the new power houses in the NHL? The NHL has run in financial cycles for as long as I remember. If owners would invest the profits they make during good times the money would be there during the low times. However what do owners do, they get there losses out of the team, and then sell it when it starts to fail. The new owners see years of great profits and then start having to fork out money while the team rebuilds. Depending on the teams owner if they become a success.

 

[buce]

The fact that 10 years ago Pittsburg had the highest payroll and was driving up salaries with the Mario Lemieux contract, but the Av's (Quebec) were going bankrupt proves that bottom feeding teams can rebound.

Your post doesn't make any sense. 10 years ago Pittsburgh did not have the highest payroll. Quebec did not go bankrupt. The owner simply sold his franchise for a profit to new owners that wanted to move it Colorado.

 

[I Hate You All*]

The Nordiques were a young team on the rise when they were sold and moved. I fail to see how that proves your point.

Ditto.

 

[CarlRacki]

The fact that 10 years ago Pittsburg had the highest payroll and was driving up salaries with the Mario Lemieux contract, but the Av's (Quebec) were going bankrupt proves that bottom feeding teams can rebound.

The economics of the NHL were very different 10 years ago. Salaries have risen more than 300 percent, too much for teams like Pittsburgh to keep up.

 

[Hunter74]

The NHLPA is willing to sellout Canadian hockey teams in order to get there "Free Market" system. Only the Maple Leafs can compete in todays NHL. Its a real shame considering 75% or so of the PA are Canadians.

Didn't Goodenow try to prevent the Canadian team releif fund started a few years ago? Stateing that it was a mechanism imployed to suppress player salaries and that teams like the Oilers, Flames, Habs, Canucks and Sens shuold be moved to larger markets that can afford to keep up with New York and Detriot.

I cannot understand why anyone could support the NHLPA unless they are somehow benefitting from it. Or a family member is benefitting from it.

 

[ColinM]

Your post doesn't make any sense. 10 years ago Pittsburgh did not have the highest payroll. Quebec did not go bankrupt. The owner simply sold his franchise for a profit to new owners that wanted to move it Colorado.

Pittsburgh did have the highest payroll in the NHL in the 1992-93 season as was pointed out in another thread earlier this week. Their $15 million payroll was over three times as large as Ottawa's $4.5 million payroll.

Vanlady's point (and one that I agree with) is that Successful big spenders can get that way by building a successful team through good management and using the additional revenue they generated to keep it together. Using the Quebec Market might be a bad example, but 20 years ago Denver lost an NHL team due to poor attendance but during the late 90s they were a power house. Teams at the top of today's NHL won't stay that way forever nor will teams at the bottom of the league.

 

[ColinM]

I cannot understand why anyone could support the NHLPA unless they are somehow benefitting from it. Or a family member is benefitting from it.

I can support the NHLPA because your premise that the Leafs are the only Canadian team who can compete is flawed. In 2003 the Sens won the presidents trophy as well as made it to the third round of the playoffs. Vancouver has built a strong team that won their division last year, and Calgary was in the Stanley Cup finals last season.

The previous system did have large disparities in terms of payrolls, but it was very restrictive in terms of who you could spend your money on. Restricted Free Agents were tied to a team and kept inexpensive until they were a year or two away from becoming an UFA while most UFAs had such bad cost/benefit ratios that in some instances it was a hinderance to your team to sign them. Hense a team like Ottawa could win with a relatively small budget compared to Philadelphia, Toronto, and New York.

 

[vanlady]

I can support the NHLPA because your premise that the Leafs are the only Canadian team who can compete is flawed. In 2003 the Sens won the presidents trophy as well as made it to the third round of the playoffs. Vancouver has built a strong team that won their division last year, and Calgary was in the Stanley Cup finals last season.

The previous system did have large disparities in terms of payrolls, but it was very restrictive in terms of who you could spend your money on. Restricted Free Agents were tied to a team and kept inexpensive until they were a year or two away from becoming an UFA while most UFAs had such bad cost/benefit ratios that in some instances it was a hinderance to your team to sign them. Hense a team like Ottawa could win with a relatively small budget compared to Philadelphia, Toronto, and New York.

I completely agree with you.

I also don't want a system where sports reporters can accurately forecast the finalists before the season has already begun. Unfortunately this was the case in the NFL this year.

 

[CarlRacki]

I completely agree with you.

I also don't want a system where sports reporters can accurately forecast the finalists before the season has already begun. Unfortunately this was the case in the NFL this year.

Yeah, that happens about once every 20 years. Good luck trying to convince anyone the NFL is less competitively balanced than the NHL.

 

[NYR469]

how can you say that 40% of the league can't compete when teams like tb, calgary, anaheim, minnesota, ottawa have proven that wrong in recent years??

if you want to argue that those teams need a cap to survive off the ice and for financial reasons find, but any arguement that they need it to compete on the ice or for competitive balance is a bunch of bs

 

[NYR469]

Yeah, that happens about once every 20 years. Good luck trying to convince anyone the NFL is less competitively balanced than the NHL.

the NFC was very competitive this year, with 2 weeks to go all teams but 1 still had a shot at the playoffs...because they were all 6-8 or 5-9. 8 of 16 teams finished 6-10 or worse...yep they were balanced because everyone sucked equally...

if that the objective to pull everyone down to mediocrity and make everyone suck the same so no team stands out??

the biggest reason the standings are so tight in the NFL is the short schedule, with 16 games there isn't much time to separate from the pack and the sheer odds are that the majority of teams will be between 6-10 and 10-6. how many nhl teams are out of contention at the end of october?? how many mlb teams are out of contention at the end of april?? if the nfl played 82 or 162 games you'd have teams finishing 30 games out just like the other leagues

and the last 3 years the nhl has had 12 different conference finalist and 3 different cup winners. but in the nfl the patriots are about to win their 3rd super bowl in 4 years. that is more balanced?? nj (the closest to a dynasty in todays nhl) has 3 titles in 10 years in the 'unbalanced' nhl, but the more balanced nfl has 1 team win 3 out of 4??

 

[AdvDave]

Wow, the NFL is unbalanced?
I guess the sky is red then...

Listen, is anyone familiar with horse racing. I think there is a bet you can place called a trifecta, where you bet on three horses to be the top 3 finishers in a race of 8 horses. It normally pays really well (probably more than 3 times your money) if you get lucky enough to win.

I am pretty sure if I went to Vegas and bet that Detroit, Colorado, New Jersey, Toronto, Philly, and St. Louis would make the playoffs this year (if this year started on time), I would probably not even double my money on that bet.

If I tried that with the NFL, most years it would be pretty impossible. So I would win ton of money for that one.

 

[CarlRacki]

how can you say that 40% of the league can't compete when teams like tb, calgary, anaheim, minnesota, ottawa have proven that wrong in recent years??

if you want to argue that those teams need a cap to survive off the ice and for financial reasons find, but any arguement that they need it to compete on the ice or for competitive balance is a bunch of bs

How many of those teams have sustained their success. Ottawa, yes. Tampa? They probably will. Calgary? Too early to tell, but the fact they missed seven straight postseasons prior to last year doesn't bode well. Anaheim? Nope. Minnesota? Nope.

The issue shouldn't be who can make a one-year run, but who can compete consistently. And if you look at NHL standings over the past decade, the most consistent contenders are also the teams that spend the most.

 

[SuperUnknown]

I completely agree with you.

I also don't want a system where sports reporters can accurately forecast the finalists before the season has already begun. Unfortunately this was the case in the NFL this year.

At least in the NFL the reason it happens isn't because of money, which is the situation in MLB.

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

The fact that 10 years ago Pittsburg had the highest payroll and was driving up salaries with the Mario Lemieux contract, but the Av's (Quebec) were going bankrupt proves that bottom feeding teams can rebound.

That is the most asinine comment I have ver heard. Do you really believe the crap your spewing?!?!

Quebec moved because the ownership could make more money in Colorado. And remember that the Avs came into a market craving a winner. The Broncos, and Rockies had not provided that.

As for the pens, they had no choice. They loose Mario, they might as well have moved the francise.

That is why the NHL proposed the Francise rule. So the contract of a superstar does not affect the cap. Think about it. The Avs designate Joe Sakic as their Francise let's say. They have him under contract for 10 million and can still spend 42 if I understand the NHL "proposal" correctly. So the Avs can still have a 52 million payroll.

And the Players don't like this?!?!?!

Give me a break.

 

[MmmBacon]

As long as you have teams with incredibly diverse budgets, the league will continue to be unfair. Who the hell wants a league where 40% of the teams never have a chance. The NHLPA of course wants the same deal baseball has and points to it as a success. Baseball is the worse example of sports system and it will come crashing down in 2006. It has become absolutely ridiculous. When studying economics there is always talk about how governments raise money through taxes. It's always better to broaden the tax base then to raise taxes to a higher level. Create an environment through low taxes where more business are able to open up. It's the same in sports. Is it better to have fewer teams of higher paid players? I think a league is healthier if there are more teams competing. The track the NHLPA wants to go down is a system where salaries keep spiralling out of control and the risk of losing some teams is not a concern. I find it crazy that this association doesn't care that they could lose 50-100 members through contraction. Keeping as many players employed should be their first concern.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Baseball/MoneyMatters/2005/01/28/913366-ap.html

I think you could just as easily argue that this is why revenue sharing is necessary.

 

[CarlRacki]

I think you could just as easily argue that this is why revenue sharing is necessary.

Baseball has revenue sharing and a luxury tax. It doesn't appear to be working.

 

[wazee]

So are Atlanta and Florida the new power houses in the NHL? The NHL has run in financial cycles for as long as I remember. If owners would invest the profits they make during good times the money would be there during the low times. However what do owners do, they get there losses out of the team, and then sell it when it starts to fail. The new owners see years of great profits and then start having to fork out money while the team rebuilds. Depending on the teams owner if they become a success.

I think you are changing the subject a little here. You used the Nordiques as an example of how you think the NHL should work. I would guess the citizens of Quebec City would differ with you. As do I.

As for Atlanta and Florida, it is too soon to tell if they will be able to keep their young teams together in the future. Under the current CBA, I think it is unlikely that would happen unless the current owners were willing to operate at a loss once the players hit their peak earning years.

I have no problem with financial cycles that teams traditionally go through as they rebuild, experience success, and decline. However, what happens to small market teams under the current CBA is that they have to let the players they develop go before they experience a prolonged successful stage. They are perpetually in the 'rebuild' stage which is disheartening to their fans and is not good for the league as a whole.

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

...They are perpetually in the 'rebuild' stage which is disheartening to their fans and is not good for the league as a whole.

See Edmonton, Buffaloe just two off the top of my head.

 

[vanlady]

Yeah, that happens about once every 20 years. Good luck trying to convince anyone the NFL is less competitively balanced than the NHL.

OK let's take a statistical look at all 4 major sport for the last 5 years

NFL 7 teams have filled 10 Superbowl championships, but there have only been 13 teams in the 20 conference championships.

NBA 5 teams have filled 10 championship spots, and there have only 13 teams fill 20 conference spots

MLB 8 teams have filled 10 World Series positions, and again there have been 13 teams in 20 conference positions

NHL 8 teams have filled 10 championship spots, however there have been 16 teams in 20 conference championship spots.

So statistically using 5 years of historic data the NHL has the best competative balance of all the major sports. The NBA and NFL have the poorest Championship record of the 4 major sports. Until you can use statistical proof to prove otherwise, I will beleive that your opinion is a knee jerk reaction, without proof.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

What does a team have to do inorder to get into the playoffs? Have a good regular season. Who has the greatest advantage in the regular season? I know I know!!! Big payroll teams. They guarantee themselves in the playoffs every year and they make more money. Rangers are the only exception.

which team is going to have a better chance to come out better in a regular seaon? A team with a 50 plus million payroll, or a team with under 35 million?

 

[vanlady]

I think you are changing the subject a little here. You used the Nordiques as an example of how you think the NHL should work. I would guess the citizens of Quebec City would differ with you. As do I.

As for Atlanta and Florida, it is too soon to tell if they will be able to keep their young teams together in the future. Under the current CBA, I think it is unlikely that would happen unless the current owners were willing to operate at a loss once the players hit their peak earning years.

I have no problem with financial cycles that teams traditionally go through as they rebuild, experience success, and decline. However, what happens to small market teams under the current CBA is that they have to let the players they develop go before they experience a prolonged successful stage. They are perpetually in the 'rebuild' stage which is disheartening to their fans and is not good for the league as a whole.

Is this a result of the CBA or poor management? Vancouver has been through the rebuild without having to sacrafice its best players and developed rookies (see Mattius Ohlund). Would this have also been the case for Calgary if this lockout didn't happen?