This is why a cap neccessary

[CarlRacki]

Let's look at these by percentage
Top 10 47%
Middle 10 40%
Bottom 10 13%

Now lets look at the bottom ten in 00/01

Nashville, Columbus, Minnesota and Atlanta were in the league less than 5 years at this point, do you think teams should come into the league and make the playoffs the same year?

Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal and Vancouver were struggling with a dollar that was hovering around 60 cents and at one point this season the dollar dropped below that, so in Canadian dollars these payrolls are actually in the top 10.

The only 2 teams left, the Islanders and Tampa Bay were struggling with ownership issues, both franchises were sold in 99/00, and still recovering from the Spano and japanese mafia scandals.

Given these franchises time and a strong Canadian dollar things have begin to change dramatically in the last few years. This is pretty much the picture for the other years as well

Let's face it in hockey the top 10 teams in payroll are not owning the the playoffs the way many like to beleive.

For starters, your numbers are off a bit. It's more like:

Top 10 - 48.4 percent
Middle 10 - 39.1 percent
Bottom 10 - 12.5 percent

As to the rest of your point, when you consider that in two of the last four years nine of the top 10 payroll teams got into the playoffs I can't imagine what more you'd want to convince you. They can't do a whole lot better. It's not as if they top 10 can possess 16 spots. No matter what happens, there will be at a minimum six spots left. That's 38 percernt of what's available, making the fact the 20 other teams outside the top 10 get 51.6 percent not that impressive.
Think about this for a moment: on average the top 10 teams in terms of payroll - only a third of the league - have owned almost half the playoff spots. In the meantime, the remaining two-thirds of the league control the other half. Put simply - 33 percent of the league controls 48.4 percent of the playoff spots. I don't understand how you fail to see the correlation between payroll and on-ice success.

 

[vanlady]

For starters, your numbers are off a bit. It's more like:

Top 10 - 48.4 percent
Middle 10 - 39.1 percent
Bottom 10 - 12.5 percent

As to the rest of your point, when you consider that in two of the last four years nine of the top 10 payroll teams got into the playoffs I can't imagine what more you'd want to convince you. They can't do a whole lot better. It's not as if they top 10 can possess 16 spots. No matter what happens, there will be at a minimum six spots left. That's 38 percernt of what's available, making the fact the 20 other teams outside the top 10 get 51.6 percent not that impressive.
Think about this for a moment: on average the top 10 teams in terms of payroll - only a third of the league - have owned almost half the playoff spots. In the meantime, the remaining two-thirds of the league control the other half. Put simply - 33 percent of the league controls 48.4 percent of the playoff spots. I don't understand how you fail to see the correlation between payroll and on-ice success.

Many of those top payroll teams were not top payroll teams when they gained success, as a matter of fact both Colorado and Dallas were far from it. In 92/93 Colorado was the 4th lowest payroll and in 95/96 they weren't in the top 10, as a matter of fact it wasn't until 98/99 they broke into the top 10 payroll at #10. In this time they won a Stanley Cup in 95/96 long before they were in the top 10. So is todays success because they are buying Stanley Cups, or because they still have original members of the organization such as Joe Sakic and Peter Forsberg and are giving them raises for success, just like any other company out there.

Let's look at Dallas, Dallas did not make it into the top 10 of payroll until 98/99 even though they had been to the stanley cup finals in 91. It wasn't until 99 that they won the cup and again is this a situation of a team awarding pay raises to players for sustained playoff success. Raises that the team could afford?

This arguement is which came first the chicken or the egg. Teams that have sustained playoff success that have come from the bottom of the league should be able to pay there players for success. No I am not in favor of buying championships, but teams that have worked there way up should be able to pay within there limits. How would you like to have your team broken up 5 years from now after smart management has put a team together. That is what you want Colorado and Dallas to do, it to can happen to you.

If you support this theory than any discussion of low budget teams being able to hang onto there stars goes out the window as you want Colorado and Dallas to just that.

The flaw in your thinking is how these teams go to where they are smart management.

 

[likea]

Many of those top payroll teams were not top payroll teams when they gained success, as a matter of fact both Colorado and Dallas were far from it. In 92/93 Colorado was the 4th lowest payroll and in 95/96 they weren't in the top 10, as a matter of fact it wasn't until 98/99 they broke into the top 10 payroll at #10. In this time they won a Stanley Cup in 95/96 long before they were in the top 10. So is todays success because they are buying Stanley Cups, or because they still have original members of the organization such as Joe Sakic and Peter Forsberg and are giving them raises for success, just like any other company out there.

Let's look at Dallas, Dallas did not make it into the top 10 of payroll until 98/99 even though they had been to the stanley cup finals in 91. It wasn't until 99 that they won the cup and again is this a situation of a team awarding pay raises to players for sustained playoff success. Raises that the team could afford?

This arguement is which came first the chicken or the egg. Teams that have sustained playoff success that have come from the bottom of the league should be able to pay there players for success. No I am not in favor of buying championships, but teams that have worked there way up should be able to pay within there limits. How would you like to have your team broken up 5 years from now after smart management has put a team together. That is what you want Colorado and Dallas to do, it to can happen to you.

If you support this theory than any discussion of low budget teams being able to hang onto there stars goes out the window as you want Colorado and Dallas to just that.

The flaw in your thinking is how these teams go to where they are smart management.

what team do you cheer for, cause you have no idea what it is like for the small market fans

our teams are broken up after a few years because of money

just because owners can use their own money to keep and buy players doesn't make it right

 

[vanlady]

what team do you cheer for, cause you have no idea what it is like for the small market fans

our teams are broken up after a few years because of money

just because owners can use their own money to keep and buy players doesn't make it right

OH you would be wrong, I'm a Vancouver fan who survived the dark years a few times and watch the team be broken up and rebuilt. Vancouver is a small market team.

So by your standards Vancouver should develop Ohlund from a rookie only to have to give him up to keep Nazzy under a cap. Or better yet spends millions on Bertuzzi and Naslund to develop them into the line they are just to have to give one of them up because of a cap. Talk about hypocritical.

 

[likea]

OH you would be wrong, I'm a Vancouver fan who survived the dark years a few times and watch the team be broken up and rebuilt. Vancouver is a small market team.

So by your standards Vancouver should develop Ohlund from a rookie only to have to give him up to keep Nazzy under a cap. Or better yet spends millions on Bertuzzi and Naslund to develop them into the line they are just to have to give one of them up because of a cap. Talk about hypocritical.

a Canucks fan, you'll see what I am talking about soon enough

wasn't it the Canucks who were going to walk away from a few offers if it was too much money giving their players up for nothing

just wait...

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

You are wrong.

It is about making small market teams fianancially viable so that the league will have a healthy 30 team league.

It is about preventing 5 or 6 teams for setting player market values for 24 other teams that cannot afford to pay the "current market value."

That is what this lock out is about. If you think otherwise you know not what you talk about.

No, it's about breaking the union

That is what the lock out is about. If you think otherwise you know not what you talk about.

 

[txomisc]

No, it's about breaking the union

That is what the lock out is about. If you think otherwise you know not what you talk about.

Hmm I did not know that your opinion was the end all of what is truth. Since you say its all about breaking the union I must agree. You will however find people on the PA side who don't agree with this. Hell you have on yahoo who decided that getting a cap was all a ploy by the owners to get all the best superstars on teams in the best market. Many people agreed with this assumption.

 

[vanlady]

a Canucks fan, you'll see what I am talking about soon enough

wasn't it the Canucks who were going to walk away from a few offers if it was too much money giving their players up for nothing

just wait...

I would not have cried it they gave up Coutier, give your head a shake.

Henrik and Daniel were entitled to the raises they got based on there production and are still only making 1.3 playing on the second line. This is a bargain with the numbers they put up last year.

Brendan Morrison would probably the only one I would have been upset walking away from as he is a proven first line center.

As far as I am concerned giving up Sanderson and Rucinsky is no great loss. We have 2 rookies more than ready to take there place in Kesler and King.

Ardveson and Lindgren left due to injury and Keene and Bergevain are retiring.

Other than that we have Naslunds contract due and he has already said he plays here or Sweden so I see him giving up money for a no trade clause.

You forget, Vancouver has been rebuilding and changing there lineup for years. What I would never accept is having to get rid of players we have developed into the players they are today, just so Carolina can compete

 

[kerrly]

What I would never accept is having to get rid of players we have developed into the players they are today, just so Carolina can compete.

I understand your point, and with a rollback and the decrease in salaries this cap will create, I'm not so sure thats its a certain thing like you say, especially with a middle of the road payroll.
What I don't accept is seeing our top players getting bought from our team just so the large markets can make their cup run. The Oilers have been managed fairly well since Kevin Lowe has taken over, and has had alot of problems to fix. I don't really see where he could have really improved the overall picture anymore than he has. Without some luck, we are stuck in this position.

 

[vanlady]

I understand your point, and with a rollback and the decrease in salaries this cap will create, I'm not so sure thats its a certain thing like you say, especially with a middle of the road payroll.
What I don't accept is seeing our top players getting bought from our team just so the large markets can make their cup run. The Oilers have been managed fairly well since Kevin Lowe has taken over, and has had alot of problems to fix. I don't really see where he could have really improved the overall picture anymore than he has. Without some luck, we are stuck in this position.

OK so we agree that buying teams is not acceptable. But neither is the destruction of teams so that they can stay under a cap. You are dooming teams to exactly what you are going through simply because of success. So we punish those that succeed so Chicago can succeed. Not interested. How would you like it if this year your team after spending years trading successfully and developing rookies, had to dismantle your team and give your good players to Calgary, just cause we need to level the playing field, you would be p*ssed.

 

[kerrly]

OK so we agree that buying teams is not acceptable. But neither is the destruction of teams so that they can stay under a cap. You are dooming teams to exactly what you are going through simply because of success. So we punish those that succeed so Chicago can succeed. Not interested. How would you like it if this year your team after spending years trading successfully and developing rookies, had to dismantle your team and give your good players to Calgary, just cause we need to level the playing field, you would be p*ssed.

I'd rather give them to Calgary then to Toronto, Detroit, Dallas, Philly, year after year to watch them make their consistent push for the cup. I've thought long and hard about the future of the game and possibilities under this system, and this is the way I like it best.
I like the equal playing field and the emphasis put on management. It will work the exact same way for every team under a hard cap. With the loss of a player, whether its because of money, other oppurtunities will become available to refill the hole. Trade that player to someone looking for a star and acquire someone who can help who is just blossoming. I could go on and on forever, about how these things will work themselves out, barring decent management. And your argument, about seeing your players being dismantled doesn't really make me feel bad for you, sorry, but its the truth. I've lived with it for far too long with the prospect of knowing that it will be very unlikely to ever get that calibre of a player on the team again. Under a cap, this would not be the case. Equal playing field, equal oppurtunity to improve your team when the need be.

 

[wazee]

Many of those top payroll teams were not top payroll teams when they gained success, as a matter of fact both Colorado and Dallas were far from it. In 92/93 Colorado was the 4th lowest payroll and in 95/96 they weren't in the top 10, as a matter of fact it wasn't until 98/99 they broke into the top 10 payroll at #10. In this time they won a Stanley Cup in 95/96 long before they were in the top 10. So is todays success because they are buying Stanley Cups, or because they still have original members of the organization such as Joe Sakic and Peter Forsberg and are giving them raises for success, just like any other company out there.

Colorado was 11th in payroll the year they won the Cup, according to hockeyzoneplus.com. In the fall of 1997(hardly LONG after they won the Cup), the Avs were 2nd in salary. I will spare you the blow-by-blow account of the Avs financial woes but they bled red ink until Stan Kroenke bought them and they moved into the Pepsi Center.

Let's look at Dallas, Dallas did not make it into the top 10 of payroll until 98/99 even though they had been to the stanley cup finals in 91. It wasn't until 99 that they won the cup and again is this a situation of a team awarding pay raises to players for sustained playoff success. Raises that the team could afford?

I do not have the Bucks and Pucks issues before 1997, but Dallas was 4th at 31.7M for the 1997-98 season, and 2nd at 39.8M for the 1998-99 season. They may have built right, but they also added key free agents for several years before they won the Cup.

Dallas and Colorado were both able to keep their star players. Small market teams cannot afford to do that and they most certainly cannot afford to add players at the deadline. If you think small market teams would be winning the Cup on a regular basis if only they had smart management, you are vastly underestimating the cost of keeping a championship caliber team together.

Under the last CBA, the deck was stacked against small market teams. That needs to be changed in the next one.

 

[vanlady]

I'd rather give them to Calgary then to Toronto, Detroit, Dallas, Philly, year after year to watch them make their consistent push for the cup. I've thought long and hard about the future of the game and possibilities under this system, and this is the way I like it best.
I like the equal playing field and the emphasis put on management. It will work the exact same way for every team under a hard cap. With the loss of a player, whether its because of money, other oppurtunities will become available to refill the hole. Trade that player to someone looking for a star and acquire someone who can help who is just blossoming. I could go on and on forever, about how these things will work themselves out, barring decent management. And your argument, about seeing your players being dismantled doesn't really make me feel bad for you, sorry, but its the truth. I've lived with it for far too long with the prospect of knowing that it will be very unlikely to ever get that calibre of a player on the team again. Under a cap, this would not be the case. Equal playing field, equal oppurtunity to improve your team when the need be.

This is what drives me crazy, my sister is a social worker and I had the opportunity to talk to one of her little charges in the police station after he was arrested. I asked him why he stole the car. You want to know his reply. Cause I needed a ride and welfare doesn't pay me enough so I stole the car to get to a job interview. I asked him why he picked that car, his reply, because the guy had lots of money and a nice house, he could just go by another one.

What the kid didn't know is his victim was a squeegee kid 8 years earlier and had scrimped and saved and started his own business and the car he stole was the first real luxury the guy had bought.

Your arguement sounds eerily familiar. Punish teams that were in the bottom half of payroll and losing money who have pulled themselved up and stopped bleeding there talent. Just so your team can win. I think you need better management, not a cap.

Don't get me wrong, Toronto and NYR need to be controlled, they don't develop there own talent and only trade for developed players. That is what needs to be stopped.

So how do we control TO and NYR take the money away 95% revenue sharing should do it.

 

[mackdogs*]

OK so we agree that buying teams is not acceptable. But neither is the destruction of teams so that they can stay under a cap. You are dooming teams to exactly what you are going through simply because of success. So we punish those that succeed so Chicago can succeed. Not interested. How would you like it if this year your team after spending years trading successfully and developing rookies, had to dismantle your team and give your good players to Calgary, just cause we need to level the playing field, you would be p*ssed.

Hmm, 'dismantle' my team in a new system or lose my team entirely under the old system.... gee which one should I pick?

A lot of you need to look longer term, the cap is not meant to 'dismantle' a team (no team would be dismantled, you make it sound like they would have to deal every player who wasn't a plumber). This is also a one shot deal as players would be moved and teams would learn to operate under a cap. This is about long term stability of the entire league. Try to see past how this affects your team. Almost every poster I read who opposes what is happening is just worried about how it affects their team. A true hockey fan should be more concerned with the health of the entire league.

 

[vanlady]

[/i]

Colorado was 11th in payroll the year they won the Cup, according to hockeyzoneplus.com. In the fall of 1997(hardly LONG after they won the Cup), the Avs were 2nd in salary. I will spare you the blow-by-blow account of the Avs financial woes but they bled red ink until Stan Kroenke bought them and they moved into the Pepsi Center.


[/i]

I do not have the Bucks and Pucks issues before 1997, but Dallas was 4th at 31.7M for the 1997-98 season, and 2nd at 39.8M for the 1998-99 season. They may have built right, but they also added key free agents for several years before they won the Cup.

Dallas and Colorado were both able to keep their star players. Small market teams cannot afford to do that and they most certainly cannot afford to add players at the deadline. If you think small market teams would be winning the Cup on a regular basis if only they had smart management, you are vastly underestimating the cost of keeping a championship caliber team together.

Under the last CBA, the deck was stacked against small market teams. That needs to be changed in the next one.

Oh I am not argueing that they added free agents, however the cup run in 1991 was what financed that.

It was under the current CBA that both these teams became a success.

I have a question for those of you that are fans of teams making money. Are you in favor of paying your hard earned money so that you can finance Chicago? Sorry I pay to support Vancover not Carolina, and it's has a great deal to do with our marketing and promotion department that we are in the position we are in. We haven't had huge playoff success to drive revenue, however our team is making money. Why isn't Edmonton?

http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm

 

[kerrly]

This is what drives me crazy, my sister is a social worker and I had the opportunity to talk to one of her little charges in the police station after he was arrested. I asked him why he stole the car. You want to know his reply. Cause I needed a ride and welfare doesn't pay me enough so I stole the car to get to a job interview. I asked him why he picked that car, his reply, because the guy had lots of money and a nice house, he could just go by another one.

What the kid didn't know is his victim was a squeegee kid 8 years earlier and had scrimped and saved and started his own business and the car he stole was the first real luxury the guy had bought.

Your arguement sounds eerily familiar. Punish teams that were in the bottom half of payroll and losing money who have pulled themselved up and stopped bleeding there talent. Just so your team can win. I think you need better management, not a cap.

Don't get me wrong, Toronto and NYR need to be controlled, they don't develop there own talent and only trade for developed players. That is what needs to be stopped.

So how do we control TO and NYR take the money away 95% revenue sharing should do it.

As referring to my argument in the same breath with a no good slacker, I will take that as an insult. I have zero interest in what teams are punished in this situation, I only said I'd prefer to see those players go to Calgary then the big teams. I do not ever let the blame game come into me making decisions that seem logical to me. The main reason I want this scenario, is to let the best managed teams to be the most successful. And as I have previously stated, I'm confident in the management we have in operation, and I don't think there is really anything they could have done to change the entire landscape of the team since they've taken over. A team like ours, needs a break, a big one, to make any gain of any kind. I'm confident that the best run teams will rise to the top, and the others will sit at the bottom. And whether Carolina is one or isn't, I don't really care. If they want to be an elite team and contend, they can run their operation alot better, or hire people that will.

 

[vanlady]

As referring to my argument in the same breath with a no good slacker, I will take that as an insult. I have zero interest in what teams are punished in this situation, I only said I'd prefer to see those players go to Calgary then the big teams. I do not ever let the blame game come into me making decisions that seem logical to me. The main reason I want this scenario, is to let the best managed teams to be the most successful. And as I have previously stated, I'm confident in the management we have in operation, and I don't think there is really anything they could have done to change the entire landscape of the team since they've taken over. A team like ours, needs a break, a big one, to make any gain of any kind. I'm confident that the best run teams will rise to the top, and the others will sit at the bottom. And whether Carolina is one or isn't, I don't really care. If they want to be an elite team and contend, they can run their operation alot better, or hire people that will.

OK so why not admit that you don't care about what is best for the entire league, only what is best for your team.

I have no problem with revnue sharing, but I have a huge problem with spending millions to develop talent only to have to give it away to a poorly managed teams just cause they have cap room.

 

[vanlady]

Hmm, 'dismantle' my team in a new system or lose my team entirely under the old system.... gee which one should I pick?

A lot of you need to look longer term, the cap is not meant to 'dismantle' a team (no team would be dismantled, you make it sound like they would have to deal every player who wasn't a plumber). This is also a one shot deal as players would be moved and teams would learn to operate under a cap. This is about long term stability of the entire league. Try to see past how this affects your team. Almost every poster I read who opposes what is happening is just worried about how it affects their team. A true hockey fan should be more concerned with the health of the entire league.

You seem to think that this would be a one time thing, look no further than the NFL to know that dismantling of teams happens every year. Look at the Steelers, last report I heard is that teams is looking at being dismantled thanks to the cap.

In 94 I heard the arguement you just put forth, funny from 94 till now revenues have tripled and if ownership could have controlled themselves they would be sitting on a gold mine. So 10 years later what has changed?

 

[kerrly]

Oh I am not argueing that they added free agents, however the cup run in 1991 was what financed that.

It was under the current CBA that both these teams became a success.

I have a question for those of you that are fans of teams making money. Are you in favor of paying your hard earned money so that you can finance Chicago? Sorry I pay to support Vancover not Carolina, and it's has a great deal to do with our marketing and promotion department that we are in the position we are in. We haven't had huge playoff success to drive revenue, however our team is making money. Why isn't Edmonton?

http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm

I fail to see how under a cap, any of your money will be going to other teams. Under revenue sharing however, your argument is bang on.

Edmonton has and will always be a much smaller market than Vancouver. You have more coporate support, can sell tickets for a higher amount to what your market will dictate, can generate an interest in ownership because of the market, all leading to more revenues, and the ability to spend on the franchise when need be. The Oilers have very limited corporate support, a fan base consisting of mostly average folks, the inability to raise tickets prices based on what the market dictates, and an ownership group that came in to save the franchise, that is, in comparison with other owners, not as wealthy and unable to spend when need be. Cujo, Guerin, Weight, all left town because of our inability to pay for them.

 

[vanlady]

I fail to see how under a cap, any of your money will be going to other teams. Under revenue sharing however, your argument is bang on.

Edmonton has and will always be a much smaller market than Vancouver. You have more coporate support, can sell tickets for a higher amount to what your market will dictate, can generate an interest in ownership because of the market, all leading to more revenues, and the ability to spend on the franchise when need be. The Oilers have very limited corporate support, a fan base consisting of mostly average folks, the inability to raise tickets prices based on what the market dictates, and an ownership group that came in to save the franchise, that is, in comparison with other owners, not as wealthy and unable to spend when need be. Cujo, Guerin, Weight, all left town because of our inability to pay for them.

Revenue sharing is fine if it is spread evenly penny for penny across the league, however, spending millions to develop players into elite players and then having to give them to poorly managed franchises is a waste of my money.

Vancouver had very little corporate support 5 years ago, Dave Cobb changed that. It takes work and a very keen business man not a hockey guy to generate the money Dave Cobb did. Find someone like that and maybe Edmonton would be on the same plane with Vancouver. Oh one draw back though our ticket prices skyrocketed thanks to all that corporate support.

 

[PecaFan]

Vancouver is a small market team.

Vancouver is most definitely *not* a small market team. We are upper middle class, so to speak.

I have a question for those of you that are fans of teams making money. Are you in favor of paying your hard earned money so that you can finance Chicago? Sorry I pay to support Vancover not Carolina

So clearly then, you must be against the players, since it is the players that are attempting to implement a "welfare state", and send money from the rich teams to the poor teams.

 

[kerrly]

OK so why not admit that you don't care about what is best for the entire league, only what is best for your team.

I have no problem with revnue sharing, but I have a huge problem with spending millions to develop talent only to have to give it away to a poorly managed teams just cause they have cap room.

I do take a vested interest in what will work best for my team, just as you do yours. You want freedom of movement around the final numbers i.e. a tax or some sort of soft cap, so you can keep the players you need if it comes to that.

Other teams in the league will be doing exactly the same thing as the Canucks. Eventually they will come to a point where a player will have to let go....and because of the equality in this, I have zero problem with it

I do care about what is best for the league and I believe this is. Teams that don't deserve to win, won't. And yet the teams will be able to operate without the threat of salaries spiraling out of control while still giving the players the ability to reap the rewards of a successful league, with the institution of a floating yet precisely placed cap range. I'm for revenue sharing too, and nowhere did I ever state that I wasn't. Its a substantial part of what the league needs to be healthy, with a cap as well. I just like the thought that all competitiveness involved between management and owners, that signing big contracts, will not start inflation. If you want to sign someone to a big contract, go ahead, it may be a great move, but if its not, your team will pay the price for it.

 

[kerrly]

Revenue sharing is fine if it is spread evenly penny for penny across the league, however, spending millions to develop players into elite players and then having to give them to poorly managed franchises is a waste of my money.

Vancouver had very little corporate support 5 years ago, Dave Cobb changed that. It takes work and a very keen business man not a hockey guy to generate the money Dave Cobb did. Find someone like that and maybe Edmonton would be on the same plane with Vancouver. Oh one draw back though our ticket prices skyrocketed thanks to all that corporate support.

Yes I agree that it is a drawback, but it increase revenues. And I'm fully aware of what Cobb has done for the franchise, but not every team has access to a Cobb of their own. But you have to agree with me, eventhough that's never happened yet, that Vancouver is in a much more favourable market place than Edmonton.

 

[vanlady]

Vancouver is most definitely *not* a small market team. We are upper middle class, so to speak.



So clearly then, you must be against the players, since it is the players that are attempting to implement a "welfare state", and send money from the rich teams to the poor teams.

Funny everyone I have heard has refered to Vancouver as a small market team. Our population is far smaller than half the cities considered to be small market

I have no problem with revenue sharing, but spending millions to develop talent and then having to give them away just becuase Chicago has cap room really bothers me.

 

[wazee]

Oh I am not argueing that they added free agents, however the cup run in 1991 was what financed that.

It was under the current CBA that both these teams became a success.

I have a question for those of you that are fans of teams making money. Are you in favor of paying your hard earned money so that you can finance Chicago? Sorry I pay to support Vancover not Carolina, and it's has a great deal to do with our marketing and promotion department that we are in the position we are in. We haven't had huge playoff success to drive revenue, however our team is making money. Why isn't Edmonton?

http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm

Good Grief. Where did you get the idea that the Minnesota North Star's 1991 playoff run financed the Dallas Stars successes in the late 90s? It didn't even make it possible to keep the team in Minnesota!

It seems to me that you have a rather short view of the NHL. You say you don't want to support Chicago...but until a few years ago, Chicago had one of the longest strings of playoff appearances in the NHL. They made money for years and most likely will again. I would pay money to support Edmonton because they are a true small market team and I think the NHL needs to keep the Canadian teams.

Despite your claim to the contrary, Vancouver is not a small market team. They were in the middle of the pack, payroll-wise in the mid-90s. They were as high as 6th one year when Messier was there. You speak of the years after the Canucks 'blew up' their team as the dark years...but it wasn't lack of money that forced the changes. It was that the Keenan-Messier experiment wasn't working.

After reading lots of your posts today, I get the picture that you think the new CBA will be bad for the Canucks. Am I reading you right on that? If so, why do you assume that to be the case?