TSN: How the new CBA hurt Canada's small market teams

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Buffaloed, Apr 14, 2011.

  1. Buffaloed

    Buffaloed webmaster

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    28,120
    Likes Received:
    3,110
    Trophy Points:
    232
    Location:
    Buffalo
    It's an interesting point. And we thought this CBA was supposed to be idiot proof. :laugh:

    http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=362076
     
  2. MuzikMachine

    MuzikMachine Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    787
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    76
    Occupation:
    Finance
    Is it the CBA or mismanagement that has hurt Ottawa and Edmonton? Ottawa had to make decisions because of the salary cap and they chose wrong (ie Redden vs. Chara), Edmonton tried a short term fix with free agents and it went south. Fundimently, it's not a whole lot different than the New York Rangers before the CBA with their bad free agent signings. It's all the fault of the GM's, not the CBA.
     
  3. mouser

    mouser Business of Hockey

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    21,777
    Likes Received:
    2,302
    Trophy Points:
    187
    Location:
    South Mountain
    One other good point in the article:

    The window on having young inexpensive talent has shortened notably under the new CBA due not only to the reduction in UFA age from 31 to 27, but also because we're seeing an eroding of the "cheap second contract" for higher level young players.
     
  4. MuzikMachine

    MuzikMachine Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    787
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    76
    Occupation:
    Finance
    Mod: deleted.

    Is there a direct correlation between a market’s climate and their ability to attract free agents? If so, why aren’t the southern teams constantly dominating the free agent market, constantly signing the cream of the free agent crop and dominating the standings? When was that last time there a big name free agent that signed for a southern team – and I’m not referring to a star way past their prime akin to Brett Hull when he signed for the Coyotes. This isn't football where players actually have to play outside.

    If a team is well managed and successful ON THE ICE, they will attract free agents even if there are short comings in terms of climate or city quality of living. In the 1980’s when the Oilers were winning Stanley Cups and had a good core, players would have loved to play in Edmonton – now the destination is Detroit (not exactly known for their great weather or vibrant downtown core).
     
    Last edited by moderator : Apr 14, 2011
  5. Moobles

    Moobles Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,555
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've made the point in other threads and beating my own drum yet again, I think it's the case that a well managed franchise attracts free agents, a club where a player can be the #1 go to guy attracts free agents and a big metropolitan city attracts free agents. Cities like Detroit and New Jersey, with excellent run administrations, are hardly top metropoles in the U.S. But the Rangers and Blackhawks continually attract FAs.

    I think having a small city hurts your chance at FAs if you're not winning, but if you can win or at least show you're competitive people will be interested. And a Jets team couldn't expect to hold a star anyway: at best they'd have a Kovalchuk. But that's what most of the NHL is like anyway, it can hardly be anything different than what Phoenix, Nashville and Carolina have been doing for years.

     
  6. Fugu

    Fugu Guest


    Don't lump me into that mess.

    I've fought many a battle here saying this CBA would hurt small market teams more than it helped-- especially the Canadian ones. Ah well.


    Just tell me you never heard me preaching this...

    Oh, and Ottawa had the double whammy of having all their core players hit UFA status right as the cap was set at an artificially low $39 MM after the lockout.

    (Boom. Roasted?) :laugh:
     
  7. Gabriel Landeskog

    Gabriel Landeskog Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    81

    I'm trying to think of all the big Star players who flocked to places like Florida, Phoenix, Carolina. How does Detroit always gets the bargin Free Agent signings, Detroit isn't top 5 weather in the NHL. Los Angeles has better weather then New Jersey, Kovalchuk obviously doesn't own the weather network.

    Weather and Location has impact on decisions I Would be foolish to say otherwise. However it isn't the main concern of free agents, $$$, Team Management/Roster, Media or Lack of Media would be the major ones.
     
  8. Crazy_Ike

    Crazy_Ike Cookin' with fire.

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    9,081
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Terrible article is terrible. Author picks and chooses his statistics and ignores them when they are inconvenient. Yeah, Ottawa has slid since 2007 and Edmonton for longer... but author neglects to note that they made the FINALS that year, and Edmonton the year before - both under the NEW system and the Oilers especially noted for having a player (Pronger) they never could have gotten otherwise.

    Author is simply wrong in pretty much every respect.
     
  9. Fugu

    Fugu Guest


    No, he's not.
     
  10. Crazy_Ike

    Crazy_Ike Cookin' with fire.

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    9,081
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Since his sole conclusion is that the freedom to actually compete on more or less even terms with larger markets for smaller markets now allows them to make the same stupid mistakes is somehow the CBA's fault, yeah, he pretty much is.

    His argument is more or less analogous to 'it would be bad for the Leafs to make the playoffs because they might lose to another team, better to just not be in them at all'.
     
  11. jessebelanger

    jessebelanger Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    2,359
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    54
    I wouldn't say the author is wrong - it's just a pointless article. Poor management, poor drafting, and poor free-agent signings result in a poor team. Really groundbreaking stuff there Naylor. Here I was, thinking that teams with bad players would be shoe-ins for the Stanley cup.
     
  12. Sanderson

    Sanderson Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2002
    Messages:
    5,570
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Hamburg, Germany
    Home Page:
    Yup, the article is pretty much useless. It's not the CBA which hurt small market teams, it were the teams themselves. Not that every small market team was hurt, far from it, just the ones who made wrong decisions. Blaming the CBA for a team making wrong decisions would be stupid. Not to mention that it complete ignores that big market teams who made wrong decisions aren't in a different position.

    In a way, it's like saying "prohibiting women from voting is a smart decision, because it prevents them from making stupid decisions, thus it's good for them". That obviously makes no sense whatsoever.


    There simply is no correlation between the failure of certain franchises and the new CBA. Teams get better and worse all the time, it happens, players change over time. The new CBA gave smaller teams a chance to make decisions they couldn't afford before, but whether they made smart or stupid decisions depended on the GMs, not their ability to be able to make deicisions.
     
  13. Ogopogo*

    Ogopogo* Guest

    Kinda like how having a free society hurts people. We are free to screw up our lives however we want...
     
  14. Fugu

    Fugu Guest


    The point being ignored is that the old CBA was blamed for small teams failing. Well, what have we today?

    Small revenue teams failing. Except this time they have no second contract for RFA's and face losing them by the age of 27--- whilst they're still in their prime.

    The most valuable asset in this game is the players. Draft, development all take time. The longer a team has to recoup on that investment, the better off they are because it is a crap shoot of sorts (up to a point). Shortening that time to players' rights by FIVE years is not in the best interest of struggling teams who have even less monetarily to invest. The one thing they had with restricted free agency was some leverage to control the overall costs they may face and at a time when the players are in their peak years. Considering the average career length, I think five yrs is fairly significant.

    The last CBA had its faults too but it was far more favorable to smaller revenue teams because they receive protection of the most important asset during the BEST years.

    Here's Naylor, which summarizes it quite nicely, imo:
    So instead of rewarding draft/development, this CBA moves to remove the one area where great mgt in a smaller revenue market could beat (and easily compete) with the big boys. What did NYR gain by spending $70MM on 31+ and older vets? (Answer: not much.)

    What do they have as an advantage under this system? A salary floor that is double what their payroll was before the lockout?
     
  15. jessebelanger

    jessebelanger Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    2,359
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    54
    Fugu..you're drawing a correlation that doesn't exist. We also have large market teams failing. And medium sized ones.

    We had this pre and post lockout - I don't think anyone ever suggested that the new CBA would guarantee all teams would win the Stanley cup.

    This is why myself, and Sanderson, question the purpose of this article. It's just 500 words pointing out the painfully obvious.

    Poor management of assets = poor results. That has always been the case with any sport team. Ottawa, Edmonton (along with my beloved Florida panthers), Toronto.. have made some painfully bad decisions over the past years. This is why they are in the position they are in.


    The difference is in the past - a team like Toronto (in theory) could dig itself out of its problems on July 1st by endlessly signing top Free agents, while a team like Edmonton could not (but you know this...)
     
  16. tarheelhockey

    tarheelhockey Highest Boss

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    57,961
    Likes Received:
    33,996
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    The Triangle
    Doesn't this issue apply to small-market teams in general, Canadian or otherwise?

    Edit: Also, Edmonton and Ottawa have had some exceedingly strange circumstances with roster management. Pronger and Heatley are two of the most extreme ship-jumping situations in the history of the league, and it had nothing to do with the CBA.
     
  17. jessebelanger

    jessebelanger Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    2,359
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    54
    and large market teams..
     
  18. seanlinden

    seanlinden Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,378
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    101
    The thread title is very misleading... the new CBA didn't hurt any of these teams. Poor management did.

    JesseBelanger has it basically spot on. The new CBA isn't going to make every team win the Stanley Cup every year. It was designed to (and has accomplished to a certain extent) level the playing field to reduce the advantages that the huge market teams had pre-lockout, putting the emphasis on skill of management.

    It just so happens that the quality of management has gone down hill for these 3 teams.
     
  19. Egil

    Egil Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2002
    Messages:
    8,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    129
    Home Page:
    Ottawa definitely got ***** by the cap which moved us from elite to merely good (which is what I would classify us as when we made the finals). We were forced to get rid of one of Chara or Redden and dump Havlat for virtually nothing. We moved from good to terrible due to a lack of cheap young players created by a few years of poor drafting. But without a doubt, the cap ended up hurting us big time by moving UFA up and coming in when we had a more deep pocketed owner.
     
  20. jessebelanger

    jessebelanger Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    2,359
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    54
    Yeah, that's the other interesting part of this article. I would probably classify Ottawa as a large market team now. The owner is certainly willing to spend the $$..quite frankly, and no offence to your team eglin, OTT made some bad decisions a few years ago, and they are now paying for them.
     
  21. Fugu

    Fugu Guest

    I never draw correlations that don't exist. :D

    You're mixing up what "failure" means. I mean financially, which can also lead to the product failing because you don't have the $$ to pay good coaches, GM's and to fund a development system.

    When you consider the management depth of a team like Detroit, who retain and stock up their system through mainly their own draft picks..... doesn't this highlight the path to product success too?

    What you are glossing over is that this system is costly in terms of running the business and asset management/retention (assets which can only be gained through a draft).

    When I cite failure, I mean teams that are barely scraping together $60MM of their own HRR, much as was the case before the lockout. Don't take my word for it though. Look at franchise values in the past couple of years (stagnant at best for the smaller HRR teams) and who is withering on the vine waiting for a buyer. The CBA promised financial stability. It has failed miserably on that front.


    Poor management was always to blame.

    The ONLY other factor that was completely out of the control of the small market Canadian teams was the exchange rate. That's what did them in, not the CBA. When you have to pay in USD but see our currency lose 40% of its value over a short period of time, that will decimate you. And no, the currency equalization program barely scratched the surface as to what was needed to "equalize" matters.
     
  22. Fugu

    Fugu Guest


    Just as I predicted over on Tom's place. I believe you needed convincing of that when it first came up. Tampa and Ottawa were hurt the most due to the timing and "transition" issues.
     
  23. Pitlick*

    Pitlick* Guest

    Pretty poor arguement.

    The Sens were good in the late 90s / early 00s because of incredibly good scouting, drafting, and player moves. The owner had very little money, the team was sunk in debt, and the financial structure was a house of cards.

    The Sens decline certainly wasn't because of money. We have a rich owner who paid $20 million for a $200 million arena. He has spent to the cap every year, heck, last season we were about $8 mil over the cap due to the Heatley bonus, and front-loaded contracts. The decline is due to terrible scouting and drafting from 2002-2007, and more bad than good NHL moves and free-agent signings (not to mention letting Chara walk) from 2002-present.

    If our team was still poor, and way below the cap, we might be in better shape as we wouldn't have blown our brains out with bad signing after bad signing.

    The article takes correlation and infers causation. Not very intelligent.
     
  24. Joe Hallenback

    Joe Hallenback Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    10,183
    Likes Received:
    1,782
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Nashville doesn't seem to have a problem being a small market team. Seems to me the best way to win is to be have a good management team.

    What I don't understand is what is Toronto's excuse then? They are the richest team in the league.
     
  25. Tinalera

    Tinalera Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,516
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Location:
    The Known Universe
    Management, for the same reason

    Money doesn't mean much when your owners (Teachers Pension) are only interested in the level of their stocks (and they have said as much).

    Toronto prior to the lockout was doing well-4 appearances in WCF in teh 90's. Then post lockout (IMO) they went cheap with JFJ for management, who proceeded to trade goalies away for first round picks and bright prospects, followed by giving seeming every player on the team an NTC or NMC (what GM in their RIGHT MIND gives Darcy Tucker a 5 year NTC/NMC?), and trading away 1st round picks to get better. Also Goalies (or lack thereof): Raycroft, Toskala, A broken down JS and an unproven Gus. Reimer looks like he'll be solid, and may allow Gus to grow next year.

    Burke made that mistake in his first year (though Kessel is a pretty good player), and he has since been cleaning up the mess-Toronto now has a decent farm team, they've got picks in this years draft (admittedly not theirs, but Bos and Philly), they HAVE next years 1st round draft pick, and a few of the up and coming players (Kadri, Schenn, Aulie ect) are starting to show they they could be good quality players.

    in 2-3 years, barring any more massive trades of young talent/first rounders, Leafs could get into the playoffs next year, and seem to be on a good road 2-3 years down the road for playoffs
     

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"