why am i against a cap ?

[helicecopter]

I know that the system is different in Europe, and I also think it is better. I also know that US hockey is relatively much less popular than soccer in Europe, but maybe just because of this NHL should deconsider its' strategies regarding poor hockey markets...and drafts certainly don't fit into my understanding of free markets, would be good riddance.

So what you would like is a free-market without draft, without relegation and without cap. You would have the same, say,5 teams battling for the Stanley and the others sucking and playing for nothing. WOW, very exciting! No draft no cycle, thus the only competitive teams would be always the same, the richest. But i guess you and some rangers fans would enjoy it!

And as for the European soccer, I do think I know something, you're taking too short-term perspective...

too short-term perspective?? What the hell are you talking about?

The point I'm trying to make, that while naturally all teams can't be winners or succesful all the time, let the free market (whatever it is at any given time) decide who is succesful at that given time.

Let the free market decide that in Italy it's a three,four teams competition(Juve,Milan,inter, Roma?), in Spain a three teams competition(Real, Barca, Valencia), in England a three teams competition (ManU, Arsenal, Liverpool) unless there is a Russian billionar that comes around to buy another team.

Oh, and as far as i know Wolfsburg relies on Wolkswagen money, not exactly a poor team...

 

[degroat*]

As an example, are the small market Atlanta Thrashers afraid of losing budding superstars and potential playoff MVPs Heatley and Kovalchuk to free agency at the age of 25? Of course they are.

The NHLPA should play this trump card if the NHL wants its salary cap, that's how the NBAPA accepted it. To get, you need to give.

The NHL owners won't go for it, especially small market teams who have the most to gain from a salary cap but they also rely heavily on developing teams.

It may, however, get the ball rolling and start to swing the PR battle back into the player's end.

The owners would go for it in a second if it got them a cap.

 

[dawgbone]

This is a typical socialist argument, that can be used to justify almost anything. While most people (even far far right wingers, only anarchists generally don't) can accept the idea of the benefit of the whole in some areas of society (justice system, security, healthcare etc.), I certainly don't this kind of thinking should be extended too much into the entertainment business like hockey. Not even when it's obviously so important in Canada.

It has nothing to do with being socialist. It has to do with properly running a successful league. The NFL and NBA are highly successful leagues. The NHL and MLB are not.

It's obvious there are people who tend to think in more socialist even communist ways and some of them are writing on these boards as well, but I would draw the line on entertainment business. I can't find it fair or beneficial in the long term either, if some hockey markets and fans on those areas are "forced" through CBA to finance their competitors in any great length.

If fans in Edmonton are told that you have buy a 200 dollar ticket, 50 dollars of which goes to Calgary so their fans can keep their 100 dollar ticket prices and still Calgary keep paying Iginla top salaries. And so that Calgary can stay competitive and have an equal playing field and keep making playoff runs instead of Edmonton.
And you're are told that this is for helping the league.

If you are stupid enough to think that $50 of your $200 ticket was going to one team, that's up to you. Your example is so inplausible, that it doesn't even come close to realistic. $50 of your ticket won't go to one team so that they can make the playoffs, or sign a player to top salaries.

It's like a fan in Calgary paying $100 for a ticket, but seeing the team who just made the cup finals not really improve themselves because of budgetory restraints. Is it helping the league that the top 5 or 6 revenue generating clubs set the salaries for the other 25 clubs?

Which one is more fair? A system where revenues are shared and every team makes money... or the current system where most teams report something of a financial loss, and revenues are being out-gained at a drastic rate by expenses (mostly player expenses).

I can never agree to that, if fans staying away from matches is what it takes for the league to realise not to install salary caps and huge revenue sharing systems, I only hope that happens in substantial enough numbers.

So are they going to get less fans in a 30 team league with revenue sharing and a salary cap than they will with 20 teams in the "Free Market" they are in now?

LOL...

And do you think fans pay the high ticket prices they do now because the team uses every penny of that for payroll, or that they expect them too? Toronto fans are gonna pay $200 per ticket whether the Leafs are signing every UFA on the market or not.

 

[gary69]

So what you would like is a free-market without draft, without relegation and without cap. You would have the same, say,5 teams battling for the Stanley and the others sucking and playing for nothing. WOW, very exciting! No draft no cycle, thus the only competitive teams would be always the same, the richest. But i guess you and some rangers fans would enjoy it!




too short-term perspective?? What the hell are you talking about?



Let the free market decide that in Italy it's a three,four teams competition(Juve,Milan,inter, Roma?), in Spain a three teams competition(Real, Barca, Valencia), in England a three teams competition (ManU, Arsenal, Liverpool) unless there is a Russian billionar that comes around to buy another team.

Oh, and as far as i know Wolfsburg relies on Wolkswagen money, not exactly a poor team...

In the whole of Europe, which should be consired the equitable market to North American market here, it certainly isn't a 2-3 teams race.

I think it's a good European market, if a few teams from each country fight for a success first in their domestic competition, then earn to right to play against other big boys in Europe. Teams may vary over the years and decades in each country and in Europe as whole. Depending from various things, teams adopt different strategies, some teams might opt to try find better paying fans, more fans, richer owner, TV money, more other revenues, other teams might to invest on their youth academies, watch the kids develop into great team and hopefully make money and be successful this way. There are different ways to be succesful. In fact, in Europe many promising youngsters opt to pay for "lesser" teams instead of taking the most money they can from a big club and end up sitting on their substitute's bench. I quess this good be seen as a replacement for a draft, but it would be as much a FREE choice as you can get in a free market.

Of course money helps on certain things compared to other teams, but it's not a guarantee. How succesful were Serie A teams in Europe for about 5 years just a few years ago, and what Chelsea have won so far? Barcelona had it's lean years just a while back.

I'm quite happy with the number of teams there are competing for top spots each year in most leagues, let's say 3 hot favourites, 3-4 with pretty good chances, 3 with reasonable chances if their core players stay healthy and they have a good manager etc., a few outsiders and 5-6 teams fighting against relegation. I think that's what a good soccer league in Europe looks like.

I don't believe it would be the same teams over and over again fighting for the cup in the NHL either, maybe for a few years in turns (dynasties please). But in a free market the competitors usually tend to become more creative and succesful teams have a tendency to come to a standstill sooner or later, for example they may have hard time letting go of that succesful manager or those once great players at the right time. Cycles do exist in soccer in Europe too.

 

[SENSible1*]

The NHLPA is full of crap.

No matter how many times they repeat the mantra, the NHLPA doesn't want a "market system". If they did, they would simply de-certify and let the market decide EVERY players value.

Instead, they want the benefits of having a CBA with garuanteed contracts, arbitration rights, minimum salary offers, all while allowing the 5 wealthiest teams to establish "market value".

It would be ironic if they end up with exactly what they claim they want, but I don't think they'd be too happy with the results.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

In the whole of Europe, which should be consired the equitable market to North American market here, it certainly isn't a 2-3 teams race.

I think it's a good European market, if a few teams from each country fight for a success first in their domestic competition, then earn to right to play against other big boys in Europe. Teams may vary over the years and decades in each country and in Europe as whole. Depending from various things, teams adopt different strategies, some teams might opt to try find better paying fans, more fans, richer owner, TV money, more other revenues, other teams might to invest on their youth academies, watch the kids develop into great team and hopefully make money and be successful this way. There are different ways to be succesful. In fact, in Europe many promising youngsters opt to pay for "lesser" teams instead of taking the most money they can from a big club and end up sitting on their substitute's bench. I quess this good be seen as a replacement for a draft, but it would be as much a FREE choice as you can get in a free market.

Of course money helps on certain things compared to other teams, but it's not a guarantee. How succesful were Serie A teams in Europe for about 5 years just a few years ago, and what Chelsea have won so far? Barcelona had it's lean years just a while back.

I'm quite happy with the number of teams there are competing for top spots each year in most leagues, let's say 3 hot favourites, 3-4 with pretty good chances, 3 with reasonable chances if their core players stay healthy and they have a good manager etc., a few outsiders and 5-6 teams fighting against relegation. I think that's what a good soccer league in Europe looks like.

I don't believe it would be the same teams over and over again fighting for the cup in the NHL either, maybe for a few years in turns (dynasties please). But in a free market the competitors usually tend to become more creative and succesful teams have a tendency to come to a standstill sooner or later, for example they may have hard time letting go of that succesful manager or those once great players at the right time. Cycles do exist in soccer in Europe too.

The difference is that the Stanley Cup is the end all and be all of NHL hockey. In European soccer, winning the Premiership or the Scudetto in Italy is nice, but there's greater competition for the Champion's League. Could hockey ever see the day when the Stanley Cup could get overshadowed by the World Championships? I doubt it.

The system in Europe works because fans are used to the multi-tiered system. AHL cities would certainly like the idea of a multi-tiered NHL, because one day they could say "I saw Sidney Crosby play in Hartford, or Binghamton or Grand Rapids, etc." However, I doubt there would be too many current NHL markets that would like the idea of relegation.

When you're already used to seeing the best, it's hard to go back.

 

[Bruwinz37]

here is why i am against a cap and why all you cappers are going to regret "winning" the cap battle.

first, i dont care how much or little the players make. 100k is an awesome salary for a year, never mind the double that or 10x that. thats not hte issue.

the issue is if the owners get their cap, its going to come at the cost of a 25 or 26 or at best a 27 year old UFA age. you think if the owners get their homerun (a cap) that the players wont demand a homerun for themselves too ?

so, prepare yourself for a new NHL where players can leave your team once they hit their prime and there is nothing you can do about it and you wont have ANYTHING to show for it. nothing, zero, zilch.

dr

So for months you have been arguing vehemently against a cap because of this? Something you think *might* happen?

Wow.

 

[gary69]

The difference is that the Stanley Cup is the end all and be all of NHL hockey. In European soccer, winning the Premiership or the Scudetto in Italy is nice, but there's greater competition for the Champion's League. Could hockey ever see the day when the Stanley Cup could get overshadowed by the World Championships? I doubt it.

The system in Europe works because fans are used to the multi-tiered system. AHL cities would certainly like the idea of a multi-tiered NHL, because one day they could say "I saw Sidney Crosby play in Hartford, or Binghamton or Grand Rapids, etc." However, I doubt there would be too many current NHL markets that would like the idea of relegation.

When you're already used to seeing the best, it's hard to go back.

I don't think that relegation or multi-tier system would suit well for NHL either per se, but maybe some sort of licenseing system might be useful. Like in soccer in Germany, Italy or just recently in Sweden with Orebro http://www.uefa.com, clubs might be denied a NHL license, if they can't present a credible financial budget, it wouldn't matter where the money is coming from (owner, fans or whatever).

As for the competition parallels, world championships are of no importance in this (soccer has them + continental ones as well), since there isn't much money involded from clubs point of view. Maybe you could compare to something like Soccer's Champions League once the hockey is so popular around the world that there are at least few equal or nearly equal leagues.

 

[helicecopter]

There are different ways to be succesful.

there are different ways to make enough money to survive, competing to stay in the big league but with zero chances to win. The only way to have chances to win is to have a lot of money and the different ways i can think of are either being already one of the richest teams or have a Russian bilionar suddenly acquiring your team to avoid his country checks..

...other teams might to invest on their youth academies, watch the kids develop into great team and hopefully make money and be successful this way.

watch the kids develop until they are good enough to be dealt to the richest teams, before constituting a core so good to give your team a fair chance to win.

In fact, in Europe many promising youngsters opt to pay for "lesser" teams instead of taking the most money they can from a big club and end up sitting on their substitute's bench.

the promising youngsters that do that are those who are still not good enough to be regular on the top teams and thus are players that could make your team a decent team but not a contender.

Of course money helps on certain things compared to other teams, but it's not a guarantee.

Obviously money it's not a sufficient condition to win, the point (and the problem) is that it is a necessary condition.

I'm quite happy with the number of teams there are competing for top spots each year in most leagues, let's say 3 hot favourites, 3-4 with pretty good chances, 3 with reasonable chances if their core players stay healthy and they have a good manager etc., a few outsiders and 5-6 teams fighting against relegation. I think that's what a good soccer league in Europe looks like.

oh please...3 favourites, a couple of outsiders and that's all. More than 10 teams with reasonable chances??
Also, there would not be relegation to fight against in the NHL!

...succesful teams have a tendency to come to a standstill sooner or later, for example they may have hard time letting go of that succesful manager or those once great players at the right time. Cycles do exist in soccer in Europe too.

Just to buy the new great players around.. despite what you think, or what you try to make people think, the cycles relates to 4 or 5 teams (probably in the NHL some more) and not all the teams!

 

[gary69]

there are different ways to make enough money to survive, competing to stay in the big league but with zero chances to win. The only way to have chances to win is to have a lot of money and the different ways i can think of are either being already one of the richest teams or have a Russian bilionar suddenly acquiring your team to avoid his country checks..


watch the kids develop until they are good enough to be dealt to the richest teams, before constituting a core so good to give your team a fair chance to win.




the promising youngsters that do that are those who are still not good enough to be regular on the top teams and thus are players that could make your team a decent team but not a contender.



Obviously money it's not a sufficient condition to win, the point (and the problem) is that it is a necessary condition.



oh please...3 favourites, a couple of outsiders and that's all. More than 10 teams with reasonable chances??
Also, there would not be relegation to fight against in the NHL!



Just to buy the new great players around.. despite what you think, or what you try to make people think, the cycles relates to 4 or 5 teams (probably in the NHL some more) and not all the teams!

I think we might be getting lost too much into the sidetracks here, so I'm just gonna say that there's plenty of soccer books and data on clubs success, history, cycles and their relation to financies you can study. Or if you have no time or intress to do it yourself, maybe you can start finding some help from some kind person for example from Soccer statistics foundation (RSSSF). Winning is never easy whether your rich or poor, and staying on top is even harder. Only competitions you are able (and should be able) to participate are different depending on your wealth.

As for your comment in relegation, I think a parallel can be drawn to making the playoffs in the NHL (although avoiding relegation is probably more important financially than making the playoffs).

One thing I have trouble crasping, is what kind of league you are advocating for if you disagree with the number of teams in their respective positions (favourites, also runs, long shots etc.) in the league?

Should everybody hover around .500 mark every year? And what is considered success? Only winning the Cup?

Since all the teams by definition cannot be succesful or even make the playoffs, there has to be players underperforming, being overpaid, bad draft picks, bad management etc. If there are teams who do well for number of years in a row, others must fail. If every team made the playoffs about equally regularly, then the whole league would be full of cinderella Anaheims and Carolinas every year and every team would win only one Stanley Cup every 30 years.

I like more unbalanced leagues than that, and to my mind money (i.e. what the club's fans and owners are willing & able to invest) is as a general rule the fairest and best way to provide this unbalance. Instead of some artificial restrictions.

 

[vanlady]

This is exactly what Trevor Linden and Vincent Damphousse said during interviews and quite frankly (sorry for my comments) it is pretty Stupid. So you get teams like pittsburgh, carolina or EDM that make their own reasonable decisions and they will not give the big bucks. We all know that players will ask for more and look elsewhere and a owner in New york or Colorado who has the budget will not care about how much he gives. This solves nothing.

In that system players should be more reasonable in their demands- That will never happen

In that system every owners even if they have the money should spend too much money- That will never happen and if that happens we'll have a huge disparity in the league.

We need a cap to restrain owners and players. We will be able to keep our players. The lesser guys would be the ones leaving. If we still keep the restricted free agent rule that we have players will have to be reasonable. We need a cap.

Actually you are wrong about free agency. If the owners are successful in getting a cap it will be at the expence of free agency. Free agency will begin at the end of the rookie contract just like it is in the NFL and NBA. Something you fail to realize is the fact that the courts in the US have already ruled on this and found free agency to be a violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act. There are several cites including Brown V NFL and McNeill v the NBA.

 

[degroat*]

Actually you are wrong about free agency. If the owners are successful in getting a cap it will be at the expence of free agency. Free agency will begin at the end of the rookie contract just like it is in the NFL and NBA.

While there would certainly be some sort of concession in terms of a lower free agency age, perhaps you should stop stating your opinion like it is a fact. You have no clue what the UFA age will be, so stop pretending to.

 

[vanlady]

While there would certainly be some sort of concession in terms of a lower free agency age, perhaps you should stop stating your opinion like it is a fact. You have no clue what the UFA age will be, so stop pretending to.

I am using history in labor, you? Both the NFL and NBA sacraficed their free agency for their caps. MLB accepted a luxury tax in return to keep their free agency. Do you think the NHL will be radically different and if so please enlighten me to your reasoning.

 

[degroat*]

The fact that your basing your opinion on something doesn't change the fact that your opinion is in fact nothing more than your opinion.

 

[vanlady]

The fact that your basing your opinion on something doesn't change the fact that your opinion is in fact nothing more than your opinion.

OK it is my opinion and that of other experienced labor negotiators. If the owners want a cap they are going to have to give big on free agency (something that is illegal without a CBA by the way). This has been proven in BOTH capped leagues so why will the NHL be any different? You have yet to answer that question.

 

[degroat*]

Nor will I answer the question because it's irrelevent. You posted your opinion as if it were a fact. Not only was it nothing more than your opinion but you have a tendency to fabricating things.

 

[vanlady]

Nor will I answer the question because it's irrelevent. You posted your opinion as if it were a fact. Not only was it nothing more than your opinion but you have a tendency to fabricating things.

Oh really and what would that be????

 

[vanlady]

Nor will I answer the question because it's irrelevent. You posted your opinion as if it were a fact. Not only was it nothing more than your opinion but you have a tendency to fabricating things.

Oh really and what would that be???? And what have I posted without backup. Because I can provide links to support my opinion can you?

 

[helicecopter]

I think we might be getting lost too much into the sidetracks here, so I'm just gonna say that there's plenty of soccer books and data on clubs success, history, cycles and their relation to financies you can study. Or if you have no time or intress to do it yourself, maybe you can start finding some help from some kind person for example from Soccer statistics foundation (RSSSF)

I don't think i need help just because i don't share your tastes..

I like more unbalanced leagues than that, and to my mind money (i.e. what the club's fans and owners are willing & able to invest) is as a general rule the fairest and best way to provide this unbalance. Instead of some artificial restrictions.

This is the key point. I prefer theoretically balanced leagues where competence, understanding, passion,well done work are the main ingredients to make the difference and to win rather than leagues where only the richest teams have a chance to win.

Should everybody hover around .500 mark every year?

What the hell make you think i implied or even liked this eventuality??
If every team has a fair chance to compete it doesn't mean every team will be at the same level!

One thing I have trouble crasping, is what kind of league you are advocating for if you disagree with the number of teams in their respective positions (favourites, also runs, long shots etc.) in the league?
And what is considered success? Only winning the Cup?

Obviously as for chances to win i meant chances to win. So to win the Stanley in NHL, Scudetto in Italy, etc..

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I prefer theoretically balanced leagues where competence, understanding, passion,well done work are the main ingredients to make the difference and to win rather than leagues where only the richest teams have a chance to win...

then you must really like the NHL .. because the current system allows any team to win and doesnt favour rich teams.

just ask TOR, NYR, WSH, DAL and PHI. rich teams and but 1 cup and 2 finals between then in the last 15 years.

dr

 

[gary69]

I don't think i need help just because i don't share your tastes..


This is the key point. I prefer theoretically balanced leagues where competence, understanding, passion,well done work are the main ingredients to make the difference and to win rather than leagues where only the richest teams have a chance to win.

Obviously as for chances to win i meant chances to win. So to win the Stanley in NHL, Scudetto in Italy, etc..

What the hell make you think i implied or even liked this eventuality??
If every team has a fair chance to compete it doesn't mean every team will be at the same level!

"oh please...3 favourites, a couple of outsiders and that's all. More than 10 teams with reasonable chances?? " I thought this implied it, but apparently you ment something else.

As for competence, understanding and passion, so you honestly believe that for players, managers and for other personnel of the rich clubs those are not the main ingredients if and when they are succesful. They have somehow god-given right to be succesful always and forever, whatever they do? If they will always make money anyway, why bother with marketing, hire anybody from the street to manage the team, just buying an excess of expensive stars and you have a winner without an effort. And you will never fail, just because you have money at the moment. Status quo will prevail for ever. Yeah, right.


The difference between us is, that you believe ONLY NFL-type system in pro sports works, I can see examples around the world that other kinds of systems work as well.

 

[dawgbone]

then you must really like the NHL .. because the current system allows any team to win and doesnt favour rich teams.

just ask TOR, NYR, WSH, DAL and PHI. rich teams and but 1 cup and 2 finals between then in the last 15 years.

dr

While all the time driving up salaries for the other teams.

So instead of the Senators being able to acquire a player to fill a major hole, they have to do without it because the cost to acquire that player is too high.

Yeah, it may allow any team to win... but it only allows a handful of teams a consistant chance to win year after year.

BTW... you really need how to learn how to count...

Since 1989 those teams you mentioned have made

6 finals
2 Cups

Considering that the big economic change didn't start happening 15 years ago (I like how you did that though).

Since 1994 a team with a top 5 payroll has won the Stanley Cup 10 times.

Since 1994 a team with a top 5 payroll has made the Cup finals 15 times.

 

[vanlady]

While all the time driving up salaries for the other teams.

So instead of the Senators being able to acquire a player to fill a major hole, they have to do without it because the cost to acquire that player is too high.

Yeah, it may allow any team to win... but it only allows a handful of teams a consistant chance to win year after year.

BTW... you really need how to learn how to count...

Since 1989 those teams you mentioned have made

6 finals
2 Cups

Considering that the big economic change didn't start happening 15 years ago (I like how you did that though).

Since 1994 a team with a top 5 payroll has won the Stanley Cup 10 times.

Since 1994 a team with a top 5 payroll has made the Cup finals 15 times.

Ok how did you come up with these numbers 94-04 is 10 years and a top 5 payroll team has won the cup 10 times. Since when is Tampa a top 5 payroll? Oh and when Detroit won it's first 2 cups they weren't any where near the top 5 in payroll. The first cup Detroit won thier payroll was less than 30 million. Someone can correct me if I am wrong on this but as I remember Detroit was in the middle of the pack on payroll when they won their first 2 cups. Remember Detroit was one of the teams ready for bankruptcy in the 94 lockout. Perspective is a wonderful thing, find out what thier payroll was when they won the cup not now. Their payrolls are through the roof because they can afford it after their cup runs.

 

[vanlady]

While all the time driving up salaries for the other teams.

So instead of the Senators being able to acquire a player to fill a major hole, they have to do without it because the cost to acquire that player is too high.

Yeah, it may allow any team to win... but it only allows a handful of teams a consistant chance to win year after year.

BTW... you really need how to learn how to count...

Since 1989 those teams you mentioned have made

6 finals
2 Cups

Considering that the big economic change didn't start happening 15 years ago (I like how you did that though).

Since 1994 a team with a top 5 payroll has won the Stanley Cup 10 times.

Since 1994 a team with a top 5 payroll has made the Cup finals 15 times.

Oh I forgot, the Nordique left Quebec because they were going broke, they moved to Denver and won their first cup that year, they were no where near the top of the payroll ladder.

 

[degroat*]

Ok how did you come up with these numbers 94-04 is 10 years and a top 5 payroll team has won the cup 10 times. Since when is Tampa a top 5 payroll? Oh and when Detroit won it's first 2 cups they weren't any where near the top 5 in payroll. The first cup Detroit won thier payroll was less than 30 million. Someone can correct me if I am wrong on this but as I remember Detroit was in the middle of the pack on payroll when they won their first 2 cups. Remember Detroit was one of the teams ready for bankruptcy in the 94 lockout. Perspective is a wonderful thing, find out what thier payroll was when they won the cup not now. Their payrolls are through the roof because they can afford it after their cup runs.

I will correct you because you are wrong... again.

Detroit was 4th in payroll in 1997.

They were 9th in 1998.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for some evidence that the Wings were close to bankruptcy in the 94 lockout. They were in a good enough situation in 92-93 to have the 5th highest payroll in the league and the season after the lockout they had the 2nd highest payroll, behind only the Rangers. All this while they averaged over 19,000 people per game every year since 1987. So, were the Wings actually close to bankruptcy or is this just something else you made up?