BlackRedGold said:
I've bought plenty of tickets.
Besides the CBA doesn't dictate the price of tickets.
If you've bought plenty of tickets, you'd realize that after a summer of signing deals, the average ticket price for the Senators goes up...
Incredible!
No it doesn't since I don't trust the owners. What would indicate a problem would be a franchise folding. That hasn't happened in over 25 years.
Ah okay... I get it... so the village isn't in trouble until after it starts flooding... gotcha. Taking preventive measures before that happens isn't a good idea.
Should it really take the folding of a franchise for people to take it seriously? Shouldn't you start putting the sandbags up before the water is 4 feet deep?
As for not trusting the owners... that is up to you... I'm not sure why, I mean you are willing to spend your money on tickets, yet you don't trust them... that baffles me. I would think that if you didn't trust the owner, you wouldn't blindly hand your money over to him.
It's funny, the NHLPA doesn't trust the owners, but they'll come collect a paycheque from them... hypocricy at it's finest. They don't trust the owners, but they won't do anything to prove them wrong... there must be a reason for the distrust. There must be something fueling it. They'd be farther ahead if they proved the owners were lying.
But they have ZERO intent on trying to do that.
OK. What team doesn't have a chance to win? And how are salaries going?
What team doesn't have a chance to win? Any team with several good young players on it who's salaries are rising faster than the team can afford, despite whatever playoff success they might be having.
Then how fast are they growing? You keep bringing up salaries increasing but if you knew how much they were increasing you would specify how fast their are growing. Are they going up 100% per season? 50%? 10%? 5%?
It's common knowledge! Average Salary in 1994 was about $530k, 1998 $1mil, 2001 $1.4 mil, 2004 $1.85mil.
Well, the Rangers, Maple Leafs, Blackhawks, Kings and Capitals have sure been dominating the league during the previous CBA!
The Leafs have been a 100+ point team for several years, and have managed to go farther in the playoffs (on average) than the Sens.
Alrighty, let's go for some of the other big Markets.
Colorado, New Jersey, Philly, Detroit, Dallas, all who have one cups.
You said every year salaries go up a little more? I thought that salaries were spiralling out of control? Which is it? Are they going up a little bit or are they spiralling?
I'd say tripling over 10 years is spiralling, with it every year getting higher and higher....
Why are you grasping for things now?
Name the teams that have bought Stanley Cup championships. All the recent winners have been teams that have drafted and developed players really well.
They were also able to keep the players they have developed, even when they weren't having playoff success.
Also, define buying? Picking up a big salary from a team who can't afford it in a trade constitutes as buying. For instance the Wings essentially bought Hasek from Buffalo... they signed Hull as a UFA. Both moves not many teams can Make. Colorado had virtually no playoff success when they got Roy.
Buying your championship involves being able to keep your own players, while at the same time gobbling up better players from other teams because you have the financial ability to do so.
Happened under the CBA prior to the previous one.
True, but that's where it started.
Small market. Plays in the smallest NHL city with an outdated rink.
That's a joke. New Jersey is within a reasonable driving distance of nearly 20 million people.
Medium sized market that couldn't even keep its NHL team in the 70's.
Market involves several things there sunshine... population, disposable income, etc... Denver is an extremely wealthy area.
Built off the tremendous draft they had in, I believe, 1989. Possibly the best draft year for a team ever.
And Detroit is a medium to large market.
Medium sized southern market. I thought hockey didn't work in the South?
Again. It was once called a Mickey Mouse organization by Gretzky.
Still using the great core of players that were the result of drafting when they were the Nordiques.
Small market team that used a great core of drafted players.[/quote]
Evidently I said somewhere that all these players were bought... wait, no I didn't. Yes it takes great drafting, and solid trading, but the salaries these and other teams have paid out have gone a long way to hurt many teams abilities to build their own team. You shouldn't have to win the Stanley Cup in order to keep your team together, which is what you are saying.
And thanks for bringing up Dallas... I've never said hockey didn't work in the South, and if you think Dallas is a medium market, you really should consider thinking a little harder.
But I don't know why you keep mentioning payroll. High payroll != big market. If a team has more talent then the other teams shouldn't it pay more money for that talent?[/quote]
The fact of the matter is you can't support a large payroll that most of these teams used to win in markets that aren't big. Like I said, big is a combination of things. Amount of disposable income is just as important as population, if not more so.
No they won't because they'll be able to pay for their talented group of players with the revenues from the playoffs.
Really... that's funny. Their revenues aren't much higher than they were several years ago when they traded away a draft pick that would have netted them Joni Pitkannen because they couldn't afford an entry leve contract.
How on earth are they going to be able to keep Richards, Lecavalier, St Louis and Khabibulin... without suffering financial losses (which they did btw, despite winning the cup).
Who says the Lightning can't have a $50M payroll if they continue to win? They've got one of the biggest rinks in the NHL and the place is packed with a winning team.
Packed? What playoffs were you watching? They certtainly weren't packed in the first 3 rounds. I'm saying they can't afford a $50million payroll because they can't.
How do they top teams add more talent when the only players free to sign with top teams are ones in decline? You don't become a restricted free agent in the NHL until 31.
Decline? Not sure what NHL you watch, but if 31 is when players are in decline, that's news to me.
BTW, there is more than just UFA signings to consider when talking about adding more talent. Trading for other teams top players come to mind. Ever seem to notice it's only a handful of teams who always make the big splash at the deadline?
You mean like New Jersey or Colorado did? Or an Ottawa Senators team could have if only they could face the Leafs when they didn't have a horseshoe shoved up their collective backsides?
New Jersey I will give you... Colorado has had very important peices of their team traded to them, or were signed by them.
And like I said, if you consider living within a reasonable driving distance of 20million people a small market, that is up to you.
And could have? I was under the impression those don't count.
Where did those teams rank in terms of payroll?
We will never know. Salaries and that weren't released as common knowledge back then. All I know is the Oilers never once pulled a trade where they got another teams best player for futures.
Did the Devils, Red Wings and Avalanche not build their teams through the draft and smart trades?
Yeah, smart trades that involved trading parts for key players... players the other teams couldn't afford.
