why am i against a cap ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

helicecopter

Registered User
Mar 8, 2003
8,242
0
give me higher shots
Visit site
dawgbone said:
Then you put insanely heavy fines in place for the player, the team, the agent and the NHLPA (if they are aware of the infraction). You nail these guys with heavy fines, or worse, and it will be very rare. I am not sure how many illegal moves are made in the NFL or NBA... but I'll guess not many, and they can't be very drastic.
You don't know and i can't know, and that would be already disturbing. Probably in the majority of situations the infractions would not be very drastic, but there are many ways a player can get benefit through paths not directly linked with the ownership and thus not assessed. Also, the checking system would have to be perfectly unbiased (and uncorrupted), besides it would be one more expensive thing to have A CHANCE to be effective. In any case, cap is a tie and so brings tries to go around it, as a principle i don't like it and i'd rather to avoid it as far as it's not strictly necessary.



dawgbone said:
Not at all. Just because a player is a free agent at 27 it doesn't mean he is going anywhere. UFA's go where the money is, and if everything is capped, chances are there isn't going to be enough money laying around for all kinds of free agents to move around all over the place.

Look at Basketball... yes they have a lot of free agent movement, but not significantly more than Hockey does... and they have free agency well before 27.
This is the key point where i disagree with you. Look at what happened with Shaquille and the Orlando Magic; that's exactly what i hate and what i really don't want to see in the NHL. It's not only the number of free agent movements, it's the 'quality' (kind and age of the player) of the free agent movements.


dawgbone said:
Not at all. Just because a player is a free agent at 27 it doesn't mean he is going anywhere.
If he is UFA, usually it means he is going elsewhere, not necessarily, but usually. Something like 90, 80% i would say..



dawgbone said:
I don't think that would work at all... now instead of 3 or 4 prospects in return for Jagr, the Pens get nothing because no one wants to fork over a % of the money they just signed the guy they traded for. They suck it up for a year and wait till he becomes a UFA, thereby really messing the Penguins up.

The problem with your theory is 2-fold... if the monetary value is too low, it doesn't change anything. If it's too high, no team will do it leaving teams stuck with soon to be UFA's with no return in sight. Or teams sign these guys to a one year deal, then sign him to an extension, thereby completely circumventing it.

Your solution is simply a bandaid... and not a very good one. The money you are talking about isn't enough to do anything.
Obviously you have very good points here. The fact is my proposal was thought in a couple of minutes and i forgot to include a key additional rule that i guess would make it work: NO UNRESTRICTED free agency at all! Never, not even at 35! Of course this is what i would like and not something i can realistically hope for nowadays.
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
Obviously you have very good points here. The fact is my proposal was thought in a couple of minutes and i forgot to include a key additional rule that i guess would make it work: NO UNRESTRICTED free agency at all! Never, not even at 35! Of course this is what i would like and not something i can realistically hope for nowadays.

This would be a huge violation of anti trust law in the US. Restricted free agency has been eliminated in both the NBA and NFL because of anti trust rulings and with the track Bettman is on restricted free agency is going to be a thing of the past in the NHL.
 

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,575
1,249
Montreal, QC
There's nothing wrong with eliminating restricted free agency and lowering the age for unrestricted free agency. It will force teams to "take care" of their best young players first and foremost, then look for veterans on the free agent market that fit best.

In the current system, teams attack the UFA market and tend to overspend because they know they have the cushion of RFA status to fall back on. So, as an example, the Flames can be aggressive in going after missing pieces BEFORE locking up Iginla, because they know their franchise player isn't going anywhere...yet.

The new system should entice teams to first and foremost take care of the franchise players and building blocks (again, using the Flames as an example, locking up Iginla, Leopold, Regehr and Kiprusoff), then try to add the missing pieces.

Of course, if the new system will still prevent the Flames from signing Iginla long-term, then it's not a good system, IMHO.
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
Jag68Vlady27 said:
There's nothing wrong with eliminating restricted free agency and lowering the age for unrestricted free agency. It will force teams to "take care" of their best young players first and foremost, then look for veterans on the free agent market that fit best.

In the current system, teams attack the UFA market and tend to overspend because they know they have the cushion of RFA status to fall back on. So, as an example, the Flames can be aggressive in going after missing pieces BEFORE locking up Iginla, because they know their franchise player isn't going anywhere...yet.

The new system should entice teams to first and foremost take care of the franchise players and building blocks (again, using the Flames as an example, locking up Iginla, Leopold, Regehr and Kiprusoff), then try to add the missing pieces.

Of course, if the new system will still prevent the Flames from signing Iginla long-term, then it's not a good system, IMHO.

In the new system Iginla wouldn't be holding out, he would be long gone. The farther Bettman pushes this, the more likely you will see free agency begin at the end of a players rookie conctract. Another words, you draft a player spend money in the AHL and then say goodbye because he is now a free agent.
 

ceber

Registered User
Apr 28, 2003
3,497
0
Wyoming, MN
vanlady said:
In the new system Iginla wouldn't be holding out, he would be long gone. The farther Bettman pushes this, the more likely you will see free agency begin at the end of a players rookie conctract. Another words, you draft a player spend money in the AHL and then say goodbye because he is now a free agent.

If there are that many free agents available, why do they all switch teams? Just to get a change of scenery? Why not just sign with the team they're currently with?
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
ceber said:
If there are that many free agents available, why do they all switch teams? Just to get a change of scenery? Why not just sign with the team they're currently with?

Because there are teams out there that players will not play for, Chicago is a prime example of that. Unfortunately as Robert Eche said there are good owners and very bad owners, and the high end players will take huge paycuts to stay with the good teams, another words competetive balance goes out the window and salaries will escalate all over again, because badly managed teams will have to pay through the nose to get decent players to play for them.
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
BlackRedGold said:
The Senators payroll went up by ~$10M last year. My season tickets didn't go up a bit.

That's funny...

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/08/news/companies/nhl_prices/

The Tampa Bay Lightening, the Stanley Cup finalist Anaheim Mighty Ducks, and the Ottawa Senators, which also filed for bankruptcy court protections last season, are the other teams with greater than 10 percent increases in ticket prices.

Want to use a better example. To paraphrase something by another poster, if someone cries wolf enough times I want to see teeth before I believe them.

Like I said, putting up the sandbags before the flood is a lot more effective than trying to do it when there is 4 feet of water in the village.

I don't blindly hand my money over to them. I make a calculated decision on whether or not I hand over my money. If they decided to raise the price of my tickets to $300 a game, I'd tell them to go screw themselves.

What was that calculated decision based on? The fact that they would try and win, as well as icing the best team possible?

You obviously trust them to do that... so where don't you trust them?

Who did Edmonton give up to get Kent Nilsson? Or Geoff Courtnall?

The Oilers got Nilsson from the North Stars for a draft pick because he was retiring at the end of the season.

The Oilers traded Moog (a starter) for Ranford (a backup) and Courtnall.
 
Last edited:

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
BlackRedGold said:
He was 30 years old when he was traded and he was still a point a game player while playing on a pretty bad North Stars team.

And he was retiring at the end of the season to go back home.
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
the doctor said:
I've pretty much been an observer here, but I really, really enjoy coming here to get a pulse on how other fans see the situation.

I know you said this tongue-in-cheek, but I'm having a hard time disagreeing. Holy smokes, I think there's a paper here; "How to poorly run an organization, yet still have the local media and fans blame others....by Kevin Lowe". How big of a circle can the wagons go?

You want to explain how they are "poorly run"?

They are one of the youngest teams in the league, one of the lowest payrolls, and they have finished no worse than 9th place (twice, both by 2 points) in the conference in 8 years...

And they've been able to stay financially viable throughout that.

So poorly run?
 

copperandblue

Registered User
Sep 15, 2003
10,719
0
Visit site
dawgbone said:
That's funny...

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/08/news/companies/nhl_prices/

The Tampa Bay Lightening, the Stanley Cup finalist Anaheim Mighty Ducks, and the Ottawa Senators, which also filed for bankruptcy court protections last season, are the other teams with greater than 10 percent increases in ticket prices.


Just to back this up a little further, the fan cost index in Ottawa actually increased by 14.4% which is the 4th highest increase in the league.

http://www.teammarketing.com/fci.cfm?page=fci_nhl_03-04.cfm
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
dawgbone said:
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.


I'm gonna take exception this this statement. Hasek cost the Wings around an extra million dollars, because two big priced players left with the Hasek trade, Kozlov to Buffalo in the deal and Osgood to the Isles via the waiver draft. Why wouldn't you deal for one of the best goalies in the NHL if it only cost that little?

As for Hull he went unsigned until pretty much the start of training camp. And the only reason he was signed because several players offered to and did defer salary to make it happen. 1.5 million to be exact, So Hull and Hasek cost the team a total 3 million dollars that year.


2003 is when Holland fell off his rocker, but thats another topic for another day
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
JWI19 said:
I'm gonna take exception this this statement. Hasek cost the Wings around an extra million dollars, because two big priced players left with the Hasek trade, Kozlov to Buffalo in the deal and Osgood to the Isles via the waiver draft. Why wouldn't you deal for one of the best goalies in the NHL if it only cost that little?

As for Hull he went unsigned until pretty much the start of training camp. And the only reason he was signed because several players offered to and did defer salary to make it happen. 1.5 million to be exact, So Hull and Hasek cost the team a total 3 million dollars that year.


2003 is when Holland fell off his rocker, but thats another topic for another day

lol... true... I meant more from a sabres perspective. They had the $8mil goalie they couldn't afford (although it made them contenders), and the wings were able to grab him for not very much.

Sure they gave up equal salary, but if we are being realistic, the quality they gave up for one of the best goalies in the NHL at the time was a bit of a joke. Sure, they let Ozzie go, but really... I'm sure if Hasek was a $4 mil player, the sabres would have had far more options, and much better offers (and a much better return on the trade).
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
ceber said:
If there are that many free agents available, why do they all switch teams? Just to get a change of scenery? Why not just sign with the team they're currently with?

I can think of several good reasons:

1) There are 30 NHL cities. If given a choice, anybody who picked Edmonton as a preferred place to live hasn't lived there.

2) The endorsement opportunities are in the big markets. Mark Messier would not have made millions selling Lay's Potato Chips as an Edmonton Oiler. Eric Lindros did not refuse to go to Quebec because the Nordiques wouldn't pay him what the Flyers paid him. He became Eric Lindros, Inc. in Philadelphia, something he could never do in a small Canadian market.

3) The New York Rangers can promise a much more lucrative post hockey career. If, for example, the player wants to eventually get into media work, he wants to play in a large centre with a large media presence. If the player wants to get into business, the Rangers can introduce him to many corporate sponsors who will be delighted to promise lucrative post hockey opportunites. The Oilers can counter with a promise of a sales job at the local brewery or car dealer.

4) European players will gravitate to large cosmopolitan centres where there are Russian or Slovakian or Whatever communities. They would also probably prefer Eastern cities because it is much easier to get home at the Christmas or All star break.

5) All players would prefer to play out of the Eastern time zone because the travel is so much less. They have less fatigue and fewer injuries so they can be more effective as players. They also get to spend more time with their families.

A so called level playing field isn't possible with free agency. The illusion of a level playing field is possible, with the big stars choosing the big markets for reasons other than hockey salary. The small markets get the small stars.

The NHL has the best CBA for competitive balance and for the small markets because free agency is delayed until the player is 31 years old. Until then he can't leave Edmonton because his wife can't stand winters in Northern Alberta or because there are no jobs for models. As soon as he has that choice, he's probably gone.

There are several excellent reasons why a player would choose New York, Toronto or Los Angeles if the money is the same as in Edmonton. The only reason I can imagine anyone choosing Edmonton is if the team really sucks so the opportunity for ice time is great. The Oilers give him the ice, he gets really good, and then he leaves.

Any others?

Tom
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
Tom_Benjamin said:
I can think of several good reasons:

1) There are 30 NHL cities. If given a choice, anybody who picked Edmonton as a preferred place to live hasn't lived there.

Janne Niinimaa cried after finding out he was traded from the Oilers. Many NHLers continue to make their homes in Edmonton...

2) The endorsement opportunities are in the big markets. Mark Messier would not have made millions selling Lay's Potato Chips as an Edmonton Oiler. Eric Lindros did not refuse to go to Quebec because the Nordiques wouldn't pay him what the Flyers paid him. He became Eric Lindros, Inc. in Philadelphia, something he could never do in a small Canadian market.

The Big stars will get their endorsements everywhere. Congrats, you've named 2 whole players... man, endorsements for your average NHLer is pretty lucrative...

Oh wait... no it's not... because No one cares about hockey!

Gretzky never had a problem getting endorsements while he was an Oiler!

3) The New York Rangers can promise a much more lucrative post hockey career. If, for example, the player wants to eventually get into media work, he wants to play in a large centre with a large media presence. If the player wants to get into business, the Rangers can introduce him to many corporate sponsors who will be delighted to promise lucrative post hockey opportunites. The Oilers can counter with a promise of a sales job at the local brewery or car dealer.

Man, they must have promises a lot of media jobs!

Once again, you are assuming Americans care about hockey... the T.V. numbers argue with you there. They only hire recongnizable faces... so your average hockey player in New York plays well behind the players of 6 other franchises.

4) European players will gravitate to large cosmopolitan centres where there are Russian or Slovakian or Whatever communities. They would also probably prefer Eastern cities because it is much easier to get home at the Christmas or All star break.

There are those all over the place. There isn't a large Easern European community in the GTA... yet the Leafs have no problem signing Eastern Europeans.

How is that Swedish population in New York/L.A.?

5) All players would prefer to play out of the Eastern time zone because the travel is so much less. They have less fatigue and fewer injuries so they can be more effective as players. They also get to spend more time with their families.

Uh... unless they come from the Western part of the country... :shakehead

A so called level playing field isn't possible with free agency. The illusion of a level playing field is possible, with the big stars choosing the big markets for reasons other than hockey salary. The small markets get the small stars.

The NHL has the best CBA for competitive balance and for the small markets because free agency is delayed until the player is 31 years old. Until then he can't leave Edmonton because his wife can't stand winters in Northern Alberta or because there are no jobs for models. As soon as he has that choice, he's probably gone.

Uhhh... that's funny. Doug Weight probably would have stayed in Edmonton if they could have given him the deal he got from St. Louis. That's the issue, they can get more money in 7 or 8 different cities, so they are gone. Isn't it incredible, that the most expensive free agent signings all occur in the same group of cities?

There are several excellent reasons why a player would choose New York, Toronto or Los Angeles if the money is the same as in Edmonton. The only reason I can imagine anyone choosing Edmonton is if the team really sucks so the opportunity for ice time is great. The Oilers give him the ice, he gets really good, and then he leaves.

Any others?

Tom

But the point is the money isn't the same, so there isn't even that choice to make.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
dawgbone said:
Janne Niinimaa cried after finding out he was traded from the Oilers. Many NHLers continue to make their homes in Edmonton...

So Janne kept his home in Edmonton, eh? Comes back every off season? When did Niinimaa become a big star, by the way? I'd expect Niinimaa to be the type of guy who might do best in a place like Edmonton. The Oilers will probably be able to keep their pretty good players. They won't be able to keep the great ones.

The Big stars will get their endorsements everywhere. Congrats, you've named 2 whole players... man, endorsements for your average NHLer is pretty lucrative...

Nonsense. The big stars will get the big endorsement money in the big cities. Messier was never going to be "the greatest leader in sports" playing out of Edmonton. He couldn't sell potato chips in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles if he was an Edmonton Oiler. Gretzky's outside money exploded after he left Edmonton.

Endorsement deals for the average player are nonexistant. Average players will be happy to play in Edmonton as long as Edmonton is in the NHL. Anybody with a chance to get an endorsement deal - the very best players - will bail as soon as they can. If Lecavalier could get out of Tampa, he's gone.

Even now, if Sidney Crosby is drafted by a Nashville or an Edmonton his agent should tell him to pull a Lindros and insist on a trade. The agent can get Crosby a job in Europe that will easily top the bonus free NHL entry level salary system. It won't hurt Crosby to play a couple of seasons in Europe while he waits for his trade to Toronto, New York or Philadelphia.

The idea that Sidney Crosby or any other franchise player would choose to play in Edmonton if he had any other option is ludicrous.

Tom
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
oilers_guy_eddie said:
Endorsement deals for all-stars seem to be pretty much nonexistant too.

Gretzky... Messier... ...and? Who are the other star players who are getting bigtime endorsement deals by flocking to New York and LA?

They won't necessarily be flocking to those cities. Players will take everything into consideration and when they do Edmonton would be one of the least desirable places to play.

Suppose we make it so that money is the same in every city with one of the options on the table. The NHL negotiates every player contract, but the player can play with any team that wants him. How many of the 700 NHL players do you think would have Edmonton at the top of their list? How many of the 700 NHL players would not have Edmonton at the very bottom of their list?

Explain your answers.

Tom
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Tom_Benjamin said:
Well, I guess this makes Edmonton an AHL market, doesn't it? On average Canuck fans spend about $15 US more a ticket than Edmonton fans. And you want the Canucks to share revenue? Why should they?

Tom

It takes two teams to play a game of hockey. Why shouldn't the visiting team have a right to a share of the revenue? Perhaps they should split the gate/tv revenue down the middle after fixed expenses (ie $250k or so rink rent). Chuck all the visiting teams' revenue in a consolidated area and distribute it evenly amoungst all teams. The rich stay richer, the poor get a better deal.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
me2 said:
It takes two teams to play a game of hockey. Why shouldn't the visiting team have a right to a share of the revenue?

Fair enough as long as tickets for an Oiler game are reduced to an average of $35. If Oiler fans won't pay more than that to see Edmonton play, why should Canuck fans?

Tom
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
Tom_Benjamin said:
So Janne kept his home in Edmonton, eh? Comes back every off season? When did Niinimaa become a big star, by the way?

When did you say big star? You said no one would want to live in Edmonton, yet Niinimaa was upset when he was traded away...

Now you are changing the requirements.

Nonsense. The big stars will get the big endorsement money in the big cities. Messier was never going to be "the greatest leader in sports" playing out of Edmonton. He couldn't sell potato chips in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles if he was an Edmonton Oiler. Gretzky's outside money exploded after he left Edmonton.

Actually... Messier got that title after leading the Oilers to a cup in 1990...

Sports endoresements in general exploded after Gretzky had left Edmonton.

btw... most of Messier's and Gretzky promotions are only within Canada. Yup. Gretzky is the face of Ford in Canada, but not in the States. Messier is the face of Frito Lays in Canada, not in the States.

Are you telling me they need to be a recognizable face in the US, in order to sell products in Canada? They need to play in New York for advertisers to associate them with Canada?

Endorsement deals for the average player are nonexistant. Average players will be happy to play in Edmonton as long as Edmonton is in the NHL. Anybody with a chance to get an endorsement deal - the very best players - will bail as soon as they can. If Lecavalier could get out of Tampa, he's gone.

I guess Naslund will be bailing out of Vancouver to go to LA or Chicago soon... Iginla to follow? Why haven't they bailed?

Even now, if Sidney Crosby is drafted by a Nashville or an Edmonton his agent should tell him to pull a Lindros and insist on a trade. The agent can get Crosby a job in Europe that will easily top the bonus free NHL entry level salary system. It won't hurt Crosby to play a couple of seasons in Europe while he waits for his trade to Toronto, New York or Philadelphia.

The idea that Sidney Crosby or any other franchise player would choose to play in Edmonton if he had any other option is ludicrous.

Tom

We don't know, because they don't have that option, do they?

You are talking as if NHL players are common faces on American products.

NEWS FLASH

They aren't.

Americans have shown they don't give a crap about hockey on TV, so why would US companies want them representing their product in the States?

Where is the multi-million dollar endorsment deals Hockey players sign to represent Products in the States?

It doesn't happen.

Sure, Crosby can pull a Lindros... for what? The lucrative endorsment deal in the States?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

He's better off in Canada, where he is already a recognized face, and where he will be the primary focus, and the main attraction.
 

oilers_guy_eddie

Playoffs? PLAYOFFS!?
Feb 27, 2002
11,094
0
This is Oil Country!
Visit site
Tom_Benjamin said:
They won't necessarily be flocking to those cities. Players will take everything into consideration and when they do Edmonton would be one of the least desirable places to play.

Hey, you said you were offering good reasons why players will want to be elsewhere. I'm offering the opinion that at least one of those looks like pure fiction.

Tom_Benjamin said:
Suppose we make it so that money is the same in every city with one of the options on the table. The NHL negotiates every player contract, but the player can play with any team that wants him. How many of the 700 NHL players do you think would have Edmonton at the top of their list? How many of the 700 NHL players would not have Edmonton at the very bottom of their list?

Explain your answers.

Tom

All things being equal, I imagine there are lots of players who would prefer to be elsewhere. So what?

Not everybody can play in New York and LA. All things being equal, only 46 out of 700 get to be on the Rangers and Kings, no matter what their preference.

Then again, in a league that had any kind of spending control, your assumption that equal money is available to a player in any market doesn't apply any more. If the Rangers have no salary space left and the Oilers have salary space left, then things aren't equal anymore, are they. I suppose you're going to tell me that the players will take pay-cuts of any size to get into Rangers silks because they know the potato-chip company will be beating their door down any minute.
 

xtremeleafan

Registered User
Aug 7, 2004
23
0
Gary Bettman Salary Cap Opinion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just to stir things up a bit I'll copy a unauthorized quote from the "Hockey News" issue for Nov 9 2004 of a comment by Gary Bettman in 1998. "The collective (Bargaining) agreement allows a team to spend whatever it can afford to spend...If anybody is spending more than what they can afford,they should'nt be complaining about the CBA." Interestng, wouldn't you say ? ;)
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
oilers_guy_eddie said:
All things being equal, I imagine there are lots of players who would prefer to be elsewhere. So what?

The fact that they can't go elsewhwere until they are 31 is great for competitive balance.

Not everybody can play in New York and LA. All things being equal, only 46 out of 700 get to be on the Rangers and Kings, no matter what their preference.

True. Only about the best 50 or so players in the league will spread themselves among the biggest and best five or six markets. I imagine Edmonton will be able to compete for players in the bottom 75% of any free agent class. The top 25% of every free agent class would go elsewhere. If they ever did have the best player in the league again, they lose him as soon as he can leave. Right now it is age 31.

Tom
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->