why am i against a cap ?

[mooseOAK*]

But you said he did the same thing as Hasek did which was threaten to either retire or be traded to a select group of teams. At Hasek's age and previous comments about returning to Europe his threat of retirement is a lot more serious then a 30 year old Weight threatening not to play. What is he going to do if he was traded to New Jersey? Throw away the rest of his career, including the most lucrative years of his life?

NJ, or any team, wouldn't trade close to equal value for a guy that they didn't know if they could sign or not.

 

[oilers_guy_eddie]

What is he going to do if he was traded to New Jersey? Throw away the rest of his career, including the most lucrative years of his life?

Play one season for the Devils, then leave as a UFA.

 

[dawgbone]

But you said he did the same thing as Hasek did which was threaten to either retire or be traded to a select group of teams. At Hasek's age and previous comments about returning to Europe his threat of retirement is a lot more serious then a 30 year old Weight threatening not to play. What is he going to do if he was traded to New Jersey? Throw away the rest of his career, including the most lucrative years of his life?

You know, you'd save a lot of time if you actually thought about what you are saying, before you say it.

You could have very easily answered your own question if you stopped for 2 seconds and thought about it.

A 30 year old Weight threatening not to play, means that if he sits out for a year he will then be 31.

What does 31 mean?

UFA.

Now, here's the other tricky part...

If Doug Weight only wants to play in Detroit, St. Louis or Philly, why would New Jersey trade for him, if they can't sign him?

Doug doesn't miss the most lucrative years of his life... he misses one season. And during that one season, the Oilers are feeling more of a pinch than Weight is (not only do they not have him in the lineup, they didn't receive a player to replace him, and they will lose him for nothing if he continues to sit out the rest of the season).

So instead, the team trades him to one of the teams he wants to sign with for the best return possible, so they aren't suffering through the 3 previous scenarios I mentioned.

Now... if you are going to make another comment, do me a favour and think about it first.

This wasn't a complex train of thought... I'm sure someone with an advanced knowledge of economics could figure out 30+1 = 31, and that 1 != multiple years.

 

[gary69]

A 30 year old Weight threatening not to play, means that if he sits out for a year he will then be 31.

What does 31 mean?

UFA.

Now, here's the other tricky part...

If Doug Weight only wants to play in Detroit, St. Louis or Philly, why would New Jersey trade for him, if they can't sign him?

Doug doesn't miss the most lucrative years of his life... he misses one season. And during that one season, the Oilers are feeling more of a pinch than Weight is (not only do they not have him in the lineup, they didn't receive a player to replace him, and they will lose him for nothing if he continues to sit out the rest of the season).

So instead, the team trades him to one of the teams he wants to sign with for the best return possible, so they aren't suffering through the 3 previous scenarios I mentioned.

Now... if you are going to make another comment, do me a favour and think about it first.

This wasn't a complex train of thought... I'm sure someone with an advanced knowledge of economics could figure out 30+1 = 31, and that 1 = multiple years.

This is basically how it supposed to be every time a players contract is up next season, if they are not willing to sign for the coming years just trade them for whatever you can get.

This happens all the the time for example in the free-market european soccer leagues, and teams can live with it just fine. It certainly isn't anything even remotely close to impose a lockout/go to strike about.

Just get over with these unimportant minor issues and get into the real issues, like what part of revenues owners are supposed to make and what part the players are supposed to make, if you want to discuss the real issues behind this lockout.

 

[Emerald City Bruin]

Philly is less then 2 hours from East Rutherford.

So you're saying it's more likely that people will drive from E Rutherfrod to Phily than it is for people to drive from NYC to E Rutherford? You ripped that other guy about a 6 mile drive now you're saying the Devils compete with a team at the other end of the state?

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

This is basically how it supposed to be every time a players contract is up next season, if they are not willing to sign for the coming years just trade them for whatever you can get.

This happens all the the time for example in the free-market european soccer leagues, and teams can live with it just fine. It certainly isn't anything even remotely close to impose a lockout/go to strike about.

Just get over with these unimportant minor issues and get into the real issues, like what part of revenues owners are supposed to make and what part the players are supposed to make, if you want to discuss the real issues behind this lockout.

Don't you see that the small market teams inability to keep their franchise type players as an issue? The large market (or deep pocket owners) can afford to spend more than the small market teams, which is why you have a continual exodus of premier players from small market teams when they obtain UFA status.

Without some sort of revenue sharing, a salary cap will be of limited impact. Several small market teams are struggling with team salarys at or below the proposed cap. If you are to do a cap without revenue sharing, all that really happens is that the owners of the Leafs and Rangers make a ton of money, and struggling teams might not be quite as bad off as they are right now.

 

[I in the Eye]

I in the Eye...

You won't have a single Oiler fan disagree with you that Pocklington didn't run the franchise properly... especially when it comes to integrating the team into the community.

However, with the EIG, and under the leadership of Cal Nichols, that has changed drastically over the past 7 years. Where before, the Pocklington/Sather group felt that if you build it they will come, Nichols and the new group felt you had to go out and get them.

They've completely sold this team to the city. The players are everywhere, they have one of the most interactive relationships between the fans, management and the players.

They've come up with countless innovative way to generate revenue (i.e. the HC). They make sure they are always in the public eye, and are far more public and forthcoming than the Pocklington era ever was. They've made it so being an Oiler fan is part of being from Edmonton.

And at this point, they're at almost 100% capacity every night. The Oilers management are probably the most creative and insightful group in the NHL. Granted, it wasn't always the case, but if you compare it to 10 years ago, it's night and day.

It went from a closed door team (like Chicago), to just about the most transparent organization in sports.

As for raising the prices for more mini-packs, they do have those already. I am not sure to what degree, or how they sell them or anything like that, but it is the major focus of their marketing campaign.

In the book, the story ended by Peter Pocklington offering Jon Spoelstra a job... Jon turned it down, but Jon's partner Doug Piper became executive vice president of the Oilers in charge of business... While the team still struggled (on the ice), Piper made the Oilers the best marketed team in the NHL...

But I still don't think that the Oilers are doing everything they can to squeeze a lot more money out of the market... Perhaps they are, dawgbone... but, assuming that Doug Piper is still in charge of business development - and assuming that he holds the same beliefs and expertise as Jon Spoelstra - then I think the Oilers will find ways to generate much more revenue out of the market...

But perhaps I'm wrong... maybe the Edmonton market truly is over-extended... I form my opinions based on 2nd hand information from books and message boards Regardless, I'm all for revenue-sharing to make life a lot easier for the smaller markets, and for the teams who are building the right way (as long as the money is used to keep the teams together - i.e. to sign their 'core' and not to try and acquire outside, expensive players)... and I'm also all for a luxury tax-type system - such as the one GoCoyotes proposed a while ago... One that allows a team to keep their core together (at any price), while taxing, preferably $1 for $1, any 'outside' player that put teams over an upper limit...

 

[YellHockey*]

So you're saying it's more likely that people will drive from E Rutherfrod to Phily than it is for people to drive from NYC to E Rutherford? You ripped that other guy about a 6 mile drive now you're saying the Devils compete with a team at the other end of the state?

I didn't say that. I said they compete with three other teams. It doesn't have to be for attendance, just fan loyalty. And that can affect tv and radio ratings.

Someone is probably not going to drive from Philly to the Meadowlands for a game, but whose game is a guy in Trenton going to watch? The Devils or the Flyers?

 

[me2]

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 what? I'd take that if I was an owner. Lose Cooke, sign Draper. What goes around comes around. If the players want a league were talent is equally distrubuted so be it.

 

[gary69]

Don't you see that the small market teams inability to keep their franchise type players as an issue? The large market (or deep pocket owners) can afford to spend more than the small market teams, which is why you have a continual exodus of premier players from small market teams when they obtain UFA status.

Without some sort of revenue sharing, a salary cap will be of limited impact. Several small market teams are struggling with team salarys at or below the proposed cap. If you are to do a cap without revenue sharing, all that really happens is that the owners of the Leafs and Rangers make a ton of money, and struggling teams might not be quite as bad off as they are right now.

Like said on these boards before, this possibility to end up making tons of money with a cap, is probably the main reason why profitable big-market teams are willing to fight this fight. Bettman speaks of there's going to be a "meaningful" revenue sharing if there's a cap, but I wonder it won't be much to speak about, even if the big-market teams would then have some extra money to throw around.

I don't think it will go well with fans of those wealthier franchises, that they have to pay higher ticket prices, so that some smaller market team can sign players they really can't afford and their fans aren't willing to finance. And then these poorer franchises end up beating them in the playoffs. Therefore it's likely that neither the fans in good hockey markets or owners of those franchises will accept any "meaninful" revenue sharing.

And what comes to UFAs, I personally don't have any issues with players leaving any teams if those teams won't/can't pay a salary that someone else is willing to pay. I'm all for the real free-market anyway, although this isn't likely to happen in the NHL even after the new CBA, whenever it's signed. But of course I can understand that some fans who think their team loses some of it's players because of money, might see this as a problem.

 

[dawgbone]

But Gary, some of these fans pay high ticket prices and their team doesn't win anyways...

If the fans don't come, the team has to lower the ticket price. The incentive is there for the teams and their GM's to actually use some skill.

 

[gary69]

But Gary, some of these fans pay high ticket prices and their team doesn't win anyways...

If the fans don't come, the team has to lower the ticket price. The incentive is there for the teams and their GM's to actually use some skill.

It's not the high prices themselves, just that they would be used to benefit your competitor, not your own team.

If a team and management think that they can reach their objectives by spending money on whatever they choose to spend it, and are able to sell this kind of thinking to their fans, but still end up short, so be it.

 

[dawgbone]

It's not the high prices themselves, just that they would be used to benefit your competitor, not your own team.

If a team and management think that they can reach their objectives by spending money on whatever they choose to spend it, and are able to sell this kind of thinking to their fans, but still end up short, so be it.

But it isn't helping your competitor... it's helping the league.

And like I said, if there are fans with a problem with that, they have the choice not to go to the game.

But I think in the end, that's a choice they won't make.

 

[gary69]

But it isn't helping your competitor... it's helping the league.

QUOTE]

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 think 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'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.

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.

 

[thinkwild]

Granger Causality

I found an interesting link i wanted to share.
The Relationship between Team Payroll and Team poerformance in the NHL.

There have been tests to measure the correlation coefficient for payrolls and performance using winning percentage for performance. And it had been found that there is a moderate correlation. However a moderate correlation would be expected, and further, correlation still does not represent causality.

The Granger Causality Test, rather than measure causality, attempts to measure precedence. Does one one time series variable consistently and predicatably change before the other. If A does occur before B, it still doesnt prove causality of A for B, however it would seem safe to rule out the causality of B on A.


So they tested the hypothesis, does payroll predicatably rise before performance. Three leading sports economists made the measurements of team points regressed against lagged team points and payrolls, and then the other way around.

What they found was that winning percentages Granger caused higher payrolls. However higher payrolls didnt Granger cause higher winning percentages. By Granger caused, is meant one delta consistently, predicatbly and statistically significantly precedes the other (I think is what they said, stats not my strong suit).

In other words,
- winning always precedes increases in payroll.
- but increasing payroll doesnt always precede winning


Their conclusion was that high payrolls are not a necessity in the NHL. The trend is to more competitive balance, and the current competitive balance encourages the bidding up of players because of the playoff profits which show no sign of imbalance because of money. High payrolls did not mean you would do well in the playoffs, nor did it mean you would make money. Team performance Granger causes relative Team payroll, but the opposite hypothesis can be rejected.

However there is still salary inflation in the league. But this is a result of the competitive balance not a cause of competitive imbalance.

Payroll disparity is not the cause of an uncompetitive league; its the effect of a healthy one. This is certainly not an intuitive conclusion. Its fair to say there is salary inflation, but it isnt causing competitive imbalance. You can fix salary inflation if you wish, but you dont need to and wont fix competitiveness balance (fix being an unfortunate choice of words in a sporting context).

This is one reason why I am against a cap. It fixes things that arent problems.

------
Here was a another somewhat unrelated link on the baseball background and some of the unscruplous behaviour of owners an dhow they hide money etc. Long and a decade old, but still an interesting read if you have some time to kill. Its from from one of the leading Sports economists Andrew Zimbalist.

His closing paragraph was an intersting one.

Andrew Zimbalist speech on the Economics of Baseball

Let me close by reading a statement made by former Baseball Commissioner Happy Chandler just before he left office in 1952. I think it says it all. "I always regarded baseball as our national game that belongs to 150 million men, women and children, not to sixteen special people who happen to own big league teams." That's the way it ought to be, but we're going to have to work to make it that way. [applause]

Its time we got rid of the owners and their constant greedy agenda. The game belongs to us the fans and the players, and its rich history as part of our culture. Its time we went on without the greedy arrogant owners. Hopefully this provides that opportunity.

 

[Digger12]

Its time we got rid of the owners and their constant greedy agenda. The game belongs to us the fans and the players, and its rich history as part of our culture. Its time we went on without the greedy arrogant owners. Hopefully this provides that opportunity.

Nice sentiment, but don't hold your breath.

Those greedy arrogant owners are the ones that pay the freight, like it or not. I honestly can't see how a player/fan-run NHL would ever realistically work. I'm sure the players wouldn't want it either, at least if they want to continue getting paid as they are.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Salary Cap, means DR that in order to a team to sign another player, a very talented one, that they would require having room under the salary cap to fit that player onto their roster. That means, that the Wings, Leafs and Rangers, etc. need to have 5 or 6 million under the cap to sign an Iginla, Lecavalier, Heatley, etc. away from another team. They may be able to do it one year, but really, they can't do it each year and still ice a competitive team.

We've seen, time and time again that 1 great player one your team means squat in the current NHL.

By your logic, the Packers should not have Brett Favre on their team, the Colts should not have Peyton Manning on their team, whom they signed to an extension this past summer because they would have left as free agents to the likes of the Cowboys, Redskins, etc.

I can't beleive I'm going to have this argument again.

Yes, a team like Detroit would have to have the cap room to sign away Ignla or whoever. Bust Calgary would also have to have that same cap room to re-sign him. If you draft a bunch of good players, you will not be able to keep them all under a cap.

It works a little better in football because you can rebuild through the draft a little easier. Even mid round NFL picks have a reasonable shot to contribute. All but the very best NHL picks are 2-3 years away from playing. The Colts can afford to tie up alot of their cap in Manning because they know if they can't resign Harrison they can find someone in the next draft who can step in. Calgary wouldn't be able to sign Iginla, walk away from Kiprusoff and expect to replace him right away.

And even with the advantages the NFL draft has, how many teams are able to sustain excellence? How many SuperBowl teams of the last five years do you think are as good as the Steelers of the 70's or the 49'ers of the 80's or the Packers of the 60's? Why do a higher percentage of teams in the NFL finsh .500 or less than ever before? Look at The Panthers. They were 7-9 two years ago, made the SuperBowl last year and are 1-6 this year. How can that be?

You'd have teams that draft well that might be able to put together a 2-3 year run. Then they'd be broken up by the cap. There is no chance for any team to sustain excellence, and really no incentive to try. It won't matter if you draft well because there will be a crop of very good free agents available every year.

I know everybody thinks I'm trying to make sure the Red Wings can continue and "buy" championships. Thats fine, think what you want. Of course I want a system in place that gives my team the ability to draft well, keep those players, and sustain a championship caliber team for many years. I think that's what everybody wants for their team. I just don't think a cap is the way to acheive it.

 

[garry1221]

I found an interesting link i wanted to share.
The Relationship between Team Payroll and Team poerformance in the NHL.

There have been tests to measure the correlation coefficient for payrolls and performance using winning percentage for performance. And it had been found that there is a moderate correlation. However a moderate correlation would be expected, and further, correlation still does not represent causality.

The Granger Causality Test, rather than measure causality, attempts to measure precedence. Does one one time series variable consistently and predicatably change before the other. If A does occur before B, it still doesnt prove causality of A for B, however it would seem safe to rule out the causality of B on A.


So they tested the hypothesis, does payroll predicatably rise before performance. Three leading sports economists made the measurements of team points regressed against lagged team points and payrolls, and then the other way around.

What they found was that winning percentages Granger caused higher payrolls. However higher payrolls didnt Granger cause higher winning percentages. By Granger caused, is meant one delta consistently, predicatbly and statistically significantly precedes the other (I think is what they said, stats not my strong suit).

In other words,
- winning always precedes increases in payroll.
- but increasing payroll doesnt always precede winning


Their conclusion was that high payrolls are not a necessity in the NHL. The trend is to more competitive balance, and the current competitive balance encourages the bidding up of players because of the playoff profits which show no sign of imbalance because of money. High payrolls did not mean you would do well in the playoffs, nor did it mean you would make money. Team performance Granger causes relative Team payroll, but the opposite hypothesis can be rejected.

However there is still salary inflation in the league. But this is a result of the competitive balance not a cause of competitive imbalance.

Payroll disparity is not the cause of an uncompetitive league; its the effect of a healthy one. This is certainly not an intuitive conclusion. Its fair to say there is salary inflation, but it isnt causing competitive imbalance. You can fix salary inflation if you wish, but you dont need to and wont fix competitiveness balance (fix being an unfortunate choice of words in a sporting context).

This is one reason why I am against a cap. It fixes things that arent problems.

------
Here was a another somewhat unrelated link on the baseball background and some of the unscruplous behaviour of owners an dhow they hide money etc. Long and a decade old, but still an interesting read if you have some time to kill. Its from from one of the leading Sports economists Andrew Zimbalist.

His closing paragraph was an intersting one.

Andrew Zimbalist speech on the Economics of Baseball


Its time we got rid of the owners and their constant greedy agenda. The game belongs to us the fans and the players, and its rich history as part of our culture. Its time we went on without the greedy arrogant owners. Hopefully this provides that opportunity.

all those articles say is something all nhl fans have seen for years with the rangers. as far as your last comment. IMO there's a fine line between owners being 'greedy' and the players being greedy. If the owners are greedy so what, the revenue they make one year is revenue that can be used to finance next year's team, while the players being greedy in essence is saying i want my bently and with the new cba i'd only be able to get a lexus. Boo freaking hoo. The owners are the ones taking the hit year after year, shelling out money year after year for teams that may or may not make a profit of any kind. The owners deserve to AT LEAST break even when all is said and done.

edit: i'll be more clear before the pro-player ppl around go crazy. The owners that make a visible effort year after year to keep their team competitive deserve to at least break even. Those who don't do anything to try and increase revenue or their team don't deserve anything. Then again what i said is only common sense.

 

[hockeytown9321]

If the owners are greedy so what, the revenue they make one year is revenue that can be used to finance next year's team

But what if they make enough revenue to finance a $50 million team, but are not allowed?

 

[iagreewithidiots]

And even with the advantages the NFL draft has, how many teams are able to sustain excellence? How many SuperBowl teams of the last five years do you think are as good as the Steelers of the 70's or the 49'ers of the 80's or the Packers of the 60's? Why do a higher percentage of teams in the NFL finsh .500 or less than ever before? Look at The Panthers. They were 7-9 two years ago, made the SuperBowl last year and are 1-6 this year. How can that be?

Yea you're right. How many Stanley Cup winners of the past 5 years are as good as the Oilers of the 80's or the Islanders of the 80's or the Canadiens of the 50's/60's and 70's? Look at the Mighty Ducks they were 29-42-8-3 three years ago, made the finals two years ago, and were 29-35-10-8 last year. What up wit dat?

 

[hockeytown9321]

Yea you're right. How many Stanley Cup winners of the past 5 years are as good as the Oilers of the 80's or the Islanders of the 80's or the Canadiens of the 50's/60's and 70's? Look at the Mighty Ducks they were 29-42-8-3 three years ago, made the finals two years ago, and were 29-35-10-8 last year. What up wit dat?

I think without question the Red Wings and Avalance of the last 8 years can stand next to any previous dynasty.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

I think without question the Red Wings and Avalance of the last 8 years can stand next to any previous dynasty.

No offence, but I don't think either of those teams would have won a game against either the Isles or Oilers of the 80's. My opinion only.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

I think without question the Red Wings and Avalance of the last 8 years can stand next to any previous dynasty.

Ummm, say what? Can the current Red Wings run even compare with the great Red Wings teams of the "Production Line" era?

I really don't know where you're going with this argument, but I do know one thing...the New England Patriots have been able to win 2 out of the last 3 Super Bowls. The Red Wings were able to win back-to-back Cups in the late 90s, the last team to do so. Seems to me, sustained excellence is plausible in either system.

What isn't plausible with both systems is a thriving league--that happens in the Salary-Cap led NFL, not the market-system led NHL.

 

[quat]

But it isn't helping your competitor... it's helping the league.

QUOTE]

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'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.

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.

heh heh heh Dam commies with all their rules. There should be no rules in hockey at all. 15 players on the ice? fine! Axes and swords? Better!

Sport isn't the movies guy. Or music. Or theater (well...). It's supposed to be about competition, and having rules defining the amount you can put into payroll is simply an extention of that ideal. When the players were being robbed in the past for their efforts, payroll didn't have a big effect on the game, but now that there is a big effect it needs addressing.

There are sound, viable solutions to the problems facing the league, but it seems we will see a season vanish before valuable discussion begins.

 

[YellHockey*]

Sport isn't the movies guy. Or music. Or theater (well...). It's supposed to be about competition, and having rules defining the amount you can put into payroll is simply an extention of that ideal.

You don't think movies compete with each other at the box office?

Is it unfair for a movie like Alexander to have a huge budget while a film like Saw has a very small budget?