why am i against a cap ?

[me2]

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

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.

Apprently the Minny Wild are showing us the way though

Jersey Devils, with the eighth highest payroll, won the Stanley Cup over the Anaheim Mighty Ducks, who were 17th. The Minnesota Wild became semifinalists with the lowest payroll. Apparently, payroll is not the only factor that determines team quality–Minnesota showed that it is possible for a small market team to turn a profit while staying competitive.

The Minny Wild showed us how to miss the playoffs. So did the Ducks.


Really the article didn't tell what we didn't already know. It tells us a team like Tampa will have its payroll go up next year.

It doesn't tell us that Tampa might not be able to afford to keep that team together.

It didn't tell us how to keep a team successful while keeping payroll in the bottom 3rd.

It doesn't deal with long term salary escalation or disparity.

It didn't compare long term success to payroll adequately.

They also picked years they suited their argument. Fair enough. We just happen to be in a period of flux, TO, Wings, Dallas, Avs and Philly are all aging and not at their peaks. There is an opening for lesser clubs for the next few years, but sooner or later they'll rebuild and dominate again.

 

[quat]

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?

Awwww come on duuuude.... think about it for a bit eh? A sports league needs other teams to compete against right? Movies can be interesting without having another movie to uh... compare itself to?


If this is coming at you from left field, I think you have a lot more to worry about than hockey.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Jersey Devils, with the eighth highest payroll, won the Stanley Cup over the Anaheim Mighty Ducks, who were 17th. The Minnesota Wild became semifinalists with the lowest payroll. Apparently, payroll is not the only factor that determines team quality–Minnesota showed that it is possible for a small market team to turn a profit while staying competitive.

I certainly agree that everything written about the economics of the game is stupid filler, essentially ripped off from Forbes. (I assume the paper is a student project.)

The only interesting part is the regression analysis. Winning precedes payroll, not the other way around. Payroll is only moderately correlated to winning in the first place and the positive correlation exists because winning teams have to reward the players who are winning. Which is another way of saying there is absolutely no evidence of a competitive balance problem in the NHL.

In other words, this person confirmed empirically what some people have been saying about competitive balance in the NHL and blows other people's arguments about competitive balance out of the water. Guess who made the big splash?

It doesn't tell us that Tampa might not be able to afford to keep that team together.

Were you one of the people saying the same thing about Colorado after their first Cup? Doesn't that song ever sound stupid to you? If Tampa can't find the fan support to afford a Stanley Cup Champion, they should fold.

Tom

 

[me2]

In other words, this person confirmed empirically what some people have been saying about competitive balance in the NHL and blows other people's arguments about competitive balance out of the water.
Tom

That the Pengs, Rangers, Devils, Wings, Stars and Avs spent tons on money to get their many cups while Tampa didn't. Hardly convincing. Even Tampa spent plenty its just relatively less than the others.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

It didn't tell us how to keep a team successful while keeping payroll in the bottom 3rd.
.

why should this be possible ? shouldnt succesful teams cost more than unsuccesful teams ?

really, if a team is really good but low payroll .. isnt the REAL problem there will be some really unsucessful teams in the top of the payroll ?

anyhow, its just common sense that good teams cost more than poor teams. whats wrong with that ?

dr

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

That the Pengs, Rangers, Devils, Wings, Stars and Avs spent tons on money to get their many cups while Tampa didn't. Hardly convincing. Even Tampa spent plenty its just relatively less than the others.

So what? You don't get it and never will get it. Never mind.

Tom

 

[hockeytown9321]

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.

Well, since the 87 and 88 Red Wings each won a playoff game against Edmonton, I'm willing to bet the 2002 Red Wings could have too.

 

[hockeytown9321]

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.

I have no doubt the late 90's Red Wings could compete with the 1950's Wings.

Yeah New England has won a couple SuperBowls, but they're alot closer to the end of their run than the beginning. The Red Wings have been an elite team since 1994. Thats what I mean by sustained excellence. Maybe you're happy if your team competes for a couple years, I'm not.

 

[thinkwild]

I certainly agree that everything written about the economics of the game is stupid filler, essentially ripped off from Forbes. (I assume the paper is a student project.)

Yes, it appears I read that to quickly. Three leading sports economist perfromed the regression test on baseball. This person made the seemingly correct assumption that the NHL labour market is similar to baseballs and performed the same test on hockey.

In other words, this person confirmed empirically what some people have been saying about competitive balance in the NHL and blows other people's arguments about competitive balance out of the water. Guess who made the big splash?

And you do have to give him an A for clever choice of tests. If these results are repeatable it would seem to make a very strong statement.

 

[degroat*]

I certainly agree that everything written about the economics of the game is stupid filler, essentially ripped off from Forbes. (I assume the paper is a student project.)

The only interesting part is the regression analysis. Winning precedes payroll, not the other way around. Payroll is only moderately correlated to winning in the first place and the positive correlation exists because winning teams have to reward the players who are winning. Which is another way of saying there is absolutely no evidence of a competitive balance problem in the NHL.

In other words, this person confirmed empirically what some people have been saying about competitive balance in the NHL and blows other people's arguments about competitive balance out of the water. Guess who made the big splash?

Were you one of the people saying the same thing about Colorado after their first Cup? Doesn't that song ever sound stupid to you? If Tampa can't find the fan support to afford a Stanley Cup Champion, they should fold.

Hold on a second...

If Tampa can't find the fan support to 'AFFORD' a Cup champion?

I thought there was no correlation between payroll and winning? According to YOU, the Lightning should have no problem keeping their payroll the same and continuing winning, right?

You and I both know that that's not right because there IS a correlation between payroll and winning.

In the today's NHL, some teams can afford to keep their teams together and some can't. That is absolutely evidence of a competitive balance problem.

So, the solutions here are to either a) limit payrolls or b) fold the teams that can't keep their teams together.

In other words, our options are a) limit payrolls or b) folding about half the league.

 

[thinkwild]

Hold on a second...

If Tampa can't find the fan support to 'AFFORD' a Cup champion?

Yes. If they cant AFFORD to keep a Cup champion. If you have the Stanley Cup champion, and the team is not selling out, not showing fan interest, not supporting the team, not maximizing revenues to elite levels that match the team they created, why should the system save them? Fans are competing here too. Better to allow the cup to go where its appreciated and paid for. A cap breaks them up anyway so whats the problem?

Tampa Bay has already signed their players back. Even got Prospal back who they had to let go for money reasons before they won the cup. If the fans dont support the team, and I think they will, then a fair system should see them relinquish the title . Whats so unfair about that?

I thought there was no correlation between payroll and winning? According to YOU, the Lightning should have no problem keeping their payroll the same and continuing winning, right?

You and I both know that that's not right because there IS a correlation between payroll and winning.

In the today's NHL, some teams can afford to keep their teams together and some can't. That is absolutely evidence of a competitive balance problem.

Sigh. Even when its written right there in front of you, it is hard to see, I sympathize. If you read carefully, what you will see is that yes, there is a correlation between winning and payroll. Its the causation thats of interest.

What allows you to afford the team is winning in the playoffs and selling out the regular season. Tampa has the ability to sell a lot of tickets. A lot of revenue room. They have demonstrated the ability to use the system to develop a a championship team. Keeping it together is up to the fans. Its not evidence of a competitive balance problem, its evidence that winning teams cost more and make more and generate more fan interest.

You cant spend to win, you have to win to spend. And winning generates the money to spend. The circle is complete and fair.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

I thought there was no correlation between payroll and winning? According to YOU, the Lightning should have no problem keeping their payroll the same and continuing winning, right?

I think this paper is an IQ test. You don't get it and I don't think you will ever get it. Never mind.

Tom

 

[degroat*]

Yes. If they cant AFFORD to keep a Cup champion. If you have the Stanley Cup champion, and the team is not selling out, not showing fan interest, not supporting the team, not maximizing revenues to elite levels that match the team they created, why should the system save them? Fans are competing here too. Better to allow the cup to go where its appreciated and paid for. A cap breaks them up anyway so whats the problem?

Tampa Bay has already signed their players back. Even got Prospal back who they had to let go for money reasons before they won the cup. If the fans dont support the team, and I think they will, then a fair system should see them relinquish the title . Whats so unfair about that?

Sigh. Even when its written right there in front of you, it is hard to see, I sympathize. If you read carefully, what you will see is that yes, there is a correlation between winning and payroll. Its the causation thats of interest.

What allows you to afford the team is winning in the playoffs and selling out the regular season. Tampa has the ability to sell a lot of tickets. A lot of revenue room. They have demonstrated the ability to use the system to develop a a championship team. Keeping it together is up to the fans. Its not evidence of a competitive balance problem, its evidence that winning teams cost more and make more and generate more fan interest.

You cant spend to win, you have to win to spend. And winning generates the money to spend. The circle is complete and fair.

I'm sorry but I don't sympathize for you. As you just said, a team has to sell out the regular season to field a team good enough to win in the playoffs. If you can't see that that's a problem with the league then there is no helping you.

 

[degroat*]

I think this paper is an IQ test. You don't get it and I don't think you will ever get it. Never mind.

Tom

What a sad, pathetic response. You had nothing intelligent to say so you decide to insult me instead? :lol

 

[YellHockey*]

What a sad, pathetic response. You had nothing intelligent to say so you decide to insult me instead? :lol

I never knew that the truth was an insult.

 

[me2]

So what? You don't get it and never will get it. Never mind.

Tom

That's it Tom. You just keep on convinving yourself you "get it". You must also be able to see the Emperor's new clothes.

 

[degroat*]

I never knew that the truth was an insult.

Yet another sad, pathetic response from one of those that truly don't and never will get it. Maybe one day you people will realize how hillarious you looked for trying to say that the current system is good for the NHL.

 

[YellHockey*]

Yet another sad, pathetic response from one of those that truly don't and never will get it.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean that what I "don't get" is correct.

But I wouldn't expect much from someone who tries to dispute a statistical argument about correlation and causation even though you don't understand the difference between the two terms.

 

[degroat*]

LOL. I fully understand the two terms and I purposely used correlation and not causation. If you actually knew as much as you thought you did, you would have known that the reason that I used correlation and not causation is because TomBenjamin has been saying for a long, long time that there is no correlation. There were many threads here were he went back and forth with people saying that teams like Minnesota and New York were proof of it. So, instead of assuming you have a clue what I was talking about, how about you stay out of the conversation I was having with him? Thanks.

BTW... Maybe one day you people will realize how hillarious you looked for trying to say that the current system is good for the NHL.

Oh... And, I'm still waiting for anyone to convince me that the current is actually good for the NHL.

 

[quat]

Yet another sad, pathetic response from one of those that truly don't and never will get it. Maybe one day you people will realize how hillarious you looked for trying to say that the current system is good for the NHL.

I wouldn't bet on it. Most of these guys don't come anywhere close to making sense, and their "you're just not smart enough to understand" mantra seems to fit them to a T.

Tom doesn't even have enough sense to realize that the Canucks would eventually be a team that would suffer through their inability to compete financially with the bigger markets. There is a ceiling for revenue in Vancouver, and it's a heck of a lot lower than he seems realize. If Naslund hadn't signed for conciderably less than his market value at the time... say he was more like Morrison... then little Tommy would be singing a rather different tune.

But whatever...

 

[YellHockey*]

If you actually knew as much as you thought you did, you would have known that the reason that I used correlation and not causation is because TomBenjamin has been saying for a long, long time that there is no correlation. There were many threads here were he went back and forth with people saying that teams like Minnesota and New York were proof of it. So, instead of assuming you have a clue what I was talking about, how about you stay out of the conversation I was having with him? Thanks.

How can I have a clue what you're talking about when you don't even have a clue what you're talking about.

You make stuff up all the time. And when you're proven wrong, you shift your argument to something else. Remember when your argument proved that his rooster made the sun come up every morning? Remember when you tried to argue that the Senators lost money even though you didn't even know basic facts about their business?

If you're so sure that Tom has been saying for a long time that there is no correlation, why don't you link to a post of his that states that? There's an excellent search facility on this site, although I suspect it might be a little too advanced for you.

 

[degroat*]

How can I have a clue what you're talking about when you don't even have a clue what you're talking about.

You make stuff up all the time. And when you're proven wrong, you shift your argument to something else. Remember when your argument proved that his rooster made the sun come up every morning? Remember when you tried to argue that the Senators lost money even though you didn't even know basic facts about their business?

If you're so sure that Tom has been saying for a long time that there is no correlation, why don't you link to a post of his that states that? There's an excellent search facility on this site, although I suspect it might be a little too advanced for you.

If I didn't have a clue what I was talking about then why is it that you can't response in an intelligent way to prove me wrong? For some reason you haven't done that. Instead, you've chosen to be a coward and attack me from behind your big, bad keyboard.

Here's an idea for you: If you're so sure that Tom never said that there is no correlation, then prove it. I've been reading his nonsense for a long, long time on this board and there were quite a few threads debating whether or not there is a CORRELATION between payroll and winning. Mr Benjamin would ignore any evidence suggesting a correlation and point to teams like the Rangers on the high payroll side and the Canes, Wild, Ducks, etc. on the low payroll side as proof that there is no correlation. When someone would tell him that those were the exception and not the rule his response would always be that since there are so many exceptions that there must not be a rule. Clearly his stance on correlation is now different.

You can decide if you want if I'm making this stuff up like you CLAIM that I have made stuff up in the past. It won't make a difference to me because everyone else will continue to see right through your act of insulting and making up stuff about people who disagree with your laughable stance on the CBA.

 

[helicecopter]

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.

just trade them to the only team the player want to play for and take whatever that particular team is kind enough to offer to you.

This happens all the the time for example in the free-market european soccer leagues, and teams can live with it just fine.

WHAT??
Two or three teams per country are just fine with that, the other ones struggle to survive without any chances to succeed along their entire history. I don't know here if you just don't know what you are talking about or if in your large vision of things 'teams' means the two or three top teams.

What makes this example even worse is that the system in Europe is completely different.
-there is relegation, which means fans of poor teams can go to watch decisive games for their teams to stay in the top league. Would American fans go only to watch meaningless hockey games to see their youngsters develop to be sold at the end of the season while their team has no chance to succeed today and no chance to succeed in the future?
-unfortunately in the US hockey is much less popular than soccer in Europe and a team that will never get any chance to succeed would not be a great interest catalyzer...
-in NHL there is the entry draft! Which would become meaningless in a free-market system like the one there is in Europe.

Just get over with these unimportant minor issues and get into the real issues...

Just note that things that are unimportant minor issues in your mind can be real issues in reality.

...If you draft a bunch of good players, you will not be able to keep them all under a cap...
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.

..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.

 

[gary69]

WHAT??
Two or three teams per country are just fine with that, the other ones struggle to survive without any chances to succeed along their entire history. I don't know here if you just don't know what you are talking about or if in your large vision of things 'teams' means the two or three top teams.

What makes this example even worse is that the system in Europe is completely different.
-there is relegation, which means fans of poor teams can go to watch decisive games for their teams to stay in the top league. Would American fans go only to watch meaningless hockey games to see their youngsters develop to be sold at the end of the season while their team has no chance to succeed today and no chance to succeed in the future?
-unfortunately in the US hockey is much less popular than soccer in Europe and a team that will never get any chance to succeed would not be a great interest catalyzer...
-in NHL there is the entry draft! Which would become meaningless in a free-market system like the one there is in Europe.

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.

And as for the European soccer, I do think I know something, you're taking too short-term perspective, for example Manu weren't that succesful 20 years ago, sometimes teams are succesful for longer periods, sometimes not, economic realities might change. And even if you look short-term, a couple of years ago Leeds were in the Champions-league semifinals, now they're in the English 2nd division, last year the two finalists weren't the big spenders at the European level at least. Wolfsburg are leading Bundesliga, I certainly think it's too bold to say, that some teams will never have any change ever in their history.

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. I'm sure you can also understand that a village team from poor country like Albania, cannot possibly hope to compete with team from London (UK) in the foreseeable future. They have to set other targets to justify their existence to their fans.

 

[chara]

Free Agency issue may move owners away from cap

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.