Why can't Goodenow just understand?

[Coffey77]

you mean like how PHI had the choice to pay LeClair 9m per season or let him go ? why should we STOP teams like PHI from tying up resources in over the hill players like Leclair. With 9m tied up in Leclair, its awefully difficult for PHI to improve their team further. If they didnt sign Leclair for 9m, they would have money to sign *good* players. Now with the money tied up in JL, they dont.

I say let PHI sign Leclair for 9m, let DAL sign Turgeon for 7m, let STL sign Tkachuk for 11m and WSH Jagr 11m. Who cares ? It only ties those teams hands and no agent in his right mind is going to say, "well Leclair makes 9m and player X is better, so pay him more". The GM if he has half a brain would laugh the GM out of his office.

Being stuck with those huge ugly contracts IS the punishment, why are we looking for ways to NOT punish those stupid teams.

DR

I think the non-guaranteed contract rule would only work if there was a strict cap on salaries. Otherwise, a team could sign as many guys as they want and dump the ones that suck. Someone had the idea of having the non-guaranteed contracts in place but no cap. That would make the NHL owners even worse off IMO. yes, teams could go and budget accordingly but teams could easily correct any mistakes.

For example Detroit could just dump Cujo and Whitney and sign a guy like say Palffy and/or Kovalev. IMO, it would create an imbalance in competition.

I want a team to be punished for signing a guy to a big fat contract. In other words, they are pretty much stuck with the guy (eg. Cujo, Holik).

 

[thinkwild]

Pay attention to what? Your take on reality? I gave an example of a flaw... but suddenly it means nothing because it only applies to players making under the average salary? Why is that? It's still an increase.

Yes, it means nothing, becasue its an increase to a player who is currently getting less than his market value, and an increase to a player getting less than $1.8mil, and probably soon to be $1.4mil, so he's either a budding star you are trying to exploit, or he's as inconsequential as RJ Umberger to the overall scheme of things.

Perhaps the player still shows some promise, but to date hasn't played up to his salary. So the team is just supposed to dump the guy?

Yes. OF course if he's still in his rookie contract first three years, you simply send him to the minors, lowering his future qualifying offers and current salary. Or you trade him. Obviously he is not what you were hoping for.

I like how you use the word "worth" as some kind of value all teams can afford. I suppose that Doug Weight wasn't "worth" keeping for the Oilers.

Yes really this is the Doug Weight CBA isnt it. Poor hard done by Edmonton. How could they ever put together a team of young stars that wins a cup and becomes a dynasty? Maybe Edm is still just a struggling WHA city without playoff success. Why not put a team in Lethbridge and fight for a $8mil cap?

You seem to be arguing that having deeper pockets won't give you an advantage in the NHL.

Thats right, we are. It gives you an alternative. But not an unfair one as it turns out.

Well teams like the Avs and the Wings and the Stars simply wouldn't have been able to keep their rosters together if they couldn't afford to pay guys like Forsberg, Sakic, Roy and Blake huge salaries. If the Avs were like the Oilers then they would have lost Sakic to the Rangers... but the fact is, they had enough cash to keep him.

If the Avs were like the Oilers they would have lost in the 1st round for 5 years and probably they would of have lost many of their stars. They had enough cash to keep them because they won, not because Denver and East Rutherford are huge markets.

If the Oilers were like the Avs, and won a cup with their young players, they would have money to re-sign them as UFAs.

Reading your posts on these boards over the past weeks leads me to believe there's little wrong with the NHL as it stands today.

Its sure not as bad as you make it. Im not convinced the owners using tax shelters as part of their plan, dont intend on running losses. The system is philisophically sound to me. If the market has come to an equilibrium that is $300mil too high, roll back salaries, make some helpful tweaks, and do it smartly. There is no reason a solution other than salary cap cant work.

Sports will always be full of unfairness, its not always the CBAs fault.

 

[quat]

Yes, it means nothing, becasue its an increase to a player who is currently getting less than his market value, and an increase to a player getting less than $1.8mil, and probably soon to be $1.4mil, so he's either a budding star you are trying to exploit, or he's as inconsequential as RJ Umberger to the overall scheme of things.



Yes. OF course if he's still in his rookie contract first three years, you simply send him to the minors, lowering his future qualifying offers and current salary. Or you trade him. Obviously he is not what you were hoping for.




Yes really this is the Doug Weight CBA isnt it. Poor hard done by Edmonton. How could they ever put together a team of young stars that wins a cup and becomes a dynasty? Maybe Edm is still just a struggling WHA city without playoff success. Why not put a team in Lethbridge and fight for a $8mil cap?




Thats right, we are. It gives you an alternative. But not an unfair one as it turns out.



If the Avs were like the Oilers they would have lost in the 1st round for 5 years and probably they would of have lost many of their stars. They had enough cash to keep them because they won, not because Denver and East Rutherford are huge markets.

If the Oilers were like the Avs, and won a cup with their young players, they would have money to re-sign them as UFAs.



Its sure not as bad as you make it. Im not convinced the owners using tax shelters as part of their plan, dont intend on running losses. The system is philisophically sound to me. If the market has come to an equilibrium that is $300mil too high, roll back salaries, make some helpful tweaks, and do it smartly. There is no reason a solution other than salary cap cant work.

Sports will always be full of unfairness, its not always the CBAs fault.

Best of luck in the business world pal.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Best of luck in the business world pal.

Actually, smart guy, in real life businesses if you don't make enough revenue to survive, there isn't anybody there to bail you out through a salary cap or revenue sharing. If your company loses too much money, you go OB.

But I guess it would be unfair to think the owners bear any responsibility for where their league is at, or for their lack of fan base, or their inability to win.

 

[me2]

obviously not cheap enough. i know somewhere else in this thread or another, someone was complaining how much young unproven 1st rounders cost, and now you call him a cheap player. which is it ?

The answer is both. Compared to signing a UFA replacement he's cheap. But under the CBA system, of scaled salary increases, he's too expensive. That is the point. If you release young, cheap talent that is overpriced you end up in worse spot because the alternatives are more expensive. If you cave in you build a rod for your own back with future contracts for that player and future prospects.

The only winners are Umberger who got a big fat contract. The Flyers who get a UFA for cheap. Every other team is loser because prospects just got higher salary expectation, and the Canucks a double loser because they lost a prospect and their future contracts got harder.

BS ... they decided they didnt need him at the cost he was demanding. how can you in one breath say the players are paid too much and then the other side say that same player is a *required* piece of the puzzle. if he is so important PAY HIM THE MONEY.

Under your system you let any player asking too much walk and replace him with a prospect. What do you replace the prospects you let walk with? Expensive UFAs? Canucks did the right thing, the thing you recommend, in not caving in. They got kicked in the balls for it. Some reward for fiscal responsibility.

That remains to be seen and certainly isnt a forgone conclusion.

Why must you cappers always speak in cliche and hypotheticals?

dr

Why are you too afraid to face the possible consequences of your suggestions?

 

[me2]

Actually, smart guy, in real life businesses if you don't make enough revenue to survive, there isn't anybody there to bail you out through a salary cap or revenue sharing. If your company loses too much money, you go OB.

But I guess it would be unfair to think the owners bear any responsibility for where their league is at, or for their lack of fan base, or their inability to win.

The wings win, have a great fan base and still lose a lot of money.

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/8-1-04cba.htm

Its hard to run a business when fools that run some of the other teams don't give a toss how much money they lose.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

So you're going to give them 10% raises to play in the minors? You are also assuming that they will sign a two-way contract, which isn't a given. They will all see some NHL time anyway, so you can't just ignore their NHL salaries. Eventually waivers will apply as well.

All you do when you make a post like this is show your ignorance about the CBA. The first contract must be a two way contract. The qualifying offer can always include a two way clause as long as the player played less than 55 games the season before. The teams are aware of this. Guys get sent down to keep them under 55 games.

Svitov, Beech and Brendl have been paid a minor league salary for the most part. If the team wants to keep them, they offer a 10% raise on a two way deal when the first three year contact expires. The player can't turn it down. If they do, the offer comes off the table, and the disappointment is looking at a new offer of a three year deal, take it or leave it. The total on that new deal might be $1 million. So Brendl et al can't turn the qualifier down.

Teams often say this to a Pavel Brendl. "We are offering $1.1 million if you make the NHL and $30,000 if you don't. We only offer that much because we have to offer that much. No way you are worth $1.1 million to us even if you are good enough to make the team. And we are squeezing you on the minor league deal.

"Guess what? That means you sign this contract and you can't make the team. You are going to end up in the AHL making $30,000. Doesn't that just suck for you? Do you want to give yourself a real chance at the big time? We will give you $450,000 to play in the NHL, and $75,000 if you don't. That gives you a shot at the NHL - we hope you make it at $450,000 - but even if you don't $75,000 is damned good for the AHL."

Guess what Brendl or Beech does?

I've had real life experience with this CBA. General managers do this sort of thing all the time. The idea that the teams are helpless in the face of this CBA is absurd. If I was a small market owner, I would love this CBA. Not as much as I would love the proposed NHL system that guarantees me a profit unless I am a complete and utter idiot, but I'd be really happy with my ability to control spending.

Teams have to eventually pay big bucks for the guys who turn out to be stars, but who can complain about that?

Tom

 

[chriss_co]

I've had real life experience with this CBA. General managers do this sort of thing all the time. The idea that the teams are helpless in the face of this CBA is absurd. If I was a small market owner, I would love this CBA. Not as much as I would love the proposed NHL system that guarantees me a profit unless I am a complete and utter idiot, but I'd be really happy with my ability to control spending.

Teams have to eventually pay big bucks for the guys who turn out to be stars, but who can complain about that?

Tom

So... you love the fact that in many of the small markets:

a) they are struggling to fill their building (a must if u want a successful franchise in the NHL.. not like the NFL or other leagues with huge TV contracts)

b) you have to increase ticket prices every year because your team payroll will likely increase if you want to add/keep a current star player on your team (if they are up for contract negotiations--regardless if they had a good season or not because if u walk away, its likely another team will pick them up for free)

c) going to arbitration with a player, you are bound to the mediator looking at what other owners might have done foolishly with their team.. and now their mistakes (or situations that are totally irrelevant to your team) become your burden

d) that you may be able to draft well and watch them develop into good players but when you want to lock them up longterm you can't because you don't have the finances to support it

e) you decide to heck with my budget.. i want my player and i will give him and his agent what he wants cuz the market decides he is worth this much and even though it is too much to pay, i will go ahead with it because the fans will come (and they don't or atleast not enough for you to make a profit) and you end up losing millions because of trying to 'play with the big boys'

I could really go on and on with the problems with the league... there is no control on spending... players under the league average ($1.8 million!!!!) automatically get 10% raises unless you want them to go to free agency (even worse if that player is a good player).. yes you can talk about the beechs or the brendls.. but what about the other 25% of players who are solid NHL regulars and make underneath the league average at around $1.5 million.. they play well enough to stick with the team but not well enough to garner them a 10% raise... what do u do then?? walk away!? walk away from a solid NHLer and face the wrath of your fans? possibly losing your job as a GM?

how can you possibly like the situation small market teams are faced with today.. and dont use ottawa as an example because they were in as much trouble before they got a billionare owner... and we cant all have owners with a billion dollars

 

[mr gib]

So... you love the fact that in many of the small markets:

a) they are struggling to fill their building (a must if u want a successful franchise in the NHL.. not like the NFL or other leagues with huge TV contracts)

b) you have to increase ticket prices every year because your team payroll will likely increase if you want to add/keep a current star player on your team (if they are up for contract negotiations--regardless if they had a good season or not because if u walk away, its likely another team will pick them up for free)

c) going to arbitration with a player, you are bound to the mediator looking at what other owners might have done foolishly with their team.. and now their mistakes (or situations that are totally irrelevant to your team) become your burden

d) that you may be able to draft well and watch them develop into good players but when you want to lock them up longterm you can't because you don't have the finances to support it

e) you decide to heck with my budget.. i want my player and i will give him and his agent what he wants cuz the market decides he is worth this much and even though it is too much to pay, i will go ahead with it because the fans will come (and they don't or atleast not enough for you to make a profit) and you end up losing millions because of trying to 'play with the big boys'

I could really go on and on with the problems with the league... there is no control on spending... players under the league average ($1.8 million!!!!) automatically get 10% raises unless you want them to go to free agency (even worse if that player is a good player).. yes you can talk about the beechs or the brendls.. but what about the other 25% of players who are solid NHL regulars and make underneath the league average at around $1.5 million.. they play well enough to stick with the team but not well enough to garner them a 10% raise... what do u do then?? walk away!? walk away from a solid NHLer and face the wrath of your fans? possibly losing your job as a GM?

how can you possibly like the situation small market teams are faced with today.. and dont use ottawa as an example because they were in as much trouble before they got a billionare owner... and we cant all have owners with a billion dollars

some quality info - the players understood this - offered some band-aids that were offered as negotiating points - and got locked out -

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

e) you decide to heck with my budget.. i want my player and i will give him and his agent what he wants cuz the market decides he is worth this much and even though it is too much to pay, i will go ahead with it because the fans will come (and they don't or atleast not enough for you to make a profit) and you end up losing millions because of trying to 'play with the big boys'

if you are so "doomed" that bankrupting your team is your best hope, why not try option f.

f) make offer to player of his QO or some other offer you feel is fair and if he declines the opportunity to play NHL hockey for a fair sum of money, then he is welcome to, as Brian Burke says, "buy a good tv.".

seems they are willing to tell the entire PA to "buy a good tv", you would think they could live with doing it to a few guys at a time and let the rest play.

DR

 

[PecaFan]

"Guess what? That means you sign this contract and you can't make the team. You are going to end up in the AHL making $30,000. Doesn't that just suck for you? Guess what Brendl or Beech does?

Sounds great, but this only works for a few players. As soon as the two way contracts are gone, and waivers comes up, this is all out the window.

The secret to making money in the NHL - keep all your players in the minors. Don't have anybody at the NHL level.

Unfortunately, the reality is that you need 20+ players at the NHL level, and they all make huge coin.

 

[garry1221]

to build a hockey team you need your all stars, stars, grinders, role players

not all of these players deserve league average salary, some of the grinders and role players especially, lets take an example

your team has a 3rd pair dman/converted forward who's at the end of his 2nd contract, he makes 950k now, obviously under league average... he plays a role on your team and he's still young enough to show some potential and obvious versatility, yet doesn't do anything well enough to be given a 10 % raise, what do you do as a GM when you know he's a vital part for the role he plays on the team, the 10 % QO would put said player at 1.045 mil. Now do you really want to give a 3rd pair dman/role player that kind of money?

consider your options, he's more valuable to the team than he is on the trading block so if you trade him you wouldn't get your money's worth so to speak
1+ mil is a hefty sum for a roleplayer who doesn't contribute much in the way of points to justify giving him that sum of money... so your choices are a) trade him for less, b) lose him for nothing and not give him a QO or c) suck it up and pay more than you actually want to

we all know DR will say trade him or let him walk, but how many others would say the same, especially sitting as a GM knowing that you don't have anyone in the system to come up and fill the role and any UFA would just cost more for possibly worse production than your RFA roleplayer

if anyone hasn't figured out by now the player im referring to is matthieu dandenault, while the $$ figures aren't completely accurate i said this to make a point

you need the right players, coaches, etc. to make a team work, UFA's aren't always the solution and obviously have less upside/potential than any RFA, so while RFA's sometimes don't deserve the money they get it's often better to overpay them than to overpay a UFA who won't be around as long, there's always the potential for an RFA to blow away the critics/naysayers

 

[c_mak]

ok, lets imagine a world where OTT could afford to pay Yashin 90m A DAY, never mind over 10 years.

why wouldnt they make that trade 100 times out of 100 ? Yashin for Chara alone is a huge win, never mind for Chara and Spezza.

so how did the inability to pay Yashin 90m for 10 years hurt OTT ?

DR

Oh I agree it ended up great.. remeber we were dealing with Milbury though .. my point was they, the Sen, had no choice.. they had to deal him or loose his services.. what i would like to see is a system that gives fair payment to players, a level playing field for owners, and a team that fans can reconginze from year to year

 

[BM67]

All you do when you make a post like this is show your ignorance about the CBA.

I never claimed to be a CBA expert, but what it shows is that I didn't pick the best examples. I'm sure if I spent some time I could find several young prospects making near the rookie max that are waiver eligible and/or that played enough games that you can't offer them a two-way contract.

If a player has to clear waivers to go to the minors your ability to offer a two-way contract means little.

The matter still remains. Do I hurt my team, and the league, by giving a player a raise he doesn't deserve, or hurt my team by not giving it to him. A $100 k raise wont kill my team, but it will cost millions around the league in the future, but releasing him might harm my chances of making the playoffs and thus cost my team millions this year, and me my job. It also only takes one GM to think he's worth the money to end up costing me for both "mistakes".

Also, since 10% is the minimum, if a player is worth the money he's unlikely to accept such a small raise, so your left with only the players that don't deserve it getting a 10% raise.

 

[hockeytown9321]

The wings win, have a great fan base and still lose a lot of money.

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/8-1-04cba.htm

Its hard to run a business when fools that run some of the other teams don't give a toss how much money they lose.

Good point, except that the Red Wings aren't the ones looking for someone to bail them out of any problems they created. If they lose money, its becase they either spent to much or didn't make enough. Either way, its thier fault, and no one else should be on the hook to pay for it.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

I never claimed to be a CBA expert, but what it shows is that I didn't pick the best examples. I'm sure if I spent some time I could find several young prospects making near the rookie max that are waiver eligible and/or that played enough games that you can't offer them a two-way contract.

Well, spend the time and find a real world example. It shouldn't be that hard but I think you will find it to be very hard to find a real example.

If a player has to clear waivers to go to the minors your ability to offer a two-way contract means little.

Waivers are an entirely different issue. If a fourth year pro can't make your team, he deserves a shot somewhere else. A high salary in this case actually helps the team because it makes him less likely to be claimed. The rules are structured so that the player either gets paid the NHL salary for someone else or a minor league salary for his original team.

Tom

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

your team has a 3rd pair dman/converted forward who's at the end of his 2nd contract, he makes 950k now, obviously under league average...

How come you always use hypothetical players? Why can't you come up with specific examples? If this is such a big problem, why can't you rattle off a dozen names of real players?

Rattle off one name. Give me an example of a player like this from your team.

if anyone hasn't figured out by now the player im referring to is matthieu dandenault, while the $$ figures aren't completely accurate i said this to make a point

The money figures aren't completely accurate. LOL. Why can't you name someone using numbers that are completely accurate. Dandenault is an easy call for the Red Wings. He's 29 years old with nine years in the NHL and he makes $200,000 less than the league average salary. I'd keep him and call him a bargain. If Detroit waived him, 29 teams would put in a claim.

Man, the old CBA really sucked, didn't it? Dandenault is the reason the NHL is going to Hell in a handbasket. The Red Wings are really between a rock and a hard place making a choice about him.

Tom

 

[garry1221]

How come you always use hypothetical players? Why can't you come up with specific examples? If this is such a big problem, why can't you rattle off a dozen names of real players?

Rattle off one name. Give me an example of a player like this from your team.



The money figures aren't completely accurate. LOL. Why can't you name someone using numbers that are completely accurate. Dandenault is an easy call for the Red Wings. He's 29 years old with nine years in the NHL and he makes $200,000 less than the league average salary. I'd keep him and call him a bargain. If Detroit waived him, 29 teams would put in a claim.

Man, the old CBA really sucked, didn't it? Dandenault is the reason the NHL is going to Hell in a handbasket. The Red Wings are really between a rock and a hard place making a choice about him.

Tom

i did name the player, just using the example as i don't have his actual salary from before he signed his most recent contract

a few years ago during our last run at the cup dandenault was the biggest scapegoat used by the fans and just about every fan i remember was calling for him to be traded, however he played a role on the team, and with the way the cba is now, if you have a player and he plays on the last two lines/last d pair it doesn't matter when contract time comes around... it's the 10 % qo or nothing, and as i said in my last post, there's some players who don't deserve the 10 % qo, but rather than get less for the money by trading said player or losing him for nothing, it would be best for the team to suck it up and pay out the little extra money.... bottom line is, NOT ALL PLAYERS ARE WORTH THE 10 % MANDITORY QO, yet there's many circumstances around the league like i said above, where you hold onto a player w/ the QO because the GM won't get fair return should he trade said roleplayer... just because the GM can't get fair return does NOT mean that the player is actually worth the 10 % QO

 

[garry1221]

last minute thought, while dandenault makes under league average and is an RFA, an RFA is at the end of his entry contract... puts up a few better numbers than dandenault so he looks at what dande makes and says i should be making more than him.... so he demands 1.15 mil and he wants a 3 year contract, at the end of those 3 years he's stayed right around the same production as he did the last year of his 1st contract.. yet he's still under league minimum so he HAS to be given the QO. His team's GM still sees young potential in the kid, however doesn't see how the kid should be given the 10 % raise, so his options trade him and get less in return or pick up an overpriced UFA or give him the raise and pray that he starts putting up better numbers it's a neverending cycle right now and things NEED to be fixed

 

[Solak]

Sure 2nd is close but close only counts in handgrenades.

and horseshoes.

 

[dawgbone]

Some of you guys aren't very bright... you actually sound like hockey players!

This CBA is absolutely terrible... it doesn't take much to figure it out.

From an arbitration system that is heavily on the side of the players, to legislated raises for a large group of the league, to a league-wide revenue imbalance, it isn't a good system.

Sure, in theory, the owners have all kinds of control, but in reality, it doesn't work out that way.

Yes, you have the option all the time to walk away from an RFA... that's fine, but there is always a team ready to snatch him up. And it's always going to be the same few teams.

These same few teams also make irrational moves like signing an RFA to a $9+mil contract (Pronger), which then serves as the benchmark for every other young, skilled defenceman.

The idea of walking away wasn't going to be plausible, because it is the same teams every time that will be there waiting to snatch these guys up, especially the guys who are valuable.

There were posts brought up about competition... both sides are right. The NHL has always been about runs, and dynastys. That isn't the issue. It isn't that only 7 or 8 teams compete for the cup, that happens under any system.

However, there has to be a life-cycle. As one team is dominating, another team must be competetive, another team must be developing, and another team must be rebuilding. Then these 4 teams (in theory) rotate throughout.

The Oilers of the early 80's would have been blown apart before they could accomplish what they did if they were in the present day. Torn up before they ever got started, and that is exactly what happens now. Young teams can't make the next step if the money isn't there. A team develops a superstar, makes some noise in the playoffs then BANG, that player has to be traded, or is holding out, or whatever.

The Avalanche built most of their team, made some trades, had some success, and now as their players get older, you expect them to drop a notch or two... but nope. Their GM just goes out and signs 2 UFA's and they are a contender again. Meanwhile, a team that made some noise last year just lost their best player.

There is no cycle now. Dynastys used to end because the team got to old, and the stars left for retirement, or whatever... The Lightning have a chance to go on a 7 or 8 year run of excellence... but if their payroll can only be $38mil, they won't be able to keep their Lecavaliers, Richards, St. Louis's, and Khabibulin's... then guess what? One of 7 teams will pick one of those guys up for the money they want, thereby driving salaries up for other players.

It isn't about current competetiveness... it's about an ability to improve your team. It's damn near impossible to improve your team when you are turning over your best players every couple of seasons.

The Oilers example of Weight was a great one... getting Stoll, Reasoner and DesLauriers spells well for the Oilers future, but it killed them in the present. What's going to happen with Smyth? Or in the future Deslaruriers if he has some good years? You can only recycle your top talent for young players so many times before you get bitten in the butt big time. You can have excellent scouts, but one bad trade involving your top scorer for an up and comer can be devastating to your club for years to come.

Teams now cannot re-build without money. It cannot be done. You have a good player who has a good year, and he wants money like other guys in the league. If you can't afford that, you deal him off and he's gone. Eventually the moves of 29 other franchise's effect what you are able to do. The worst part is that it's a handful of franchises that are responsible for the mess, and that ultimately is the problem.

If you have 6 or 7 teams dictating the terms for the rest of the league, that isn't good. The option is to let one of these 7 teams get your star player, thereby increasing the gap between you and them, or you suck it up and pay your star player the same amount they are paying their star player.

But hey, if the goal in the end is to have 20 teams, with only a handful of stable franchises, it's a great system.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Some of you guys aren't very bright... you actually sound like hockey players!

Well, this works both ways. I think you are either a troll pimping for the owners or a chump who has swallowed the NHL propaganda line.

From an arbitration system that is heavily on the side of the players, to legislated raises for a large group of the league, to a league-wide revenue imbalance, it isn't a good system.

Do you have any evidence the arbitration system tilts heavily towards the players? It would be very easy to prove it if this was the case. Why doesn't the NHL name names and demonstrate that this is so?

There are significant revenue imbalances. This is a good thing, but nothing to do with the CBA.

These same few teams also make irrational moves like signing an RFA to a $9+mil contract (Pronger), which then serves as the benchmark for every other young, skilled defenceman.

If Pronger is the benchmark why isn't Jovanovski making $9 million?

There is no cycle now. Dynastys used to end because the team got to old, and the stars left for retirement, or whatever...

Dynasties don't last any longer than they have ever lasted.

The Lightning have a chance to go on a 7 or 8 year run of excellence... but if their payroll can only be $38mil, they won't be able to keep their Lecavaliers, Richards, St. Louis's, and Khabibulin's...

IF their payroll can only be $38 million... That's a pretty big if for a team that just won a Stanley Cup.

The Oilers example of Weight was a great one... You can have excellent scouts, but one bad trade involving your top scorer for an up and comer can be devastating to your club for years to come.[/quote]

Why don't you use an example of a team that does have excellent scouts? Edmonton does not. That's why they are mediocre.

Teams now cannot re-build without money. It cannot be done.

The Canucks did it. Obviously it can be done.

But hey, if the goal in the end is to have 20 teams, with only a handful of stable franchises, it's a great system.

Fine by me. I'll be happy to get rid of the whiners and their whining.

Tom

 

[dawgbone]

Do you have any evidence the arbitration system tilts heavily towards the players? It would be very easy to prove it if this was the case. Why doesn't the NHL name names and demonstrate that this is so?

Considering that only a player may file for arbitration, that is the only piece of evidence that I need. A team cannot take a player to arbitration, and say have his salary lowered. So arbitration is tilted heavily towards players.

There are significant revenue imbalances. This is a good thing, but nothing to do with the CBA.

It's not a good thing when certain teams are maxing out their revenues to keep up with teams who only have to use half of their revenues for costs.

If Pronger is the benchmark why isn't Jovanovski making $9 million?

The simple most basic answer is because Jovonovski isn't as good as Pronger.

Dynasties don't last any longer than they have ever lasted.

Sure they do. Detroit has been a top 3 team in their Conference since the 1991-1992 season. Colorado won their division 9 years in a row. In that time, both teams have seen key players come and go, but yet they've managed to stay on top primarily because their financial resources allowed their GM to go out and replace those players not with young prospects, but with players in the prime of their career. Don't get me wrong, Detroit still does have the Datsyuk's and Colorado the Tanguay's, but they've managed to circumvent most of the rebuilding process due to money, a luxury most teams do not have.

IF their payroll can only be $38 million... That's a pretty big if for a team that just won a Stanley Cup.

The Lightning had 13 home playoff dates. You make between 1-1.5mil per home date. That's $13-19.5mil. This is the same team that claimed they could not afford to sign a first round draft pick in 2002, hence the reason they traded it to Philly. I'd be suprised if the Lightning made much more than a few million last year, and that's factoring in the appearance in the finals.

Why don't you use an example of a team that does have excellent scouts? Edmonton does not. That's why they are mediocre.

Then tell me a team who has lost a guy near the top of their scoring list consistantly every year for 4 or 5 years?

The Canucks did it. Obviously it can be done.

A). The Canucks haven't done anything... by rebuild, I meant become a good team that has a chance at the cup. They have one playoff series win in 5 years.

B). They are still in the upper half of the league in terms of revenue generation.

Fine by me. I'll be happy to get rid of the whiners and their whining.

Well guess what princess? It isn't all about you.

 

[Cawz]

Why don't you use an example of a team that does have excellent scouts? Edmonton does not. That's why they are mediocre..

But if the CBA wasn’t screwed, the scouting wouldn’t matter, since the Oilers still would have their #1 centre. The Oilers lost him because they couldnt keep up the spending with the teams that were running at a deficit. Unfortunatly for both the Blues and ther Oilers, teams cant spend that much money on players. But stupid owners offer it and greedy players demand it.

The Canucks did it. Obviously it can be done.

Its funny how people bring up the Canucks. So let me get this straight. All a team needs to do is get 2 future superstar players in steal trades and have them develop into top 5 players in the league. Its so easy. Why doesn’t every team just have 2 players in the top 5. Then all the teams would make money.

For as much as you post on here, you still dont seem to have a grasp on both sides of the situation. Bottom line is a 2.1 billion dollar industry should work for 30 teams. Some deal has to be worked out. We can argue over who's not negotiating and who's spewing propaganda, but anyone who says "just cut some teams", isnt thinking very hard for a solution. Obviously, its not up to anyone here to think of a solution, but to post on here constantly and simply say "cut teams so mine will survive" doesnt seem very intelligent.

 

[quat]

Actually, smart guy, in real life businesses if you don't make enough revenue to survive, there isn't anybody there to bail you out through a salary cap or revenue sharing. If your company loses too much money, you go OB.

But I guess it would be unfair to think the owners bear any responsibility for where their league is at, or for their lack of fan base, or their inability to win.

I guess you're so smart that the NHL isn't a real business... pal. Look, there is a poster here saying there is no problem with the NHL as it stands today. You yourself just said that that kind of business would fail through lack of revenue production. So... exactly what am I missing here? Who is bailing out the NHL? The NHL isn't bloody running for exactly the reasons you point out. It's not a viable business that is only going to get worse without some way of stemming the increase in player salaries.

Anyone who thinks the NHL is a sound investment at the moment, well, like I said, good luck in the business world.