Why have the NHLPA not countered the last NHL offer to keep talks moving along?

Status
Not open for further replies.

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
you mean like

hockeytown9321 said:
At the same time, alot of the support here for a cap is because those fans feel it gives their team an advantage.

I know that because I'm a Red Wing fan, everybody assumes I want a system that enabels them to continue to "buy" championships. Ignoring the fact that they haven't for a minute, all I want is a system that allows them to draft as well as they have for the last 15 years, and keep those draft picks when and if they develop into stars, so long as they have the revenue to do that. I happen to think, based on how the NFL's cap has worked, that a hard cap does not allow a team to build itself into a dynasty. I understand that some teams don't have the revenue to do that. I also recognize that some teams are horribly managed and use the "Detroit and New York ruin it for everybody else" excuse to pacify their fans. If the NHL adopted more significant revenue sharing, those teams without enough revenue to keep their players could.

all the other teams without the Red Wings bank roll cant right now?
 

SENSible1*

Guest
MojoJojo said:
True enough, but a fan in Philly pays three times as much to go to a game than one in Tampa (where they gave away tickets for the playoffs). I pay $60 per person to sit in the nose bleeds and have to watch the game with a pair of binoculars. The lower levels are obscenely expensive. While the salary cap would help struggling small market teams, it wont lower the price of my ticket one bit, and would just funnell vast profits into the pockets of corporations such as Comcast.
True, but fans in big markets can force ticket prices down by simply not going to the games until the team brings them down and can do so knowing that they won't be bankrupting the team with the new low payroll.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Jaded-Fan said:
:dunno:

.......... if you are trying to argue that I would want an end to a system that is on its face unfair and inequitable and which gives a leg up to some teams, a leg down to others, and which is trending toward making hockey about as legit a 'competition' as pro-wrestling ................. guilty as charged.
Leg up to who ?

Calgary, Tampa, Minnesota, Anaheim, Buffalo, Washington and Carolina ?

Leg down to who ?

New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angelas and Toronto ?

Competitive balance ? Are you serious ? The NHL has the most NATURAL parity any sport could wish for. This fight from the owners perpective is about money and power NOTHING ELSE.

If it was about competitive balance, the revenue sharing plan from the NHL would be much stronger. The NHL plan does ZERO to address competitive balance, BECAUSE ITS NOT A PROBLEM !

DR

 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Question for those who are against the idea of a hard cap:

If you are not in the four or five cities gaining a year after year advantage, merely because you happen to live in an area with a large population so can have greater local cable deals and charge more for tickets, etc. (competition naturally greater for tickets with many mutiples of people, more people who would want to go to a game), why would you continue to support a system with your dollars where you see a thumb on the scale year after year? See your best players travel to those 4 or 5 teams year after year while you fight over the scraps left over? Hope for lightening to strike one year in 30? Why not go to the competing league, the NFL or NBA when you wise up?

This route will eventually lead to no hockey except in 4 or 5 cities. Baseball will eventually get there too, their audience is aging and growing more and more frustrated in most cities.

How is this a smart business plan?
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Thunderstruck said:
The top payroll teams make the playoffs 75% of the time.

The bottom third payroll teams make the playoffs 25% of the time.
well duh !

the top payroll teams are better than the bottom payroll teams so their players command more in compensation.

seems natural.

dr
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
hockeytown9321 said:
all I want is a system that allows them to draft as well as they have for the last 15 years, and keep those draft picks when and if they develop into stars,

whew, you won't hear that one very often.

What would the Wings do if they couldn't afford to pay future stars like Yan Golubovsky, Yuri Butsayev, Anders Eriksson and Maxim Kuznetzov their due? It'd be a shame to see drafting like that tarnished by a silly salary cap :help:
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Jaded-Fan said:
This route will eventually lead to no hockey except in 4 or 5 cities.
explain specifically what will happen to the other 24 teams ? will the owners simply walk away from their 100+ million dollar investments ?

dr
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
DR said:
explain specifically what will happen to the other 24 teams ? will the owners simply walk away from their 100+ million dollar investments ?

dr


Not the owners, the fans. There are other options, other sports out there, where the playing field is even, where they will lose all stars but sign them too, where they can be buyers in the market for more than the scraps. Why waste your money on a league that only protects four or five markets and obviously cares nothing for the fans elsewhere?
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Jaded-Fan said:
Why waste your money on a league that only protects four or five markets and obviously cares nothing for the fans elsewhere?
i live in Calgary. i dont think anyone felt slighted here this season.

did anyone in ANA feel slighted 2 years ago ? how about in MIN, CRL and TBY ?

so this lockout is about getting CHI, LAX, BOS and NYR fans back into the mix ? huh ?

dr
 

Donnie D

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
796
62
Visit site
MojoJojo said:
Tampa (where they gave away tickets for the playoffs).

Where do people come up with this garbage? Do they make up this stuff themselves or do they quote others who made it up?
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
DR said:
i live in Calgary. i dont think anyone felt slighted here this season.

did anyone in ANA feel slighted 2 years ago ? how about in MIN, CRL and TBY ?

so this lockout is about getting CHI, LAX, BOS and NYR fans back into the mix ? huh ?

dr


Out of curiosity, why is having a level playing field where all teams have to make judgments and not be able to buy themselves out of stupid signings as well as snatch up not one or two all star but 70% or 80% of them such a bad concept?
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Jaded-Fan said:
Out of curiosity, why is having a level playing field where all teams have to make judgments and not be able to buy themselves out of stupid signings such a bad concept?
nothing is wrong with it... which is why the recently expired CBA works just fine and only needs a few tweaks to close some of the exploited parts.

dr
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
DR said:
nothing is wrong with it... which is why the recently expired CBA works just fine and only needs a few tweaks to close some of the exploited parts.

dr


You lost me again . . . The top teams have close to or over $80 million in salaries. None but 4 or 5 teams could ever come close to that, likely making out at half of that amount. How would tweaking fix that?
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
DR said:
i see you added this. whats it mean ?

dr


It is where baseball is, where hockey is heading. I never said that hockey was nearly as bad as baseball, but is heading that way. A cap, not a luxury tax, will fix that problem once and for all.
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
DR said:
i live in Calgary. i dont think anyone felt slighted here this season.

did anyone in ANA feel slighted 2 years ago ? how about in MIN, CRL and TBY ?

so this lockout is about getting CHI, LAX, BOS and NYR fans back into the mix ? huh ?

dr

The operative words there are "this season."

Suppose Calgary falls into the pit that Anaheim, Carolina and Minnesota have fallen into? People talk about how much 'parity' there is, but their view of parity is the NBA form of parity:

"Every year, there are 2 or 3 surprise teams that make a run, but there are also the 3 or 4 teams that everyone expects to be there, every year."

The line between those that support the cap and those that are against it can be seen pretty easily as...the fans of the teams that might be the surprise and the fans of the teams that are always there. The "surprise" fans want to be there more...but the "every year" fans don't want that to be at their team's expense. It's no shock that a Detroit or Colorado fan would be against a cap...because they're already tasting plenty of success, and why would they want to do something that jeopardized that?
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
CarlRacki said:
But if by "dynasty" you mean perennial contender, then a cap will not prevent that. The NE Patriots have won two of the last three Super Bowls and are among the favorites again this year. The Philly Eagles could be headed to their fourth consecutive conference championship. When was the last time an NHL team made three in a row? The St. Louis Rams are in the playoffs for the fifth time in six years. The Packers have missed the playoffs twice in the last 12 years. The Colts have been in the playoffs five of the last six years. The Dallas Cowboys won the Super Bowl two out of the NFL's first three years under a cap. All pretty dynasty-like, if you ask me.

Patroits stumbled onto a good QB, and they haven't had to resign him yet. Lets see what happens when they do.

Philly hasn't won anything. I'd hardly call them a dynsaty. The Red Wings made 4 conferecne finals in a row, 95-98.

The Packers have only won once for all o their greatness, and they've benfitted greatly from playing in the same divison as much weaker teams the last 10 years. Any average team could have made the playoffs of the NFC Central\North playing Detroit, Chichago, Minnesota and Tampa twice a year.

St. Loius is right next to Tampa Bay as the most fraudulent SB champ ever. I don't know how'd you'd call them a dynasty.

Colts so far have been like Philly. They haven't done a damn thing, and this year won't be any different. They're not a complete team becuase the cap prevents them, and just about everybody else, from being one.

Dallas only won one SB during the cap era, the same year the cap was introduced.

Furthermore, the only team in the cap era to win back to back titles has been fined for circumventing the cap to do so.



CarlRacki said:
Moreover, I'm not sure why anyone would clamor for a system that fosters dynasties. As a kid growing up in Chicago, I can tell you that cheering on a very good early 80s Blackhawks team that nonetheless never stood a chance against the Oilers wasn't my idea of a great time. A sports league as a whole is much healthier when 2-3 teams don't dominate the landscape. The NFL has learned that lesson, much to their big, fat wallets' content.

When the sport of hockey itself becomes a national draw, let me know. Until then you need maquis teams to put peole in the seats and to watch TV. Why do you think the Red Wings drew double the rating of anybody else on ABC's NHL coverage, and why are they the best road draw in the league?

CarlRacki said:
As for keeping drafted players, this is why the players should be fighting to a "soft" cap, a la the NBA. It would give the owners some level of cost certainty - which, they're going to get one way or another - yet allow homegrown players to get paid very well while staying with their original club. It also protects veteran players from being cut out of the league solely because they make too much money. The owners win, the players win and the fans win. The players' refusal to negotiate on this basis only makes it more likely that the owners will eventually impose and even stricter cap more punitive to the players.

I've always said I would be more than happy with the NBA's system. Let me know when Bettman proposes it. Until then, why discuss something the league has no interest in. btw, that system also includes lots of revenue sharing.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Jaded-Fan said:
You lost me again . . . The top teams have close to or over $80 million in salaries. None but 4 or 5 teams could ever come close to that, likely making out at half of that amount. How would tweaking fix that?
because an 80 million dollar payroll is no more beneficial than a 40million payroll. and i dont believe any team has crossed the 80m threshold ever, so that is simply hyperbole.

tweaks to arbitration, QO's and other triggers would work just fine, if the issue was competitive balance and "hawking" of players. frankly, simply better revenue sharing would solve this issue on the spot. but thats not the issue at all, so this isnt the solution.

the issue is about maximizing equity value and removing Bob Goodenow from his job.

dr
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
again...you worry about the red wings or any other team failing to put out a "dynasty," but were the Wings of the mid-90s really a dynasty? How much of the key players were drafted and brought up through the Wings system? Go back and look at those rosters...there was no dynasty involved. Anyone could have signed those players and won a championship, if they had the money.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
hockeytown9321 said:
I can only refer you to Anaheim, Carolina, Florida, Calgary Minnesota, and others who have made great playoff runs during the course of the last CBA. And before you tell me thy were one hit wonders, isn't that what pairtiy is supposed to be.

And I can only refer you to how those teams fared in the year(s) following their great playoff runs. One-year playoff wonders have long been an NHL staple (see: 1991 North Stars, 1982 Canucks). But if you look at which teams are perennial contenders, they're most often big market and big spending.
And no, parity is not about one-year wonders. It's about all teams building their clubs on an equal playing field.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
nomorekids said:
whew, you won't hear that one very often.

What would the Wings do if they couldn't afford to pay future stars like Yan Golubovsky, Yuri Butsayev, Anders Eriksson and Maxim Kuznetzov their due? It'd be a shame to see drafting like that tarnished by a silly salary cap :help:

You forgot to add Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Kronwall, Liv, Howard, Fischer, Holmstrom, Dandenault, McCarty, Lidstrom, fedorov, Konstantinov, Yzerman, Kozlov, Primeau, Lapointe, Osgood, and Knuble among others. Thanks for playing.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
nomorekids said:
again...you worry about the red wings or any other team failing to put out a "dynasty," but were the Wings of the mid-90s really a dynasty? How much of the key players were drafted and brought up through the Wings system? Go back and look at those rosters...there was no dynasty involved. Anyone could have signed those players and won a championship, if they had the money.

Do you seriously want to have this argument?
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
nomorekids said:
I'll add...the closest thing you have to a dynastic team...one that's fallen just short the past few years...is the Senators. It's an insult to Ottawa to compare Detroit to them.

I've read some insane posts in my day, but this has got to be the worst. Are you kidding?
 

Benji Frank

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,811
24
Visit site
eye said:
I know there is a difference in opinion on how to move forward but why did the NHLPA not counter the last NHL offer if for nothing else to keep talks moving along. They could have made a number of counter proposals but seem disinterested in helping the NHL and the owners resolve the financial problems of the league on a longterm basis.

Would it not have been prudent for Goodenow to come back with a stiffer luxury tax proposal, revised arbitration, a compromise on cost linkage, a compromise on the rollback offer etc. etc. etc.

I was in Calgary for Christmas & in speaking to a guy who owns a sports memorabilia store out there, he said a few of the players he spoke to said much the same thing. Apparently over half the players wouldn't have any cut at all under the owners scenario and the cap offered was pretty close to what the average payroll was last year. They could have used the 37 or 38 mill the league offerred as the starting point for their luxury tax system and used the owners rollback proposal but cap it at their original 24% offer of a few days earlier. Then at least it's back in the owners court and everyone not sitting around like little stubborn school kids (my thinking not the sports memorabilia guys!!! :D).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->