The NHL Lockout

[starvenger 0]

Salary cap hasn't exactly killed the NFL. If anything, it has made for some awesome parity.

The Salary Cap works in the NFL so well because of the Billion doallar TV deal. And I will bet you my house the players will strike next time around in the NFL Because they are getting raped by the owners.

They're just about to extend the labor deal (which they've done repeatedly the last few years), and I don't exactly think you can say Peyton Manning or TO's gotten raped here.

On paper, they seem to be well off, but football contracts are not guaranteed, and it's highly unlikely that either Peyton Manning or Terrell Owens will see their contracts to the end.

[nl5xsk1 0]

I voted 'neither' but if I had to pick a side it'd be the players. If nothing else, they made an offer that could have salvaged the season and the owners flat-out refused. The proposal offered would have saved the owners $150million in the first year alone. While I recognize that they'd still be in the red by about $75million (per last year's losses) it could have been used as a way to play this year and still allow time to negotiate and come up with a long term solution.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I'm a very casual fan, so I don't know much about specifics, but it seems that A) There are way too many teams, and B) Salaries seem to be over-valued when considering the league's popularity/revenues. Who's at fault? I have no idea, but it's the owners that sign the players to those contracts (although a few high-spending teams can throw everything out of balance).

 

Let them cancel the season and see how well the league recovers...

[CanadianChris 0]

I voted 'neither' but if I had to pick a side it'd be the players. If nothing else, they made an offer that could have salvaged the season and the owners flat-out refused. The proposal offered would have saved the owners $150million in the first year alone. While I recognize that they'd still be in the red by about $75million (per last year's losses) it could have been used as a way to play this year and still allow time to negotiate and come up with a long term solution.

The NHLPA's contention (in bold) is preposterous. That would mean that total salaries are somewhere in the $3 billion range, if a 5% cut would save $150 million. Plus, the PA undoubtedly wanted a four or five year deal (understandable, since the status quo overwhelmingly benefits them), which would've meant that the NHL, if they accepted, was committed to another four or five years of red ink across the board.

 

I haven't seen anything from the players that indicates they would be willing to even come close to what the owners are hoping for. Hence, the impasse.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

While I recognize that they'd still be in the red by about $75million (per last year's losses)

 

I'd like to point out that I don't buy whatever profit/loss figures the NHL throws out there. It is too easy to manipulate the figures. I'd like to see a truly independent analysis, like the one Forbes did for baseball a few seasons ago.

[nl5xsk1 0]

al references a good point: why don't they use an impartial 3rd party to read through the #s and propose a solution? Even if it's just a one or two year solution to buy them enough time to really come up with a fair & equal solution that both teams would be willing to live with?

 

Just do SOMETHING to save this season. I don't care if it's another 48-game mini-season.

[Lightning Flik 0]

You aren't getting a partial season.

 

Both sides have basically agreed "we aren't discussing this, and frankly we aren't going to be reasonable about it".

 

They had ten years to come up with something from last time. I think they just both bought themselves times to make enough money to do this lockout and really just go "fuck the love of the game".

 

And yes, I stated that I agree with the owners on salary cap only. Why? Because if there isn't one, I'll lose my Edmonton Oilers in about 10, maybe 20 if we get a Cup, years.That's the only reason why I want a salary cap. I want to keep my team and be able to perform.

[redbaron29 0]

I gotta side with the Owners on this one. While hockey players don't make the kinds of money that football and basketball players make, it is still too much in terms of money. If they were racking in billions of dollars a season, I might be a little less caring, but hey, if they would do a little bit better marketing more people would watch. Regardless at this point I could care less about how they resolve this... I just want to see a hockey game! oh well theres always the minors.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

The owners were responsible for the large contracts. Doesn't every league but the NHL have salary cap? I know it works very well for the NBA.

 

The player don't care, it's the Union's fault. I believe Bob Goodenow HATES Gary Bettman because he is non-hockey guy and basketball-lawyer-assistant commisioner. Bob wants Gary to be released so he can negotiate with a hockey guy. Wayne Gretzky for Commissioner, I say.

[Red Baron 0]

The owners only gave the players the large contracts, or else the players will sign to another team who wants them. If the owners don't sign their key players, who's gonna put the fans into the seats?

 

The players have no fucking loyalty towards the sport.

[Guest acnx]

The owners only gave the players the large contracts, or else the players will sign to another team who wants them. If the owners don't sign their key players, who's gonna put the fans into the seats?

 

The players have no fucking loyalty towards the sport.

Agreed.

 

That's why it's stupid to say it's the owners fault for paying the players so much. If you don't give them a big enough contract, they will go to Detroit, Toronto, or Colorado, and your fans won't come see your team.

 

The game needs to be fixed, period. I have no idea how you fix the game...both sides are lying their asses off, and shitting on the fans in the process.

 

Everybody is at fault. Bettman knows shit about hockey, the players don't care about the fans, or the game, same with the owners, but their biggest crime is not sending Bettman's ass out the door.

 

Fuck everything.

[The Man in Blak 0]

That's why it's stupid to say it's the owners fault for paying the players so much. If you don't give them a big enough contract, they will go to Detroit, Toronto, or Colorado, and your fans won't come see your team.

And, on top of that, if every team doesn't want to give a player a big contract, it becomes "collusion."

[Guest GreatOne]

Actually I'm not sure that knowing a lot about your sport is a requisite for being the commish. I mean Tags was an NFL lawyer for christsake, it's like if all the McMahons died in a fiery plane crash tomorrow Jerry McDevitt was all the sudden in charge of WWE.

 

That said Bettman's still an idiot who has no clue about the game. When he came in and junked Campbell/Wales and the whole playoff format in favor of NBA-lite that should have been your first clue.

 

He might be a good replacement commissioner eventually for David Stern--which I believe is what he really wants anyway. I mean the *NHL's* seemed to evolve from the neutral zone trap........................

 

Hey they can make the long awaited conclusion to the Mighty Ducks, where they go to the SC Finals and then the league dies the next year (they aren't even *talking* until December). Kevin Spacey can play Gary Bettman, although to cut costs they might just have Bettman play himself and I doubt anyone would notice

[Paul Stanley 0]

I'm done with the NHL.

 

*throws MN Wild & Canucks jerseys on ground*

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

Actually I'm not sure that knowing a lot about your sport is a requisite for being the commish. I mean Tags was an NFL lawyer for christsake, it's like if all the McMahons died in a fiery plane crash tomorrow Jerry McDevitt was all the sudden in charge of WWE.

 

That said Bettman's still an idiot who has no clue about the game. When he came in and junked Campbell/Wales and the whole playoff format in favor of NBA-lite that should have been your first clue.

 

He might be a good replacement commissioner eventually for David Stern--which I believe is what he really wants anyway. I mean the *NHL's* seemed to evolve from the neutral zone trap........................

 

Hey they can make the long awaited conclusion to the Mighty Ducks, where they go to the SC Finals and then the league dies the next year (they aren't even *talking* until December). Kevin Spacey can play Gary Bettman, although to cut costs they might just have Bettman play himself and I doubt anyone would notice

Who know if Jerry would be successful? HHH would live through a firey plane crash.

 

I like the current divisions. When I knew nothing about hockey, it helped. Now I've studied the history of the NHL. I know who Terry Sawchuk, Conn Smyth, Lester Patrick, and Frank Seike are now but for a beginner it's hard to figure these things out.

 

"Whoo" You made fun of the Ducks again. +5 again. Gary Bettman should be replaced with a stronger leader.

[nl5xsk1 0]

I like the current divisions. When I knew nothing about hockey, it helped. Now I've studied the history of the NHL. I know who Terry Sawchuk, Conn Smyth, Lester Patrick, and Frank Seike are now but for a beginner it's hard to figure these things out.

To a lot of us, that's one of the reasons we hate Bettman. He changed things that had been part of the game for years (playoff format, All-Star game format, conference & division names) to try and win new fans ... and in doing so pissed on the shoes of the old fans.

 

I LIKED the fact that the NHL wasn't using "Eastern" and "Western" or "Northeast" and "Pacific". It made it different, it made it special. Not is the same generic crap that the NBA has. I LOVED the fact that the playoff structure meant yearly battles between the Bruins and Canadiens, or Bruins and Sabres. It created rivalries.

 

And the funny thing about it all (and by funny I mean nauseating) is that making these changes did more to piss off the fans that the sport had than it did to win any new ones. He fixed what wasn't broken, and the sport suffered as a result.

[Guest Rrrsh]

Given that a playoff team a while back had trouble making payroll due to the American-Canadian exchange rate, I don't it's unreasonable to have some kind of limitation on team salary.

 

Now, I'm not a financial genius, so ignore me if salary caps do this anyway, but why not do this: why not have a salary cap, but have it increase every three years in accordance with inflation rates?

A Salary Cap dosnt give Ottawa an extra cent, so how would that help them from becoming Bankrupt?

[Guest Rrrsh]

The owners were responsible for the large contracts. Doesn't every league but the NHL have salary cap? I know it works very well for the NBA.

 

The player don't care, it's the Union's fault. I believe Bob Goodenow HATES Gary Bettman because he is non-hockey guy and basketball-lawyer-assistant commisioner. Bob wants Gary to be released so he can negotiate with a hockey guy. Wayne Gretzky for Commissioner, I say.

The MLB dosn't have a Cap and it is the most sucsessful League in terms of Players and Owners making money.

 

 

The NBA lost 31 Million dollars last year. A cap didnt help the lesser teams at all.

[MrRant 0]

TSN.ca had a good article about who's at fault for salaries:

 

Rising salaries: Whose fault is it?

 

TSN.ca Staff

 

9/17/2004

 

If it's been said once in the last few days, it's been said a hundred times -- NHL owners are looking for an idiot-proof system. Or maybe you've heard this refrain: if the owners are stupid enough to give the players ridiculous salaries, whose fault is that?

 

Fair enough. There have been some monumentally dumb decisions made by NHL owners. Washington's Ted Leonsis with Jaromir Jagr. Dumb. Charles Wang and Mike Milbury teaming up for Alexei Yashin. Dumber.

 

But as dumb as those were, they were aberrations. They do not get used much as comparables in salary arbitration, so the league-wide impact was minimal.

 

As it turns out, some of the most damaging contracts NHL ownership handed out weren't dumb at all.

 

Let's use Montreal's signing of goalie Jose Theodore as an example.

 

Theodore was making $1.65 million in the 01-02 season, when he won the Hart and Vezina trophies. Coming into the next season, the Habs were under extraordinary pressure to get a new deal done with Theodore. That 'under the gun' mentality was based on his accomplishments of the year before as well as the fact he's a good-looking, francophone hockey hero in a puck-crazed marketplace. If the Canadiens started the season without him, the fans and media would cause a kerfuffle like no other.

 

So in spite of the fact Theodore had played a grand total of 191 regular season games, the Canadiens gave him a three-year, $16.5 million contract. And hey, expensive as it was, the Habs felt they could justify it because of Theodore's unique status in that marketplace.

 

But Theodore's contract -- big bucks for a goalie with limited NHL experience -- turned out to be  the catalyst for hyper-inflation of goaltender contracts throughout the league.  Jean-Sebastien Giguere in Anaheim, Marty Turco in Dallas, Evgeni Nabokov in San Jose, and virtually every young No. 1 goalie in the league...they all used Theodore as the leverage to get huge salary increases. Theodore's deal, after all, can be used in salary arbitration.

 

The Montreal Canadiens weren't necessarily dumb when they signed Theodore.  Then GM Andre Savard wasn't an idiot. What he did made sense -- in Montreal. But that decision has caused far more financial damage league-wide than anything Leonsis and Wang have done.

 

You can say the same thing after Vancouver signed defenceman Ed Jovanovski and forward Todd Bertuzzi to new contracts. Those deals made all sorts of sense, for the Canucks in their specific situation. But Jovanovksi's and Bertuzzi's deals are now being used to hyper-inflate salaries for defencemen and forwards all over the league, thanks in large part to salary arbitration.

 

No question, NHL owners are sometimes guilty of sheer idiocy, but as often as not, they become victims of a system that is crippling them...and that's why they are so hell-bent to change it and get their cost certainty.

 

For TSN.ca, I'm Bob McKenzie.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

So because of problems caused by salary arbitration, they need a salary cap? Why not just fix salary arbitration?

[Lightning Flik 0]

To fix salary arbitration had been looked at by the NHLPA as a salary cap like idea. It was actually one of the six deals that the NHL put forward to the NHLPA before the NHLPA gave their "pity try". I'm going what most of the new reports were on those six deals.

 

The NHLPA thinks that any change that hinders its players contracts is an attempt at a salary cap by the NHL. This is a major reason why I can't side at all with the players.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

The NHLPA thinks that any change that hinders its players contracts is an attempt at a salary cap by the NHL. This is a major reason why I can't side at all with the players.

 

Because it is. Artificial restraints on salaries do nothing but line the owners' pockets with money.

[Lightning Flik 0]

The NHLPA thinks that any change that hinders its players contracts is an attempt at a salary cap by the NHL. This is a major reason why I can't side at all with the players.

 

Because it is. Artificial restraints on salaries do nothing but line the owners' pockets with money.

Seriously, the system needs some type of restraints. The MLB has the free agency draft picks are lost depending on who you sign for free agency, right? Well, the NHL has no safeguards of the type. That's why I want at least some type of resistant. Not really a safeguard on spending money, but to make sure a team fields a freaking team and not go broke.

[Red Baron 0]

I would like to see Free Agency disappear, but thats never going to happen

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I actually have a radical idea. EXPAND free agency. The increase in available players would drag down player salaries. And the players' union would have a much harder time fighting it.

[Lightning Flik 0]

Explain how you would EXPAND free agency. I'm not quite getting it. Do you mean have no restricted free agency, or what?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Basically make more players eligible for free agency. Have players reach free agency at a younger age, end restricted free agency, etc. The idea is that as you flood the market with available players, salaries fall as teams have alternatives available.

[Lightning Flik 0]

Hm... It could work, but you'd still have to fix having a ton of players in the market. The main problem is there really isn't many players that aren't playing on major teams. To flood the market, you'd have to bring up a lot of rookies.

[Red Baron 0]

Free Agency is the reason why the NHL is hurting, thus when players don't get signed for X amount of dollars, they will go test FA to get signed by another team who will pay X amount of dollars.

 

FA needs tighter rules and such, and some one said that no one in the League should be making over $5 million.

[Guest Shoes Head]

I actually have a radical idea. EXPAND free agency. The increase in available players would drag down player salaries. And the players' union would have a much harder time fighting it.

A good reason why there is a decreased connection between fans and players is because they come and go far more often in the post-free agency era. This does nothing but decrease the connection further. You might as well start selling the fans jerseys with velcro letters and numbers so they don't have to waste their money on a new player's jersey every 2 years.