Forbes Magazine Says NHL Owners Overstated Losses

[Guest Rrrsh]

What evidence is there that says a salary cap won't work?

 

It sure has helped the NFL...

 

and Baseball definitely needs it as well...

A cap has not helped the players in the NFL.

 

 

 

MLB is the most sucsessful League in America in regards to Players wage and Owners profit. It dosn't have it, and it shouldn't.

Fuck the players. They are playing a game for a living and should consider themselves lucky to be gifted as they are and making the money they make for PLAYING. The cap may hld player salaries down but it keeps more teams competitive every season, which make the league more fun to follow.

 

Baseball, as much as I love it, is lame. We know every year it;s going to be Boston and New York winning their division and sometimes wild card. Toronto, Baltimore, and Tampa bay have absolutely NO chance to be like the NY and Boston. That's unbalanced.

 

Salary Cap is good for fans, bad for players. Nothing at all wrong with that IMHO.

A: Fuck the bitter ass fans. The Players are entertanemnet and make tons of momney for Owners. Just because you cant play the game as well as them dosnt mean they dont deserve to make money.

 

B: A Salary Cap will be AWEFUL for fans of good teams. They will lose stars to teams who have no fans. So the NHL will do worse than before.

[Guest Rrrsh]

Regardless of this, the players are still seen as barely willing to budge from the status quo, and aren't going to get much positive public opinion out of it.

UTTER BULLSHIT

Its bullshit because Bettman hasnt bent at all and yoru in denial.

 

 

Plus, I was wrong. The player roll back was for 150 Mill. not 90. That would cover all losses for the unbiased report of Forbes. Not the paid off report by Levitt.

[CanadianChris 0]

Regardless of this, the players are still seen as barely willing to budge from the status quo, and aren't going to get much positive public opinion out of it.

UTTER BULLSHIT

Its bullshit because Bettman hasnt bent at all and yoru in denial.

 

 

Plus, I was wrong. The player roll back was for 150 Mill. not 90. That would cover all losses for the unbiased report of Forbes. Not the paid off report by Levitt.

In other words, "It's bullshit because I say so." Read what I actually said and get back to me.

 

And take an English class sometime.

 

And on second thought, don't get back to me. I honestly don't give a shit.

[Cartman 0]

A: Fuck the bitter ass fans. The Players are entertanemnet and make tons of momney for Owners. Just because you cant play the game as well as them dosnt mean they dont deserve to make money.

 

B: A Salary Cap will be AWEFUL for fans of good teams. They will lose stars to teams who have no fans. So the NHL will do worse than before.

Yes fuck the fans who pay money to watch a bunch of egomaniacs PLAYING GAMES. Pro athletes should take whatever they get because they are lucky they don't have to get real jobs like 90% of the population.

 

A salary cap would let teams that are losing their fan base bring fans back by keeping good players and being competitive.

 

The sole reason Tampa Bay and Toronto can't get fans to come to the park is because fans dont want to waste their money watching a team that has ZERO chance of ever being a challanger in their division.

 

I keep bringing up baseball because nobody ever gave a rats ass about Hockey anyways. The players AND owners are both retarded when it comes to the NHL's problems.

[Guest Ether]

A few thoughts...

 

Some form of cost-containment is needed. I fight it hard to believe that all of these owners are making profits when the averaage hockey salary is on par with the NFL, MLB, and NBA, but with only a fraction of the popularity - namely in television. Didn't the World Series of Women's College Softball draw a better rating than the Stanley Cup Finals a few years ago? An NFL team can meet player payroll withoput selling one ticket because of television revenue. Most NHL teams can't pay their best player based off what they get for television.

 

The problem with the "any team can pull it off in the 16 team playoff" arguement is that it makes the regular season worthless. A sixth-seed team making the Stanley Cup finals is like a 9-7 wild card making it to the Super Bowl. And also, the low-payroll teams that do well almost never come close to a repeat performance. Where were the Minnesota WIld and Anaheim Mighty Ducks this year? Sitting at home watching the playoffs. Does anyone think Calgary and Tampa Bay would finish in the top four in their conference this year if there was a full season.

 

Also remember, the NHL also has arbitration, which means all it take is one owner to screw up and overpay someone and then everybody has to pay their player a comparable wage once that player reaches arbitration.

 

The owners aren't entirely blameless. Renevue sharing, which would increase the ability of teams that aren't blessed with huge markets to pay players.

 

To me, the bottom line is too many players that no one here would pay two cents to see are making $3-4 million dollars a year.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Does anyone think Calgary and Tampa Bay would finish in the top four in their conference this year if there was a full season.

psst! Tampa Bay was the best team in the East for the regular season! As much as I resent the concept of the Tampa Bay Lightning as the Stanley Cup winners, Richards, Lecavalier, St. Louis, and Khabibulin are the real deal.

 

And I think Calgary was a different beast than Carolina and Anaheim. The Flames were always floating aroudn the 4-7 spots in the standings, I think. Also, bear in mind that the teams ahead of them in the division were #3 Vancouver and #4 Colorado, so it's not like they had a cakewalk to a divisional title like the Hurricanes did with such esteemed competition as the Thrashers, Panthers, Capitals, and Lightning (at the time, not all that good yet). Plus, by all accounts from people more familiar with the game of hockey than I, Kiprusoff posted the numbers that he did because he's a good goaltender, not because he wore obscenely gigantic pads like Giguere.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Hitting points here and there. From Cartman...

 

Fuck the players. They are playing a game for a living and should consider themselves lucky to be gifted as they are and making the money they make for PLAYING. The cap may hld player salaries down but it keeps more teams competitive every season, which make the league more fun to follow.

 

At least the players got there by talent. How did the owners get there? Most of them are corporate entities. Quite a few are there purely due to bloodlines and nepotism. Should I feel guilty for them? Moreover, they can own teams as long as they damn well please. Most players have a few years at most to make their living, before their talent erodes.

 

Baseball, as much as I love it, is lame. We know every year it;s going to be Boston and New York winning their division and sometimes wild card. Toronto, Baltimore, and Tampa bay have absolutely NO chance to be like the NY and Boston. That's unbalanced.

 

Baltimore produced one of the highest payroll teams a few years ago. Mismanagement has doomed the team. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays are still recovering from their failed "four DHs" plan. The Toronto Blue Jays are building their shattered minor league system, and it is LOADED right now. I think the Blue Jays will field a highly competitive team in the near future. In any case, the recent failures of these three teams have little to do with the Yankees and Red Sox. It is not like they missed the playoffs while still winning 90+ games. Does anyone honestly think one of those three teams would have made the playoffs if not for those pesky Sox and Yankees?

 

Salary Cap is good for fans, bad for players. Nothing at all wrong with that IMHO.

 

It is not good for fans. The NFL sucks, and the NBA went through a horrible period for five years where the Lakers were ridiculously dominant. Moreover, the salary cap removes the survival incentive, forcing teams to build strong franchises. The salary cap removes darwinism from the equation, allowing owners to sit back and reap profits without actually doing anything. From there, progress in the sport stagnates. We have seen a WEALTH of new learning and information the last 20 years in baseball. Football is the same old machismo bullshit.

 

No, but it would cut down the salaries and allow other teams to keep their players and sign other GOOD players that the Sox, Yanks, Mets, etc. usually horde.

 

That mechanism is in place. Draft compensation allows teams to gain players in return for their lost free agents. Moreover, these players have their best years ahead of them, and teams earn their services for six or seven years, very inexpensively. For example, the Athletics now have Joe Blanton and Nick Swisher coming into the majors next season, while Jason Giambi struggles in New York. Who got the best of that deal?

 

To Red Baron...

 

PLAYERS HAVE NO FUCKING LOYALTY TO THE TEAM OR SPORT!

 

And owners have loyalty? The NHL owners have shown they care more about profits than about running hockey games. And they will cut players at the drop of the hat if they are unproductive. It is the way professional sports work. In the days before free agency, we had player loyalty. It amounted to slavery, and the owners certainly didn't exercise the same loyalty if a trade improved their club.

 

Back to Cartman...

 

Yes fuck the fans who pay money to watch a bunch of egomaniacs PLAYING GAMES. Pro athletes should take whatever they get because they are lucky they don't have to get real jobs like 90% of the population.

 

1. Athletes, like the rest of us, are not paid based on how hard they work. They are paid based on the scarcity of labor. Stars are paid millions because they do what virtually no one else can do.

 

2. With that said, athletes work HARDER than the rest of the population. I am glad that I get to go home after I plug in my hours at work, and eat whatever I want. Athletes do not have that luxury.

 

3. By the same token, owners should take whatever they get, because they are lucky they don't have to get real jobs. I don't want to pay money so a bunch of greedy fucks can sit in their luxury boxes and watch sports, while I work my ass off to sit in the bleachers.

 

A salary cap would let teams that are losing their fan base bring fans back by keeping good players and being competitive.

 

See Cardinals, Arizona, and Hawks, Atlanta.

 

The sole reason Tampa Bay and Toronto can't get fans to come to the park is because fans dont want to waste their money watching a team that has ZERO chance of ever being a challanger in their division.

 

The Toronto Blue Jays were highly competitive in the 1980s and early 90s. They drew over 4,000,000 fans three consecutive years. They won a division that included the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox, and in a system that offered no legitimate salary constraints. In fact, the Yankees' payroll only became a problem after the MLB owners started whining about salaries, and but bullshit salary mechanisms in place.

 

Now to Ether...

 

Also remember, the NHL also has arbitration, which means all it take is one owner to screw up and overpay someone and then everybody has to pay their player a comparable wage once that player reaches arbitration.

 

It is simple. If your player is going to arbitration, you generally have a good idea of what salary figure he will command. If you feel that is too much, cut him. Let the open market dictate his salary. If some team will overpay, good. Let them bleed themselves. Let the market come to you.

 

The owners aren't entirely blameless. Renevue sharing, which would increase the ability of teams that aren't blessed with huge markets to pay players.

 

Revenue sharing is a different argument, but it has its drawbacks. MLB has instituted revenue sharing over the last decade, and it has done the opposite of what it was meant to do.

 

To me, the bottom line is too many players that no one here would pay two cents to see are making $3-4 million dollars a year.

 

Let the owners figure that out then. The NHLPA is not responsible for the owners being a set of jackasses.

[CanadianChris 0]

The salary cap removes darwinism from the equation, allowing owners to sit back and reap profits without actually doing anything. From there, progress in the sport stagnates. We have seen a WEALTH of new learning and information the last 20 years in baseball. Football is the same old machismo bullshit.

I could not disagree more with this statement. The difference is, the learning that goes on in football is done on the field, instead of learning to try to produce a good team on the cheap (see: Moneyball). In the last 20 years alone in football, we've seen the West Coast offense, the 46 defense, and innovative zone blitzing schemes, to name just three. Football is constantly evolving; much of what is known about baseball is and has been known for years, to anyone who bothered to try and look.

 

A salary cap would let teams that are losing their fan base bring fans back by keeping good players and being competitive.

 

See Cardinals, Arizona, and Hawks, Atlanta.

Those teams have completely incompetent front offices. Every sport has those. What a salary cap is supposed to do (and often does, especially in the case of the NFL) is make the game be about talent -- in the GM's office, on the sideline and on the field. In baseball, you can have the best front office in the entire league and still not win a single playoff series (Oakland), but you can have a team with an incompetent manager win the World Series because the owner spent zillions of dollars to win for one year (Arizona).

 

The sole reason Tampa Bay and Toronto can't get fans to come to the park is because fans dont want to waste their money watching a team that has ZERO chance of ever being a challanger in their division.

 

The Toronto Blue Jays were highly competitive in the 1980s and early 90s. They drew over 4,000,000 fans three consecutive years. They won a division that included the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox, and in a system that offered no legitimate salary constraints. In fact, the Yankees' payroll only became a problem after the MLB owners started whining about salaries, and but bullshit salary mechanisms in place.

 

How many revenue streams were available to teams in the 80s and 90s? Not many. The Blue Jays had the highest payroll in the league both years they won the World Series, but their payroll wasn't such an obscene multiple of the lower-payroll teams that it was an issue. Because the Red Sox and ESPECIALLY the Yankees now make gobs of cash from cable revenues, they can afford to spend so much more than anyone else and still turn a profit. Other teams could never command the type of rights fees that those teams can, because they don't reach enough people and never will. Being able to compete should NEVER be dependent on the city a team inhabits.

 

To me, the bottom line is too many players that no one here would pay two cents to see are making $3-4 million dollars a year.

 

Let the owners figure that out then. The NHLPA is not responsible for the owners being a set of jackasses.

And if the owners collectively wise up and tighten the screws on salaries, what happens?

 

COLLUSION!!!

 

The players can't have it both ways. They can't say the owners should be smarter while at the same time not giving the owners a chance to actually BE smarter. The most sensible solution is to dictate it to both parties in advance, while ensuring the players still receive a certain percentage of revenues. Left unchecked, greed will corrupt us all, even those with the best of intentions.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Those teams have completely incompetent front offices. Every sport has those. What a salary cap is supposed to do (and often does, especially in the case of the NFL) is make the game be about talent -- in the GM's office, on the sideline and on the field. In baseball, you can have the best front office in the entire league and still not win a single playoff series (Oakland), but you can have a team with an incompetent manager win the World Series because the owner spent zillions of dollars to win for one year (Arizona).

 

Competitive balance in football has little to do with the salary cap. In my view, two things are chiefly responsible...

 

1. The schedule. 16 games allows for wide deviations from actual talent in the standings. In addition, the NFL adjusts its schedule to create the artificial appearance of competitive balance.

 

2. Non-guaranteed contracts. Parity in MLB would be greater if teams could simply cut their non-productive players each season. But that is not a fair and just system.

 

How many revenue streams were available to teams in the 80s and 90s? Not many. The Blue Jays had the highest payroll in the league both years they won the World Series, but their payroll wasn't such an obscene multiple of the lower-payroll teams that it was an issue. Because the Red Sox and ESPECIALLY the Yankees now make gobs of cash from cable revenues, they can afford to spend so much more than anyone else and still turn a profit. Other teams could never command the type of rights fees that those teams can, because they don't reach enough people and never will. Being able to compete should NEVER be dependent on the city a team inhabits.

 

Nonsense. Fans and owners were complaining about the New York teams buying championships all the way back in the 1920s. The dominant New York Yankee teams from 1949-64 were chiefly the result of the Yankees buying amateur players. The only reason the Yankees faded in the 1980s was because they spent money as stupidly as humanly possible. You'll notice the Mets were dominant in the same period until they did the exact same thing. And being in New York isn't exactly helping the Mets now. The Yankees aren't successful because of New York. They are successful because they built an image.

 

And if the owners collectively wise up and tighten the screws on salaries, what happens?

 

COLLUSION!!!

 

The players can't have it both ways. They can't say the owners should be smarter while at the same time not giving the owners a chance to actually BE smarter. The most sensible solution is to dictate it to both parties in advance, while ensuring the players still receive a certain percentage of revenues. Left unchecked, greed will corrupt us all, even those with the best of intentions.

 

People misunderstand collusion. It wasn't just a market adjustment. It was the utter refusal to furnish offers to any free agents. Players can cry collusion all they want, but it doesn't mean anything unless there is actual proof.

 

Ideally, both sides will find some middle ground here. But the owners have problems that extend far beyond player salaries. Ideally, both sides will work together to grow the sport, because increasing revenues would settle matters fairly quickly. Personally, I think the owners are very narrow-sighted on this issue. Even if they get their salary cap, it won't help hockey.

[Guest Ether]

It is simple. If your player is going to arbitration, you generally have a good idea of what salary figure he will command. If you feel that is too much, cut him. Let the open market dictate his salary. If some team will overpay, good. Let them bleed themselves. Let the market come to you.

The NHL was guaranteed contracts, so the a team can't just cut a player just because he makes or might make too much. It's not like the NFL, where a team can cut a player for ANY reason, even if there is 5 years left, and only eat the salary for that particular season. The players would sooner have a salary cap than lose guaranteed contracts.

 

Revenue sharing is a different argument, but it has its drawbacks. MLB has instituted revenue sharing over the last decade, and it has done the opposite of what it was meant to do

That's because MLB revenue sharing is weak at best. Small market teams got what, maybe around $10 million. A team like the Pirates is trying to win with a payroll of $30 million while the Yankees and the Red Sox have payrolls well over $100 million. The NFL system gives ALL teams a CHANCE to compete because it is all equal markets. The key word here is CHANCE. If a team is consistantly terrible, it is generally because of bad management (Arizona Cardinals, Cincinati Bengals), not because they are located in a city other than New York.

 

QUOTE 

QUOTE 

The sole reason Tampa Bay and Toronto can't get fans to come to the park is because fans dont want to waste their money watching a team that has ZERO chance of ever being a challanger in their division.

 

 

 

The Toronto Blue Jays were highly competitive in the 1980s and early 90s. They drew over 4,000,000 fans three consecutive years. They won a division that included the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox, and in a system that offered no legitimate salary constraints. In fact, the Yankees' payroll only became a problem after the MLB owners started whining about salaries, and but bullshit salary mechanisms in place.

 

 

 

How many revenue streams were available to teams in the 80s and 90s? Not many. The Blue Jays had the highest payroll in the league both years they won the World Series, but their payroll wasn't such an obscene multiple of the lower-payroll teams that it was an issue. Because the Red Sox and ESPECIALLY the Yankees now make gobs of cash from cable revenues, they can afford to spend so much more than anyone else and still turn a profit. Other teams could never command the type of rights fees that those teams can, because they don't reach enough people and never will. Being able to compete should NEVER be dependent on the city a team inhabits

If you want a good example of this, the NL East champion Pirates had the same payroll - around $22 million - as the Yankees did back in 1992.

 

Let the owners figure that out then. The NHLPA is not responsible for the owners being a set of jackasses

That is what the owners are trying to figure out. BOTH sides are being jackasses by not scheduling any meetings and sticking to the same set-in-stone position without sacrificing something to the other side.

 

QUOTE (Ether @ Nov 14 2004, 08:59 PM)

Does anyone think Calgary and Tampa Bay would finish in the top four in their conference this year if there was a full season. 

 

 

psst! Tampa Bay was the best team in the East for the regular season! As much as I resent the concept of the Tampa Bay Lightning as the Stanley Cup winners, Richards, Lecavalier, St. Louis, and Khabibulin are the real deal.

 

And I think Calgary was a different beast than Carolina and Anaheim. The Flames were always floating aroudn the 4-7 spots in the standings, I think. Also, bear in mind that the teams ahead of them in the division were #3 Vancouver and #4 Colorado, so it's not like they had a cakewalk to a divisional title like the Hurricanes did with such esteemed competition as the Thrashers, Panthers, Capitals, and Lightning (at the time, not all that good yet). Plus, by all accounts from people more familiar with the game of hockey than I, Kiprusoff posted the numbers that he did because he's a good goaltender, not because he wore obscenely gigantic pads like Giguere.

I guess I worded that somewhat poorly, but that's okay. I was more or less referring to both teams making it (or at least being in position to make it barring a major upset) to the conference finals. I would agree that Tampa would have a good shot, since they did rise up to become the leading team of the East, while Calgary barely made the playoffs after missing them since I believe 1996, then springing 3 upsets to get to the finals. I guess we won't know the answer to that question, though.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Calgary barely made the playoffs after missing them since I believe 1996, then springing 3 upsets to get to the finals.

Again, no, Calgary was safely locked into contention as the season was winding down. It was St. Louis, Nashville, Edmonton, and Los Angeles that were going at it for 7 and 8 down to the wire. I don't think Nashville clinched until their final game.

[Red Baron 0]

You must have misread this wrong.

 

If the owners don't pay up a certain price for that star player, then that player will look somewhere else to play, for that price.

 

It's in every sport. Small market teams can't keep their key players, because they ask for too much money, and go to a team with a bigger bank account.

 

If a small market team is run correctly then they will do just fine. Look at the Calgary Flames.

 

Yea- And I was saying that the owners overpaid way too many players- who weren't star players. That's the owner's fault for overbidding and driving up the market.

 

PLAYERS HAVE NO FUCKING LOYALTY TO THE TEAM OR SPORT!

 

Why should they bend and accept a salary cap because the people running the team are stupid?

A:

 

Right now, they seem manageable. If there was no strike, wait five years, and see how many players of that run are left on the team. You really think Kippy, Iginla, Reinprecht, Gelinas, Ference, Lombardi are going to be on that team? Hardly. Why, because of their salaries.

 

If they want those same players, there payroll will increase, and lose much more profit because of the rising salaries.

 

The owners want to keep the team that brought them success and profit, and by doing so, he'll have to spend money to keep the team, before the players go to different teams because they have the moeny to spend on them.

 

An example is Tie Domi. He's not a goal scorer by any means, but one of the best physical presence on the ice. He's making I think just over 2 mil a season. Is he worth it? No, but the owner has to offer him a good chunk of change to keep him their becuase the owner doesn't want the competitors taking up on Domi.

 

B:

 

I guess ego is a synonym for Loyality then.

[CanadianChris 0]

How many revenue streams were available to teams in the 80s and 90s? Not many. The Blue Jays had the highest payroll in the league both years they won the World Series, but their payroll wasn't such an obscene multiple of the lower-payroll teams that it was an issue. Because the Red Sox and ESPECIALLY the Yankees now make gobs of cash from cable revenues, they can afford to spend so much more than anyone else and still turn a profit. Other teams could never command the type of rights fees that those teams can, because they don't reach enough people and never will. Being able to compete should NEVER be dependent on the city a team inhabits.

 

Nonsense. Fans and owners were complaining about the New York teams buying championships all the way back in the 1920s. The dominant New York Yankee teams from 1949-64 were chiefly the result of the Yankees buying amateur players.

People have always complained about the team with the highest payroll trying to "buy" a championship. That's much different from what I'm saying.

 

The only reason the Yankees faded in the 1980s was because they spent money as stupidly as humanly possible.  You'll notice the Mets were dominant in the same period until they did the exact same thing.  And being in New York isn't exactly helping the Mets now.  The Yankees aren't successful because of New York.  They are successful because they built an image.

The Mets have been bad because they had a bad front office, which goes back to the earlier point I made. Same with the Yankees in the 80s. The Mets had the fourth-highest payroll in baseball this year, at least triple that of four other clubs. They were second in 2003. In fact, they've been in the top 6 in payroll every year this century. They've lost because they've spent money on the wrong players, but they've at least been able to spend money, much moreso than other clubs.

 

The top 7 in payroll this past season all come from either Chicago, Los Angeles, or a big east coast market (New York, Philadelphia or Boston). That's not an accident.

[Guest Ether]

How many revenue streams were available to teams in the 80s and 90s? Not many. The Blue Jays had the highest payroll in the league both years they won the World Series, but their payroll wasn't such an obscene multiple of the lower-payroll teams that it was an issue. Because the Red Sox and ESPECIALLY the Yankees now make gobs of cash from cable revenues, they can afford to spend so much more than anyone else and still turn a profit. Other teams could never command the type of rights fees that those teams can, because they don't reach enough people and never will. Being able to compete should NEVER be dependent on the city a team inhabits.

 

Nonsense. Fans and owners were complaining about the New York teams buying championships all the way back in the 1920s. The dominant New York Yankee teams from 1949-64 were chiefly the result of the Yankees buying amateur players. The only reason the Yankees faded in the 1980s was because they spent money as stupidly as humanly possible. You'll notice the Mets were dominant in the same period until they did the exact same thing. And being in New York isn't exactly helping the Mets now. The Yankees aren't successful because of New York. They are successful because they built an image.

That actually proves the point of anyone who wants to see the system changed. The only time recently that the Yankees weren't good is when they made the wrong decision every time. As long as the front office shows some degree of competency, the Yankees dominate. Drew Henson is a good example. A $20 million dollar contract to a minor league player would nearly cripple teams in Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas CIty, etc., and hurt teams in most other markets. Steinbrenner laughed about the whole situation and just spent more money. A good hockey equivalent are the deals for Alexi Yashin (something like $100 million over ten years) or the Bobby Holik ($9 million per year). One, the Yashin deal turned out to be a bust and the Holik deal was just plain stupid, but those two teams can move on from those mistakes because the are both large-market New York teams, and can afford to make such mistakes. Either one of those contracts would kill teams in Calgary, Edmonton, Pittsburgh, Nashville, etc.

 

In the NFL with the salary cap and revenue sharing, all teams have to make consistantly correct decisions regarding players. The Jets and the Giants don't dominate because it is a level playing field. They have to make the same decisions that the Green Bay Packers do. If they make consitantly good decisions, they probably field a good team. If they make consistantly bad decisions, they probably field a bad team. One team can't just spend freely while another has to walk on pins and needles hoping it doesn't make one mistake that would ruin the franchise for 5 years. Is the system perfect? No. But the owners make money, the players make money, and I would say that most fans are happy because it is the most popular of the four major sports, so their system must be doing something right.

 

Under the current systems in baseball and hockey, small-market teams have to do everything right just to be able to compete. Large-market or large-revenue teams (i.e teams like the Atlanta Braves with their own cable network, or the Detroit Red Wings whose owner also owns a pizza company) can make numerous mistakes and still do well. That's what needs fixed.

 

(Well, that and much of the way the game is played and promoted, but that's a different arguement for another time.)

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

As far as revenue sharing goes, there also needs to be an NFL-style salary floor to force teams to pay a certain amount, otherwise cheap owners will just tank their teams intentionally to get the revenue coming in for doing absolutely nothing. The MLB revenue sharing plan is idiotic. I would rather have nothing than that.

[bob_barron 0]

Right now, they seem manageable. If there was no strike, wait five years, and see how many players of that run are left on the team. You really think Kippy, Iginla, Reinprecht, Gelinas, Ference, Lombardi are going to be on that team? Hardly. Why, because of their salaries.

 

If they draft and develop players well- this won't be a problem. And you have the rights to a player until they are 30. That's a long time.

 

 

The owners want to keep the team that brought them success and profit, and by doing so, he'll have to spend money to keep the team, before the players go to different teams because they have the moeny to spend on them.

 

If they overpay for a player and lose money because of it- that's their own fault. Look at the Devils. They let tons of star players go yet they're smartly managed and bring in good role players. You don't need a big star player to win.

 

If the owners didn't act all stupid and overpay for lots of players- we wouldn't have this problem.

 

The players shouldn't have to take a huge pay cut and take a salary cap because of it. I support them 100%

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Under the current systems in baseball and hockey, small-market teams have to do everything right just to be able to compete. Large-market or large-revenue teams (i.e teams like the Atlanta Braves with their own cable network, or the Detroit Red Wings whose owner also owns a pizza company) can make numerous mistakes and still do well. That's what needs fixed.

 

I can't speak for hockey, but baseball has a system in place that alleviates most problems with revenue disparity. Teams retain the services of their players for 6-7 years. Figure that most players debut at 23-24, and reach their peak at 27-30. The vast majority of players have their best seasons BEFORE free agency. Which means there is a limit as to how far any team can dominate, without the services of a good farm system. Moreover, teams that sign free agents often lose draft picks, which give your team more opportunities to develop those cheap young stars.

 

Keep a mechanism like that in place, and the competitive balance problem shrinks. Sure, some big markets teams will spend, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. The NHL needs strong franchises which will draw fan interest. With the 16 team playoffs, most teams have a legitimate chance to compete.

[Guest Rrrsh]

Regardless of this, the players are still seen as barely willing to budge from the status quo, and aren't going to get much positive public opinion out of it.

UTTER BULLSHIT

Its bullshit because Bettman hasnt bent at all and yoru in denial.

 

 

Plus, I was wrong. The player roll back was for 150 Mill. not 90. That would cover all losses for the unbiased report of Forbes. Not the paid off report by Levitt.

In other words, "It's bullshit because I say so." Read what I actually said and get back to me.

 

And take an English class sometime.

 

And on second thought, don't get back to me. I honestly don't give a shit.

The Player arn't viewed as people who arnt willing to budged. They arer viewed as greedy. Massive diffrence.

[Guest Rrrsh]

The major thing to realize here is that the Players will take a massive pay cut (150 Million legaue wide), but they wont do it under a cap system. Because, a cap in the NHL current system NEEDS non-garenteed contracts. And THAT si truly what the players won't do.

[MrRant 0]

You can have only guaranteed contracts in a salary cap system if they want.

 

Once again. Stop Posting.

 

Thanks.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

People have always complained about the team with the highest payroll trying to "buy" a championship. That's much different from what I'm saying.

 

No. People complain when one team has a payroll that is many multiples of the lesser teams. It isn't just that they have the largest payroll, it is because the difference between the haves and have-nots are absurd.

 

It should be noted of all the complaints that there are no good teams in the NFL, that the most important factor is still the competancy of the front office. At the biggest extremes, since the salary cap came in place, the Green Bay Packers have never had a losing season, while the Cincinnati Bengals have never had a winning season.

[Guest Rrrsh]

You can have only guaranteed contracts in a salary cap system if they want.

 

Once again. Stop Posting.

 

Thanks.

It wont work in the current NHL market

 

Grow a brain

 

Thanks.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Keep it civil guys.

[Guest Ether]

Let me ask this question, directed mainly at those who are siding with the players: Do you believe that everything is okay and things should remain the same, or do you believe that something does need to change but don't believe a salary cap is the way to do it?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Let me ask this question, directed mainly at those who are siding with the players: Do you believe that everything is okay and things should remain the same, or do you believe that something does need to change but don't believe a salary cap is the way to do it?

The latter. The NHL is a hurt business right now. But from my experience, when a business cuts costs, they may improve their bottom line, but they are doing little to improve the overall health of their establishment. They need to worry about improving themselves on the revenue end. Cutting expenses may help in the short term, but not in the long run.

 

Not that the players should not make any concessions. Just remember the owners have a vested interest in making conditions appear as dire as possible.

[Brush with Greatness 0]

Let me ask this question, directed mainly at those who are siding with the players:  Do you believe that everything is okay and things should remain the same, or do you believe that something does need to change but don't believe a salary cap is the way to do it?

The latter. The NHL is a hurt business right now. But from my experience, when a business cuts costs, they may improve their bottom line, but they are doing little to improve the overall health of their establishment. They need to worry about improving themselves on the revenue end. Cutting expenses may help in the short term, but not in the long run.

 

Not that the players should not make any concessions. Just remember the owners have a vested interest in making conditions appear as dire as possible.

Then what is the problem with a fluctuating cap? Opposition of a fixed cap is one thing, because it limits the players upside, but a fluctuating cap based on the revenue generated the previous season is not simply a "short term" fix. It also negates the players argument that "they just want to be along for the ride" when things get going good or that "they just get their fair piece of the pie". The players offer, including a one time 10% salary rollback? That's a quick fix. It's the owners who are actually looking long term here.

 

If you want to talk about generating revenue, you need to just look at the uncompeteable marketplace. Small market teams can't match the big 10 million dollar salaries of a "free market system". Sure, theoretically, a team has a right to a player until he is 30, but whether that team can actually afford to sign him within their market constraints is another matter. Simply put (and how many times has this been the case especially with a team like the Oilers for example) the team is forced to trade the guy while he is just hitting his prime. This occurs before free agency kicks in, simply because the team cannot afford to pay him "market value", which is asinine considering that market value is determined by about 15% of the teams in the league, yet all teams must abide by it. Or the rare times where a team coughs up the dough, there are forced to cut corners everywhere else to the point where they are not competitive. As a result, these small market teams fail to make the playoffs, or get there and bow out early, resulting in a loss of potential playoff revenue that they desperately need to survive as ticket revenue is the largest revenue stream in hockey.

 

Is it the owners fault that they are in the position they are in? Without a doubt. But now they want to fix things people are saying "no, you can't". How idiotic is that? These guys made a massive investment to the point where a lot of the teams no longer are valued at their purchase price. You would think as an owner, you would have an opportunity to make money (or make some money back), and if you weren't collectively making money, you would be afforded the opportunity to alter the system so that there was potential to be profitable.

 

As for the Forbes study, I would say take it with a grain of salt. It is based all off of estimates and projections and what Forbes counts as NHL generated revenue and losses is potentially way off. I'm not going to say the Levitt one is spot on, but I would easily consider more accurate than the Forbes one. And it is based on actual figures. When the Levitt report was issued, Levitt stated that the results were, if anything, on the optimistic side. This is a private auditing firm. Yes, the NHL hired them to perform the study, but it is their job to come back with honest numbers. On top of this, Bob Goodenow was afforded the opportunity multiple times before the study was issued publicly to go over it with Levitt and simply refused.

 

Bob Goodenow is a cancer to hockey (not that Bettman is much better). He only looks out for the "superstars" so to speak. That is who a salary cap is going to hurt. You won't have guys making 10 million a season any more. That number will have to be drastically cut, potentially in half. The guys making 500,000 a year aren't going to take a hit. It was the same thing in '94. The guys that saw the massive (and compartively improportionate) increases since then have been the stars and superstars.

 

As an aside, an interesting poll in the Hockey News recently determined that something like 75% of fans would support and watch replacement players. As discussed in the other thread, with the tight confines of the current game, creativity is stifled and players aren't given the chance to shine. Watching more raw players might even be more interesting. There is a hell of a lot of talent out there (Making the Cut has some decent talent - but even a level above that) of guys who would be very interesting to watch. There is a very fine line between a large number of the players in the NHL and players playing elsewhere. In many instances, the players playing elsewhere may even be more skilled but lack other intangibles (size, for instance) that would get them a spot in the current clutch n' grab NHL. Perhaps a forced shift to smaller players would make the games more exciting than they currently are. Players like Brandon Reid or Hnat Domenichelli are amazing hockey players but can't survive in the big man NHL. Other guys like Christian Dube were not really suited to the current NHL style. However, all of there guys are wonderfully talented as displayed by their junior careers or European play. Replacement players in hockey would not simply mean a decline in actual talent levels, as it would in most other sports and in fact, if the right players were taken (which would be very likely because after these guys there is a drop) the games would be even more exciting.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

If you want to talk about generating revenue, you need to just look at the uncompeteable marketplace. Small market teams can't match the big 10 million dollar salaries of a "free market system". Sure, theoretically, a team has a right to a player until he is 30, but whether that team can actually afford to sign him within their market constraints is another matter. Simply put (and how many times has this been the case especially with a team like the Oilers for example) the team is forced to trade the guy while he is just hitting his prime. This occurs before free agency kicks in, simply because the team cannot afford to pay him "market value", which is asinine considering that market value is determined by about 15% of the teams in the league, yet all teams must abide by it. Or the rare times where a team coughs up the dough, there are forced to cut corners everywhere else to the point where they are not competitive. As a result, these small market teams fail to make the playoffs, or get there and bow out early, resulting in a loss of potential playoff revenue that they desperately need to survive as ticket revenue is the largest revenue stream in hockey.

 

They could start by reading "Moneyball." It is simple. You pay guys what they are worth, and cut them otherwise. If indeed 15% of the teams are dictating salaries, then releasing players would drive down the cost of arbitration, by demonstrating that they indeed are not worth that much.

 

Is it the owners fault that they are in the position they are in? Without a doubt. But now they want to fix things people are saying "no, you can't". How idiotic is that? These guys made a massive investment to the point where a lot of the teams no longer are valued at their purchase price. You would think as an owner, you would have an opportunity to make money (or make some money back), and if you weren't collectively making money, you would be afforded the opportunity to alter the system so that there was potential to be profitable.

 

Can you alter the system? Of course. But these owners want to fuck over the players in the process. I remember the MLB strike of 1994, and this has the exact same structure. The owners are hell bent on a hard salary cap, and won't budge. The players won't go for a hard cap, because it would dramatically decrease their salaries, and give total control of compensation to the owners. This strike is going to drag on, and down the line, some court is going to rule that the owners did not bargain in good faith. They need to make concessions too.

 

As for the Forbes study, I would say take it with a grain of salt. It is based all off of estimates and projections and what Forbes counts as NHL generated revenue and losses is potentially way off. I'm not going to say the Levitt one is spot on, but I would easily consider more accurate than the Forbes one. And it is based on actual figures. When the Levitt report was issued, Levitt stated that the results were, if anything, on the optimistic side. This is a private auditing firm. Yes, the NHL hired them to perform the study, but it is their job to come back with honest numbers. On top of this, Bob Goodenow was afforded the opportunity multiple times before the study was issued publicly to go over it with Levitt and simply refused.

 

That's a laugh. Forbes does not pull numbers out of thin air. Their studies are well grounded, and they were absolutely right about MLB.

 

Bob Goodenow is a cancer to hockey (not that Bettman is much better). He only looks out for the "superstars" so to speak. That is who a salary cap is going to hurt. You won't have guys making 10 million a season any more. That number will have to be drastically cut, potentially in half. The guys making 500,000 a year aren't going to take a hit. It was the same thing in '94. The guys that saw the massive (and compartively improportionate) increases since then have been the stars and superstars.

 

And why not? Guys that make $500,000 a year can be easily replaced by other guys at that level. Talent in sports works like a pyramid. Guys that are paid millions are paid that because there are not many players at their level. Branch Rickey said that superstars don't kill you. It's the price of mediocracy. The superstars deserve their pay. It's the mid-level guys who kill you.

 

As an aside, an interesting poll in the Hockey News recently determined that something like 75% of fans would support and watch replacement players.

 

The problem is, the Hockey News is probably frequented by hardcore fans, who would watch hockey no matter who plays. I doubt their numbers could fill arenas. And I don't see how replacement players would work when the AHL is still playing. You would have some good players, sure, but the majority of replacement players are players too untalented to make the NHL otherwise. You would have 30 teams resembling the Charlotte Bobcats.

[Guest Ether]

They could start by reading "Moneyball." It is simple. You pay guys what they are worth, and cut them otherwise. If indeed 15% of the teams are dictating salaries, then releasing players would drive down the cost of arbitration, by demonstrating that they indeed are not worth that much.

Once again, the problem with that approach is that it would requires non-guaranteed contracts, like the NFL. The players will NEVER accept that.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Not quite. Moneyball is a book about the financial dealings of the Oakland Athletics, an MLB team. Basically, with arbitration, if you feel a player will make too much, you can decline to offer a new contract, thus releasing him.

[Lightning Flik 0]

Not quite.  Moneyball is a book about the financial dealings of the Oakland Athletics, an MLB team.  Basically, with arbitration, if you feel a player will make too much, you can decline to offer a new contract, thus releasing him.

If you go to arbitration in the NHL Al, and arbitration says "yes, this is his market value" and agrees with the value 100% and he is a tier 2 (I think it is two that I'm thinking of) restricted free agent, the NHL team HAS to sign them. They don't get a choice.

 

I might have the wrong tier, but there is a certain tier that if they win the arbitration, they automatically get re-signed at that price. This is what we are trying to tell you. This type of tier is one that many players have when you have their rights till 30 get. Hence the problem of just releasing them. You can't.

 

Edit:

You can release them but they have to release them through waivers and get tagged with some if not all of the salary. So that isn't feesible either.

Edited November 17, 2004 by Lightning Flik