Owners considering a new league...

Sorry if this has been posted....

Link (http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/sports/story.html?id=ba807c05-98d5-4e19-92da-ac11dfe49c67)

:huh:

Wow, that is one well prepared and well thought out and researched article. Its certainly all the information I need to get familiar with the subject.

GEEZ. Anything but actually solve the problem. Just make a new league and let it decay into sadness. :shakehead

Wow, that is one well prepared and well thought out and researched article. Its certainly all the information I need to get familiar with the subject.

Disgustingly true and comical.
:lol :lol :D :shakehead :lol:

New logo, new league, makes sense. :dunno:

GEEZ. Anything but actually solve the problem. Just make a new league and let it decay into sadness. :shakehead

When they formed the new league they would automically institute their desired financial system... much like the WHA did.

This just in......the league will be named the XHL, and the Stanley Cup will be re-named "The Big Shiny Trophy At The End." Bertuzzi has dibs on the name "He Hate Me".

Another scare tactic. NHLPA says it will hold out for a year, owners say screw you we're going somewhere else, and a CBA is signed on September 14th.

NHLPA would never let this happen, because without the NHL the union is null.

So the owners form their own new league and the players form their own new league. Which one has more appeal, the one whose biggest feature is that is owned by the same people who owned the NHL or the one whose biggest feature is that its players are the ones who played in the NHL?

Let them both start their own leagues. It would be the best thing for the fans to have two competitive major pro hockey leagues.

When they formed the new league they would automically institute their desired financial system... much like the WHA did.

No, really?!?!? I had no idea!
:shakehead :lol:

So the owners form their own new league and the players form their own new league. Which one has more appeal, the one whose biggest feature is that is owned by the same people who owned the NHL or the one whose biggest feature is that its players are the ones who played in the NHL?

Let them both start their own leagues. It would be the best thing for the fans to have two competitive major pro hockey leagues.

The owners have the venues, the team names that fans already identify with, & TV contract.

The league that the players would start would have the same problem that the WHA has as far as not being able to find places to play.

The players will eventually go where the money is.

No, really?!?!? I had no idea!
:shakehead :lol:

COOL GUY ALERT!

COOL GUY ALERT!

Sarcasm identification Expert! :D

Wow, that is one well prepared and well thought out and researched article. Its certainly all the information I need to get familiar with the subject.

How true is that! This is pathetic, and why if you are the reporter, would you bother with such a vague article. I mean we could have come up with a much better story ourselves. I think that if the owners were on the same page with eachother, let alone the players, then this CBA would be done by the 15th of September. But, they are not together, and therefore whether they find a common ground in the present NHL or decide to start a new league (RIDICULOUS!) it will only be a matter of time before it started down the same road. How sad it is for all of us fans, to have to be held hostage by greedy owners and players who aren't willing to concede some salary for the greater good or the game that afforded them all of the finer things in life.

Let me get this straight, after over 90 years of NHL hockey, it's all going to come to an end in January????

Let them both start their own leagues. It would be the best thing for the fans to have two competitive major pro hockey leagues.

And let the best league win...

My money is on the owner's league...

The owners have the venues, the team names that fans already identify with, & TV contract.


No. Some of the owners have venues. The NHL has the team names and the TV contracts, not the owners' new league.

Do you think TSN or CBC is going to pay the same for some new unestablished league as it would for a league with decades of history and with another unestablished league offering a similiar product? The owners wouldn't get nearly as much from its contracts.


The league that the players would start would have the same problem that the WHA has as far as not being able to find places to play.

The players will eventually go where the money is.

But the owners are starting a new league to try and prevent the players from getting the money.

There are plenty of arenas around North America that are NHL calibre and aren't owned by an NHL owner. Saddledome, Rexall Centre, Rose Garden, Houston's new arena, and Arrowhead Pond to name some of them. They could also go into arenas are that are almost NHL calibre like the new Winnipeg arena, Copps Coliseum, Ottawa Civic Centre, Toronto's AHL arena, etc.

The fans would rather watch the best players in the less desireable buildings then the less desireable players in the best buildings.

The players also know if they stick together they can beat the owners' new league and get their buildings from them for a song.

If it saves hockey and we keep the same team names, I could live with a new league run by owners. Just call it the NAHL for North American Hockey League. Because if you think about it, National Hockey League doesnt make sense for an international league like it is. Im really sick of the escalating contracts, if this new league gives players the option of continuing their current contracts but installs a cap and eliminates arbitration I will be very happy and the players would stay.

This is ********. The players want to play hockey, the owners want the players to play hockey whats the problem? :shakehead

There are plenty of arenas around North America that are NHL calibre and aren't owned by an NHL owner. Saddledome, Rexall Centre, Rose Garden, Houston's new arena, and Arrowhead Pond to name some of them. They could also go into arenas are that are almost NHL calibre like the new Winnipeg arena, Copps Coliseum, Ottawa Civic Centre, Toronto's AHL arena, etc.

I would be giddy as hell if they returned hockey to the Great Western Forum! I hope Im not the first to say that the atmosphere in Staples Center SUCKS!

If it saves hockey and we keep the same team names, I could live with a new league run by owners. Just call it the NAHL for North American Hockey League. Because if you think about it, National Hockey League doesnt make sense for an international league like it is. Im really sick of the escalating contracts, if this new league gives players the option of continuing their current contracts but installs a cap and eliminates arbitration I will be very happy and the players would stay.

I went to the Canucks.com board and asked why an international league like the NHL was called the National Hockey League and I got harrassed to hell!

Anyway, if the league keeps everything about the NHL the same but change the name and commisioner, I would be fine with it.

Having said that, I believe this will NOT happen to the NHL. The league is not going anywhere.

No. Some of the owners have venues. The NHL has the team names and the TV contracts, not the owners' new league.

err... the NHL could sell (or transfer) the franchise names to the owner's new league... It can be the same individuals involved (at the NHL level), the same franchises, etc... Just operating under a new entity (or 'brand')... and new business model of their choosing...

and with basically the same individuals involved, chances are the majority of the TV contracts would follow...

I dont expect at all for this new league to happen, but I think it would honestly save hockey if it did, at the cost of tradition.

How true is that! This is pathetic, and why if you are the reporter, would you bother with such a vague article. I mean we could have come up with a much better story ourselves. I think that if the owners were on the same page with eachother, let alone the players, then this CBA would be done by the 15th of September. But, they are not together, and therefore whether they find a common ground in the present NHL or decide to start a new league (RIDICULOUS!) it will only be a matter of time before it started down the same road. How sad it is for all of us fans, to have to be held hostage by greedy owners and players who aren't willing to concede some salary for the greater good or the game that afforded them all of the finer things in life.

I have made posts in the "rate the avatar of the user above you thread" that had more substance than that article.

I dont expect at all for this new league to happen, but I think it would honestly save hockey if it did, at the cost of tradition.

I think the cost of tradition would be a big blow IMO. Besides, even if they were to start a new league, can't they sill use the name "NHL", politically incorrect as the name is.

The avatar above my last post is the tops on these boards :D

I think the cost of tradition would be a big blow IMO. Besides, even if they were to start a new league, can't they sill use the name "NHL", politically incorrect as the name is.

Nhl..... NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE
The nation of hockey. Not the U.S..
That's how I look at it. :amazed:

err... the NHL could sell (or transfer) the franchise names to the owner's new league... It can be the same individuals involved (at the NHL level), the same franchises, etc... Just operating under a new entity (or 'brand')... and new business model of their choosing...


And you don't think that there would be anti-trust implications about setting something like this up?

Either the owners are serious or it's a bluff. I find this interesting, because we could have two leagues during a lockout(interestin...). The question is though, are these the signs of both sides getting extremely frustrated to the point that they either will never comprimise or will jump to a solution?




What the hell did I just say? :huh: :loony:



EDIT---Owners league would be called the NML(National Moneysaving League) where each city has a name about economics (Winnipeg Moneybags, Detroit Bills..etc).

Yes I know, my attempt at humour failed horribly.

They already got the league. Why don't they just accept the luxury tax and tell the other owners "If any one of you ******** goes over it..... NO IGINLA FOR YOU!!!!"

Even with a salary cap, the Rangers/Leafs/Flyers/Wings, etc of the world will figure a way around it if they need to...

I can't understand why 30 owners can't agree to work descretionarilly within a cap, but can agree to fold a century or so year old business so that they can put a cap in writing and work within it.....

Just accept the luxury tax and be done with it..........

:mad: :banghead: :mad:

And you don't think that there would be anti-trust implications about setting something like this up?

The NHL is a business (a franchisee)... nothing more... The owners can shut down operation - start a new league - and buy, or be transfered, whatever is remnents of the NHL shell at any time... The lawyers will work out the details... The existing obligations outlined by the CBA has been met... The NHLPA and the owners do not have a contract...

It's called how to break a union...

It's called how to break a union...

Yep. And its the most rigid of the posturing yet. :thumbd:

I can't understand why 30 owners can't agree to work descretionarilly within a cap, but can agree to fold a century or so year old business so that they can put a cap in writing and work within it.....
It's called collusion, and it's illegal. Major League Baseball got into troube for doing it many years ago.

No. Some of the owners have venues. The NHL has the team names and the TV contracts, not the owners' new league.

Do you think TSN or CBC is going to pay the same for some new unestablished league as it would for a league with decades of history and with another unestablished league offering a similiar product? The owners wouldn't get nearly as much from its contracts.




But the owners are starting a new league to try and prevent the players from getting the money.

There are plenty of arenas around North America that are NHL calibre and aren't owned by an NHL owner. Saddledome, Rexall Centre, Rose Garden, Houston's new arena, and Arrowhead Pond to name some of them. They could also go into arenas are that are almost NHL calibre like the new Winnipeg arena, Copps Coliseum, Ottawa Civic Centre, Toronto's AHL arena, etc.

The fans would rather watch the best players in the less desireable buildings then the less desireable players in the best buildings.

The players also know if they stick together they can beat the owners' new league and get their buildings from them for a song.


Just one problem with that. There are a lot of players with money. Some of them have done quite well over the years. But they can't compete with the money the owners have at hand. The poorest owner is worth several hundred mil, the richest player is under a hundred mil. They may be able to get some backing, but they would have a hard time with the start up expenses.

Even player pay will be an issue. Will the players league be able to pay as much as the owners league? Probably not. And as much as the players say they are united, most of the players making less than $1M per year will go to whatever league will pay them the most. Europeans? They will go to whatever league will pay them the most. Rookies? They will go to the league that will pay them the most. You will be left with the die hard NHLPA supporters in the players league, and their numbers will slowly dwindle as they see they can still make more money in the owners league.

who cares hockey is going down the toilet. I saw my fav player win the stanley cup last year and I can live without the NHL forever, I'm focusing 100% on international and Junior hockey. Frankly screw the NHL and the stupid stuborn idiots that run things, including the NHLPA! Both sides can kiss my A$$!

It's called collusion, and it's illegal.

din ding ding.

You get a seat at the front of the class!

who cares hockey is going down the toilet. I saw my fav player win the stanley cup last year and I can live without the NHL forever, I'm focusing 100% on international and Junior hockey. Frankly screw the NHL and the stupid stuborn idiots that run things, including the NHLPA! Both sides can kiss my A$$!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason why the league cannot afford to have a lockout. Goodbye expansion markets and new fans.

who cares hockey is going down the toilet. I saw my fav player win the stanley cup last year and I can live without the NHL forever, I'm focusing 100% on international and Junior hockey. Frankly screw the NHL and the stupid stuborn idiots that run things, including the NHLPA! Both sides can kiss my A$$!
:shakehead It's all about you isn't who. Who cares about the other fans of hockey, as long as you are happy. :shakehead

I hope the owners do start another league, when the CBA expires...just use the AHLers/young ones...I know a lot of people won't be too happy about it, but I'm sick and tired of these ridiculous arbitration rulings, and if this is the only way to get rid of these rulings, good for the owners/and even better for the league.

The players also know if they stick together they can beat the owners' new league and get their buildings from them for a song.
How much money will the players make in their own league? They would have to incur some of the financial risks. They could actually lose money on venture.

Also, will the players have to turn to an investor to help start the new league? The investor probably would want to turn a profit on the investment.

who cares hockey is going down the toilet. I saw my fav player win the stanley cup last year and I can live without the NHL forever, I'm focusing 100% on international and Junior hockey. Frankly screw the NHL and the stupid stuborn idiots that run things, including the NHLPA! Both sides can kiss my A$$!

You may want to look up the definition of "hockey fan" and try studying it.

no hockey fan should have to deal with this crap.

Hmmm... A SuperLeague maybe? There are probably 10 teams that will say screw you if an attempt to handcuff them with a salary cap is part of the equation. I see 2 leagues forming from the remnants of the NHL-- A superleague with the money teams and better players, and a league that is a step between the AHL and the Super League, kinda like a WHA of the 70s. This league will likely disappear and some teams may be absorbed by the Super league.

who cares hockey is going down the toilet. I saw my fav player win the stanley cup last year and I can live without the NHL forever, I'm focusing 100% on international and Junior hockey. Frankly screw the NHL and the stupid stuborn idiots that run things, including the NHLPA! Both sides can kiss my A$$!

Who cares? i would assume everyone writing on this silly board does....except you, I guess.

BTW, I like Vinny, too.......but I want a season/league/cup, too.

no hockey fan should have to deal with this crap.

I'm curious as to why you have posted over 1800 times on a hockey board if your alleigance is that weak.

Hmmm... A SuperLeague maybe? There are probably 10 teams that will say screw you if an attempt to handcuff them with a salary cap is part of the equation. I see 2 leagues forming from the remnants of the NHL-- A superleague with the money teams and better players, and a league that is a step between the AHL and the Super League, kinda like a WHA of the 70s. This league will likely disappear and some teams may be absorbed by the Super league.

oh boy. :help:

I'm curious as to why you have posted over 1800 times on a hockey board if your alleigance is that weak.
You got him there.

No proclaimed fan of hockey should just give up.

Maybe this new league would be a way to make hockey more exciting and filter out the useless(I know, that's a horrible term to use) players out. :dunno:


I just hope the CBA is resolved soon. :banghead:

I think the cost of tradition would be a big blow IMO. Besides, even if they were to start a new league, can't they sill use the name "NHL", politically incorrect as the name is.

why are you guys so surprised by this? what tradition will be lost should the owners fold the NHL and start a new league?

1. the owners own the team names, logos, histories and so forth for each of their hockey teams. that means the new league would have the leafs, bruins, habs, senators, rangers, islanders and so on. the championship trophy would still be the stanley cup. even most of the players would be the same.

2. if the owners fold the nhl, there will be no arena problems. the contracts for the arenas are with the hockey teams, not the nhl. those leases would remain in effect.

the championship trophy would still be the stanley cup.

Are you sure about that?

The NHL is not the rightful owner of the Stanley Cup.

You may want to look up the definition of "hockey fan" and try studying it.


"Hockey fan" != "NHL fan"

If more people had Vincent the Great's attitude towards the NHL there wouldn't be a lockout.

Hmmm... A SuperLeague maybe? There are probably 10 teams that will say screw you if an attempt to handcuff them with a salary cap is part of the equation. I see 2 leagues forming from the remnants of the NHL-- A superleague with the money teams and better players, and a league that is a step between the AHL and the Super League, kinda like a WHA of the 70s. This league will likely disappear and some teams may be absorbed by the Super league.

a 10 team league would never survive outside of Canada. there would be enough Canadian teams to keep them on TV there and outside of that hockey would be local only in the USA.

the 2nd league you mention would also be only local and would be marginally better than the AHL. that league would not have the financial clout to attract elite european players and would fall much closer to what the AHL looked like a few years ago when there were more veteran players in it. it would be a minor league.
a lot of the current franchises in the NHL that you invision being in that second league would rather fold up shop than participate in a minor league.

Are you sure about that?

The NHL is not the rightful owner of the Stanley Cup.

well...ask yourself, if the toronto maple leafs and montreal canadiens are in this new league who would withhold the stanley cup from competition for them?

Are you sure about that?

The NHL is not the rightful owner of the Stanley Cup.

Are you sure about that? I may be wrong, but I was pretty sure it was in fact NHL property.

why are you guys so surprised by this? what tradition will be lost should the owners fold the NHL and start a new league?


You are serious. :amazed:

Tradition is more than the physics that you listed.
Let's cancel Christmas and revamp it ...calling it Jesusday!!!! And we'll celebrate in the summer, with different families than our own!
No loss of tradition, right?

Uhhh isn't it called the WHA and isn't it failing? Seriously...

Hey! The WHA just started up, why don't we make another league so we have three professional leagues...

Why don't the owners just take over the WHA?

Are you sure about that? I may be wrong, but I was pretty sure it was in fact NHL property.

Here is a thread discussing the ownership of the cup...


http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=82976&highlight=Stanley+cup+possesion+ownership

The NHL is a business (a franchisee)... nothing more... The owners can shut down operation - start a new league - and buy, or be transfered, whatever is remnents of the NHL shell at any time... The lawyers will work out the details... The existing obligations outlined by the CBA has been met... The NHLPA and the owners do not have a contract...

It's called how to break a union...

This is what I was thinking... The players better watch out. It's unfortunate but Hockey is just not as lucretive as the other major sports and players salaries should reflect that fact. Now If I were in the union, I be pushing more for a temporary comprimise with much more emphasis on increasing the popularity of the sport so that maybe, someday, the NHL could become lucretive enough to support the desired salaries. By all means don't cave in, but a prolonged stoppage now can only hurt both sides. If you hurt the owners too much, they're not going to be as willing to sign big checks and may force them to do something as drastic as create a new league.

I just recently returned from a cross-country road trip and discussed Hockey some with people not in Hockey markets (New Mexico, Oklahoma and such). Amazingly, the objection to hockey I heard most was that the rules were confusing and because of this they didn't understand what was going on (We all know how untrue that is, but obviously there is a need for some education). Next in line was that they had trouble following the puck, and I truely believe HD will eventually help with this aspect.

The NHL obviously realized this problem when they pushed for expansion but I feel they haven't done enough to popularize the sport. Hockey has a good balance of everything that most North Americans love in sports, and now with rollerblades, even people in the desert can even enjoy playing a game that used to be only for those who live in colder climates.

Guys you don't understand.

There will be no new league. Owners say they'll ditch the union if the union refuses to sign a better CBA. Union knows that this would be the union would be useless, so union is willing to compromise.


The owners could easily start a new league. Its not that tough when you own everything.

Guys you don't understand.

There will be no new league. Owners say they'll ditch the union if the union refuses to sign a better CBA. Union knows that this would be the union would be useless, so union is willing to compromise.

Come on!! Let us keep foaming at the mouth for a little while longer before reason sets in!

DownformNJ with the reality serum!

(I agree) :D

Are you sure about that?

The NHL is not the rightful owner of the Stanley Cup.

If not the NHL, who is the rightful owner of the Stanley Cup? The NHLPA?

As far as I understand, the Stanley Cup is an NHL asset - it is a league award... not an NHLPA award...

But even if the Stanley Cup is owned by the NHLPA, I'm quite sure they'd sell the cup to the new owner's league for their definition of the right amount of $...

_______________________________

BTW: I think this 'new league' alternative is just a threat - a negotiation tactic... I don't think things will get that far...

But it's interesting thinking about :thumbu:

Are you sure about that?

The NHL is not the rightful owner of the Stanley Cup.
Who is, the Czar of Russia?

Seriously though, I know what saying. Maybe the owners will start up the Pacific Coast Hockey Association again, and they will get the Stanley Cup.

Guys you don't understand.

There will be no new league. Owners say they'll ditch the union if the union refuses to sign a better CBA. Union knows that this would be the union would be useless, so union is willing to compromise.


The owners could easily start a new league. Its not that tough when you own everything.

I agree too but making a new NHL isn't a bad idea. If the Union caves in then they sign a new CBA and everythings ok but if they don't then they just make a new NHL with all the same teams and in a couple of years, it's gonna be as popular as the NHL.

I guess I kind of question the journalistic value of the article considering it was short enough to write on a napkin and without a reputable source and details.

If it's true, it's genius, and the NHLPA would fold like a house of cards. Sure the star players might keep the NHLPA's company line, but all the young players who are trying to make a living playing hockey would jump to NHL2 in a heartbeat, and you'd also see other fringe players that can't hold on doing the same. If there is enough of a current going into NHL2, then the stars would follow as well and it'd be a lost game for the NHLPA.

That's all if the story has an ounce of validity.

I'd be curious to see an NHLPA versus NHL league and to see where the players would go, and what players would go where. It'd only work if the overall number of teams remained the same or even a slightly smaller total of team. Obviously the talent would divide out to still have roughly 30 teams as today, possibly even two leagues of 16 teams for 32.

If not the NHL, who is the rightful owner of the Stanley Cup? The NHLPA?

As far as I understand, the Stanley Cup is an NHL asset - it is a league award... not an NHLPA award...

But even if the Stanley Cup is owned by the NHLPA, I'm quite sure they'd sell the cup to the new owner's league for their definition of the right amount of $...

_______________________________

BTW: I think this 'new league' alternative is just a threat - a negotiation tactic... I don't think things will get that far...

But it's interesting thinking about :thumbu:

You could probably get a good start on a new league for, I don't know, $300M? :dunno:

It actually makes me go back to the post I had recently talking about splitting the NHL into two leagues, the spenders (NHLPA backed) and the rest of the teams that want a cap. Two different leagues where the owners could go where they felt they were best served, you could fit in some intra-league games so they meet once a season at home each, or not, and then the best of the two leagues meet for the Cup final.

Have a read (http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=98828)

No. Some of the owners have venues. The NHL has the team names and the TV contracts, not the owners' new league.

Do you think TSN or CBC is going to pay the same for some new unestablished league as it would for a league with decades of history and with another unestablished league offering a similiar product? The owners wouldn't get nearly as much from its contracts.




But the owners are starting a new league to try and prevent the players from getting the money.

There are plenty of arenas around North America that are NHL calibre and aren't owned by an NHL owner. Saddledome, Rexall Centre, Rose Garden, Houston's new arena, and Arrowhead Pond to name some of them. They could also go into arenas are that are almost NHL calibre like the new Winnipeg arena, Copps Coliseum, Ottawa Civic Centre, Toronto's AHL arena, etc.

The fans would rather watch the best players in the less desireable buildings then the less desireable players in the best buildings.

The players also know if they stick together they can beat the owners' new league and get their buildings from them for a song.


It all depends on who you side with the owners or the players. I side with the owners, NHL players are to ****** greedy and want on par money that the other leagues players get,in which their is
only one problem! the NHL doesn't generate a fraction of the money the other leagues make. 76 % of all NHL revenue comes from the gate where as its around 50 % for the other leagues plus we don't have the TV revenue. When are the players going to wake up & realize they been getting paid way to much in accordance with what this league generates. If the 2 sides do form their own leagues all watch the owners, screw the NHLPA & their greedy ways.

It's called collusion, and it's illegal. Major League Baseball got into troube for doing it many years ago.

Time to read the law books again Puddywhacker. What was just described is absolutely not collusion.

Who is, the Czar of Russia?

Seriously though, I know what saying. Maybe the owners will start up the Pacific Coast Hockey Association again, and they will get the Stanley Cup.

Well, the last Tsar has been dead since 1918 so I guess it can't be him. I think it belongs to the Ayatollah's grandson. :D

*Hides in embarassment from extremely weak joke* :o

Hmmm... A SuperLeague maybe? There are probably 10 teams that will say screw you if an attempt to handcuff them with a salary cap is part of the equation.

I think the key to establishing an Elite NHL would be to place teams in major US markets, capital cities, and other cosmopolitan locations. By limiting markets, you would create a niche sport and higher demand by limiting access to the well-heeled customer.

New York, Boston. Los Angeles, Chicago, Montreal Washington Ottawa, Detroit, Dallas, and Miami.

Toronto would then be the flagship franchise of a Canadian League. They could compete for the Stanley Trophy (sponsored by Stanley Tools naturally) in keeping with their blue-collar image.

If I'm not mistaken the Stanley Cup belongs to a holding with roughly the same name.
They gave the Cup to the NHL, as it is supposed to be the trophy for the best hockey league in the world. This may have changed a bit, considering the long history of the Stanley Cup being the NHL's trophy. The holding would never seperate them.
If there would be a "new" NHL and it would still be the best league, which would be doable, there is no reason to suspect the holding taking the Cup away.

Well, the last Czar has been dead since 1918 so I guess it can't be him. I think it belongs to the Ayatollah's grandson. :D

*Hides in embarassment from extremely weak joke* :o

you better hide :beatup:

Time to read the law books again Puddywhacker. What was just described is absolutely not collusion.

I think David was implying that it would be collusion if the NHL owners 'secretly' agreed to a cap system amongst themselves - when the CBA spells out something far different - i.e. the 'free market' status quo that currently exists...

It actually makes me go back to the post I had recently talking about splitting the NHL into two leagues, the spenders (NHLPA backed) and the rest of the teams that want a cap. Two different leagues where the owners could go where they felt they were best served, you could fit in some intra-league games so they meet once a season at home each, or not, and then the best of the two leagues meet for the Cup final.

Have a read (http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=98828)

IMO, this is great... It's an alternative that a good fan of the game came up with to try and solve the problem (while considering and being compassionate towards both two sides)...

IMO, this is what the real world hockey negotiations need... More possible solutions... less bickering as to which side is right or wrong... Get to know, understand, and have compassion for the other side... and this only comes through dialogue and communication... The more dialogue and communication, IMO, the better...

How many proposals did the league submit to to the NHLPA... 6? How many proposals did the NHLPA submit to the NHL? Probably not even that many...

I say both the NHLPA and the NHL send hundreds of proposals back and forth... from the informal crazy ones sent via e-mail (or over a beer) to the dead serious formal ones sent by Fed Ex... Hell, if there is not going to be a year of hockey - at least have the two sides constantly talking and discussing things over that time - even if it's over crazy ideas (not that your proposal is crazy GoCoyotes... I personally think it's interesting... ;) )

That's the only way progress is going to be made... Not one meeting that takes place in August, one in September... one in December... etc...

IMO, constant communication (and thinking) is needed... Even if both sides are debating the existence of God... C'mon Goodnow... C'mon Bettman... Sometime in October, discuss and laugh over a beer about some crazy idea Milbury had to fix the problem - if the alternative is not talking or discussing at all!

I think David was implying that it would be collusion if the NHL owners 'secretly' agreed to a cap system amongst themselves - when the CBA spells out something far different - i.e. the 'free market' status quo that currently exists...

Easier to say than to prove. Petrolium companies agreed together to put the same price on Oil in the cities , it's so obvious that it's collusion but nothing to do about it.

Same with the NHL, NHLPA can claim all they want that there is a collusion , it will be very hard to prove it. In fact there's probably a collusion today regarding UFA - Superstars & no one says anything about it ? because it's hard to prove.

Easier to say than to prove. Petrolium companies agreed together to put the same price on Oil in the cities , it's so obvious that it's collusion but nothing to do about it.

Same with the NHL, NHLPA can claim all they want that there is a collusion , it will be very hard to prove it. In fact there's probably a collusion today regarding UFA - Superstars & no one says anything about it ? because it's hard to prove.

Ya, it perhaps would be difficult to prove...

Just to be clear, I see the Petrolium company collusion example different from the NHL collusion example...

Petrolium companies are all separate businesses that are in the oil industry... If collusion exists, this is cross-industry price fixing...

In contrast, the team franchises all belong to the same business (the NHL)... I personally don't have a problem with the team franchises fixing salaries (as they all belong to the same business - in fact, this is both common and legal in the franchising business - and IMO, I think that the franchisee - the NHL - should probably be determining the NHL salaries based on the salaries in the overall free market 'professional hockey industry')... But I do have a problem with the NHL doing it secretly - if they agreed with the NHLPA a completely different arrangement... IMO, that's collusion and illegal... In this case, the NHL is not obligating their legal contract... In this case, the NHL is being deceptive in getting around their legal contract through a 'secret' agreement amongst the franchises - and that's illegal...

How true is that! This is pathetic, and why if you are the reporter, would you bother with such a vague article. I mean we could have come up with a much better story ourselves.

The role of a journalist is to fufill the public's right to know. I'm sure we've all said "they should start a new league" but the fact any remarks that it were being considered would be false, as this was the breaking of this news.

Let's remember this wasn't the front page of the Citizen or anything.

no hockey fan should have to deal with this crap.

Exactly. Hockey was great before the NHL came along. Let's also not forget that 85 years ago, the NHL was a league with teams in Toronto, Québec, Montreal, Ottawa and Hamilton. Since then Ottawa lost its team (only to get it back some sixty years later), Québec lost its team only to have the moved franchise win the Stanley Cup the very same year and Hamilton is supposedly to small to support a franchise (despite being a larger city than many existing markets) and too close to Toronto (see New York City with its three teams, Los Angeles with its two, etc.)

In 1942 the league was condensed to the "original six" in an attempt to reign in the game, something that has been unthinkable in the NHL since at least 1994. In the history of the NHL, four Canadian teams have been relocated to the States (Ottawa, Hamilton, Winnipeg and Québec, correct me if I am wrong) while only one American team has moved to Canada (Atlanta). The NHL was created to Canadians could watch professional Canadian players play Canada's sport, and the ridiculous state in which it stands (fans lose out, people who have never played hockey in their life get rich) is a travesty. Boo!

If a new league means no Bettman it sounds like a good idea to me. Don't think it'll happen though.

Just one problem with that. There are a lot of players with money. Some of them have done quite well over the years. But they can't compete with the money the owners have at hand. The poorest owner is worth several hundred mil, the richest player is under a hundred mil. They may be able to get some backing, but they would have a hard time with the start up expenses.

What startup expenses? The biggest expense for the NHL is the players.

If the players are on board with their own league, what startup expenses do they have? Arena leases can easily be covered by the PA's warchest. They can hire all the front office staff that the owners laid off.


Even player pay will be an issue. Will the players league be able to pay as much as the owners league? Probably not. And as much as the players say they are united, most of the players making less than $1M per year will go to whatever league will pay them the most. Europeans? They will go to whatever league will pay them the most. Rookies? They will go to the league that will pay them the most. You will be left with the die hard NHLPA supporters in the players league, and their numbers will slowly dwindle as they see they can still make more money in the owners league.

But as far as the players are concerned this new owners league is just like the NHL bringing in replacement players. It won't draw worth a damn without real NHL players. And if the fans aren't there, the money won't be there either.

Meanwhile the players' league will be packing in the fans if they play in smaller venues or have cheap tickets for large venues like Skydome. They may not make as much as the old NHL teams did but they'll make more then the owners league will with scrubs and scabs playing.

The owners will also have to worry about paying off the loans they incurred while paying for their franchises and building their arenas. The players won't have to worry about that because their franchises were free.

What startup expenses? The biggest expense for the NHL is the players.

If the players are on board with their own league, what startup expenses do they have? Arena leases can easily be covered by the PA's warchest. They can hire all the front office staff that the owners laid off.


You do have lease arena, pay lawyers, buy uniforms, contract for travel expenses (planes, hotels, buses, etc...). Then you need to have staff in place to operate the arena (ushers, ticket takers, announcers, etc...). Then you also need team staffs (coaches, trainers, scouts, doctors, etc...). And let's not forget that you must have inssurance covearge. Most of this will need to be in place before you play a single game.

If the numbers are accurate that the league had $2B in revenue, and player costs were 75% of that. That means that the day to day operation of the team costs ~$500M, so maybe you need ~$250M just to get started. I'm not a business major, but I do know that there is a lot that has to be done before you start up something like this.


But as far as the players are concerned this new owners league is just like the NHL bringing in replacement players. It won't draw worth a damn without real NHL players. And if the fans aren't there, the money won't be there either.

Meanwhile the players' league will be packing in the fans if they play in smaller venues or have cheap tickets for large venues like Skydome. They may not make as much as the old NHL teams did but they'll make more then the owners league will with scrubs and scabs playing.

The owners will also have to worry about paying off the loans they incurred while paying for their franchises and building their arenas. The players won't have to worry about that because their franchises were free.

You sound as if you know all of the players personnally...

That is a very simple view of how things will work. Human nature will take the players where the best money is. That is why many Europeans come to the NHL to play in the first place, rather than being stars in their own countries.

And don't forget that there will be in an economic war between the two leagues. The owners will drive up the prices on anything they can to drive the players league out of business. And since many of the owners are experienced businessmen with billions of dollars in net worth, my money is on them.

What startup expenses? The biggest expense for the NHL is the players.

What startup costs? Do you know anything about business? Here's a list of the things that would have to be paid for before ever playing a game:

Lease for arena
Office Space
GM Salary
President Salary
Coaches
Marketing personnel or outsourcing
Customer Service Personnel
Scouts
Sales Personnel
Lawyers
Training of arena personnel
Marketing
Untilities
Uniforms
Web Development
Player signing bonuses
Computers, Printers, Copiers, Routers, etc.
Office Supplies

And that's just scratching the surface.

What startup costs? Do you know anything about business? Here's a list of the things that would have to be paid for before ever playing a game:

Lease for arena


Negigible compared to what the players make. Its the only real major expense they'd have.


Office Space

Already part of the PA


GM Salary

Employees aren't paid their entire salary up front.


President Salary

They already have a President and he's getting paid regardless.

Coaches

Employees aren't paid their entire salary up front.

Marketing personnel or outsourcing

Employees aren't paid their entire salary up front.

Customer Service Personnel

Employees aren't paid their entire salary up front.

Scouts

Employees aren't paid their entire salary up front.

Sales Personnel

Employees aren't paid their entire salary up front.

Lawyers

Already have lots of those working for the PA.

Training of arena personnel

Not the responsibility of the league.

Marketing

Already have this at the PA.

Untilities

Are you just making up words now?

Uniforms

Minor cost.

Web Development

Already done for the PA.

Player signing bonuses

Not needed because the players will have an equity stake.

Computers, Printers, Copiers, Routers, etc.

PA has already purchased this equipment and even if they didn't it's a minimal expense.

Office Supplies

Oh! They can't afford to start a multimillion dollar league because they can't afford paper and pens? Give me a break!

The PA, unlike the WHA, already has the infrastructure in place to form a new league. All they need to do is sign some leases, negotiate some broadcast deals and they'd be pretty much ready to go. They can even hire all those front office employees the NHL turfed during the summer to help them out.

You do have lease arena, pay lawyers, buy uniforms, contract for travel expenses (planes, hotels, buses, etc...). Then you need to have staff in place to operate the arena (ushers, ticket takers, announcers, etc...). Then you also need team staffs (coaches, trainers, scouts, doctors, etc...). And let's not forget that you must have inssurance covearge. Most of this will need to be in place before you play a single game.


Leasing arenas is the only tough part. The PA has plenty of lawyers already working for it. Travel expenses are not a big deal for a billion dollar business. The arenas already have employees in place. There are plenty of team staff available to work. The PA already deals with insurance for players.



That is a very simple view of how things will work. Human nature will take the players where the best money is. That is why many Europeans come to the NHL to play in the first place, rather than being stars in their own countries.


Many Europeans comes to the NHL not just for the money but to prove themselves against the best in the world. World class athletes are more about the competition then the money.


And don't forget that there will be in an economic war between the two leagues. The owners will drive up the prices on anything they can to drive the players league out of business. And since many of the owners are experienced businessmen with billions of dollars in net worth, my money is on them.

If the owners will just drive up the prices, why wouldn't they just negotiate with the players instead of getting into a bidding war with a competing league?

And those experienced businessmen with billions of dollars can't seem to be able to make money in hockey. Why would you put your money on them if they've proven they can't successfully run a hockey team? Unless they aren't really doing as badly at running a hockey team as they claim.

Leasing arenas is the only tough part. The PA has plenty of lawyers already working for it. Travel expenses are not a big deal for a billion dollar business. The arenas already have employees in place. There are plenty of team staff available to work. The PA already deals with insurance for players.




Many Europeans comes to the NHL not just for the money but to prove themselves against the best in the world. World class athletes are more about the competition then the money.



If the owners will just drive up the prices, why wouldn't they just negotiate with the players instead of getting into a bidding war with a competing league?

And those experienced businessmen with billions of dollars can't seem to be able to make money in hockey. Why would you put your money on them if they've proven they can't successfully run a hockey team? Unless they aren't really doing as badly at running a hockey team as they claim.

In most cases, the owners dont care about losing a few million dollars per year on their hockey team, even allowing it to happen, because they make many more millions (and billions) from their other business ventures.

players who aren't willing to concede some salary

huh ? players take pay cuts all the time. they are more than willing to concede "some" salary, they just will not agree to do it in a cap enviroment.

get the facts straight.

dr

NHL players are to ****** greedy and want on par money that the other leagues players get,in which their is.

liar liar pants on fire.

the players dont care what they are paid, they simply dont want to be paid under a cap.

dr

They don't want to be paid under a cap because it limits how much they can be paid. Of course they care what they're paid.

liar liar pants on fire.

the players dont care what they are paid, they simply dont want to be paid under a cap.

dr

i find this to be oxymoronish....and yes i knwo that aint a word, but if they didn't care what they were paid then they wouldn't care if it was within a cap or not, plain and simple the players must care what they get paid or they woudln't be so against a cap being put in place.. while the players may not care if they get 4 mil or 8 mil...they DO care what they get paid

and you answer to this will most likely be somewhere around the area of "it's a players right to get paid for what he brings in'' and you'll also argue that it's the owners fault if they pay the player more than they really wanted to keep that certain player, but that's a catch 22, said player said he wants a larger salary than what he's been offered, note: said player is a premier player in the league, should the owners cave and give him x million more than what they wanted they stand a chance of losing money becuase they went outside their budget... if they don't re'sign him and he becomes UFA they lose him for nothing, OR they make a trade such as the Weight to STL deal, yet they stand a chance at losing money as well.. w/ said player off team there's the possibility that you won't make it as far in the playoffs, if you even get there, however w/ said player on the team you'd be pretty much a lock for a playoff spot

all the above counts for possible lost revenue, not to mention letting a premier player go, who in most cases would be a fan fav... could dicourage fans and alienate them, also counting in lost revenue... it's cause and effect when you sign anyone to any contract, if the potential effect is great enough to make an owner pay the extra and go over budget a little, then obviously he'd be a fool to not sign and have a negative effect be blanketed over his team, i think i've rambled on enough for right now

They don't want to be paid under a cap because it limits how much they can be paid. Of course they care what they're paid.

many players are taking paycuts and have in the past. they dont want a cap, but will agree to contracts that are less than todays market value. what choice do they have ? if an owner only offers than 1m and they used to make 2m, they either take the pay cut or find someone else to pay them the 2m.

a) if someone is willing to pay them the 2m, then why should they agree to a system that limits that.

b) if no one is willing to pay them 2m, then they will have to take a paycut, right ?

pretty simple and no cap is needed.

dr

many players are taking paycuts and have in the past. they dont want a cap, but will agree to contracts that are less than todays market value. what choice do they have ? if an owner only offers than 1m and they used to make 2m, they either take the pay cut or find someone else to pay them the 2m.

a) if someone is willing to pay them the 2m, then why should they agree to a system that limits that.

b) if no one is willing to pay them 2m, then they will have to take a paycut, right ?

pretty simple and no cap is needed.

dr
Who has been taking paycuts aside from marginal players or players who are getting old and have maxed out their value like Brett Hull? Most of the avg players have been getting marginal increases in a sport where they make more on avg than football players and many of the team are above Bettman's 31 million dollar number already just trying to keep most of last year's teams. The same owners who claim to lose money yet keep spending created this market simply do not want to be the first one to sign a huge name to a big contract and get all the negative attention at this time.

If there is no hard cap, as soon as it's settled they will be spending as
freely as ever, which is what all the big market names available are counting on as well as the NHLPA.

And nothing will have changed. Status quo.

What startup expenses? The biggest expense for the NHL is the players.

If the players are on board with their own league, what startup expenses do they have? Arena leases can easily be covered by the PA's warchest. They can hire all the front office staff that the owners laid off.

I personally can't provide you a list of all the costs - as I don't have intimate knowledge of the professional hockey industry...

But I do know that 9 out of 10 new businesses fail within 5 years... and the number one reason is inadequate cash flow (i.e. not enough money coming in to cover the expenses going out)... I do know that the probability of a player's league to last longer than 5 years is 10%... If it is a new business that has the experience, resources, and contacts already in the industry through owning and growing an old business in the same industry - the probability of success goes up greatly -thus, why my money would be on a new owner's league...

Whatever you project the start up costs to be (your best - most realistic estimate based on careful study and analysis)... add 25% on top - that is at least what it will cost...

The players know how to play hockey (and get the most out of a CBA) - as a group, not how to run successful companies... If the players were going to go this route (start their own league), IMHO they would need financial and business backing from investors and business leaders to control the show - for even a fighting chance for success - business astute people who have spent their lives successfully running and growing entertainment (or sports entertainment) businesses... and, IMO, it would be a challenge in it's own right for the players to convince these business astute people to invest in a business where 75% of the revenue generated goes to the employees - in a business that has a foundation that basically shut down the NHL (a 100 year old brand) - as I assume that the players would want to at least make as much as they would currently in the NHL - and maintain the status quo - to even entertain starting a new league... Oh, and the main competitor is the former NHL guys... Good luck players :thumbu:

It's not easy starting up and successfully growing a new business in any industry... I imagine it is the same in the 'professional hockey industry'...

Part of me wants to see the players start their own league - as it would make a very interesting case study in 'The Idiots Guide to Biting the Hand that Feeds You' book one day...

If there is no hard cap, as soon as it's settled they will be spending as
freely as ever,

.

im confused ... if the players dont agree to a hard cap, the owners will in turn spend foolishly ?

how can they cry poor, but then turn around and spend like drunken sailors. the fact is, they will spend BECAUSE of 2 reasons

1) they can afford to
and / or
2) the choose to

what a messed up argument you are making.

dr

The players know how to play hockey (and get the most out of a CBA) - as a group, not how to run successful companies... ...

i agree and this is why the players reject the "partners" concept. they dont want to be partners. they want to be paid. the owners know business, and if the owners are freely choosing to pay them x dollars, then they know best.

its so simple its driving me mad. IF YOU DONT WANT TO PAY A PLAYER 3.5m THEN DONT ! but dont cry if he leaves becuase someone else CHOOSES to pay it to him.

dr

many players are taking paycuts and have in the past. they dont want a cap, but will agree to contracts that are less than todays market value. what choice do they have ? if an owner only offers than 1m and they used to make 2m, they either take the pay cut or find someone else to pay them the 2m.

IMO, the players just want to operate in a system where they make the most money possible (what they can get away with)... and the owners now finally want to operate in a system where they pay the least money possible (what they can get away with)... This is how it is supposed to work to keep an equilibrium - to keep things in check! If the players want as much as they can and the owners keep giving it to them - eventually, there is not going to be any more to give - i.e. bankrupcy...

With the way things are now, there is nothing to suggest that the escalating salary problem would correct itself in a 'free market economy' (i.e. as a group, the owners do not have the sense or discipline or whatever to control themselves!!) - therefore, the players want to maintain the status quo... The players love a system that allows out of control owners to act out of control...

I don't blame the players for their 'no cap' stance... I don't blame the owners for their 'cap' stance... IMO, it's the nature of the beast - such is business... The players want to stay in a system that has kept paying them more year after year - and the owners now want the salaries to stop increasing - and even better - decrease...

But I do side with the owners (even though I think the salary escalating problem is their fault)... IMHO, the players are getting too good of a deal - IMO, the NHL allowed the NHLPA to become too powerful - and I believe that it's killing NHL hockey...

I believe that the players should be multi-millionares (for what they do - and the large amounts of money that they help generate, IMO, they deserve it)- but not get paid so much that it ends up exploding the NHL - a league I grew up watching, with a team I've supported since a little kid...

I believe that the owners are guilty for the escalating salaries problem (IMO, it's not the players fault for getting as much as they can)... I don't have enough faith in the owners to turn the ship around on their own... It would be great if they could - but nothing proves to me that they would - IMO, the owners spending NEEDS to be controlled...

and thus, I support a cap - and support a lengthy lockout if necessary to get it...

IMO, salaries should be determined - 'at the top' - i.e. the NHL office... The NHL is the one who should be keeping an eye and hand on revenues and expenses... as any franchisee would...

Imagine a McDonalds (most obvious franchisee) business model that allowed the individual franchises to determine employee salaries... Imagine a business model that allowed the individual franchises to set how much they will charge for a big mac... Eventually the 'free market' between the franchises takes over - and the control the francisee has lessons and lessons to the point where it becomes the least powerful in the relationship... Not only does Macdonald's now compete with Burger King, Wendy's, etc... MacDonald's now competes with itself! The franchises start to think and operate like their franchise is what matters most of all - NOT the overall McDonalds... MacDonald's basically put a noose around its neck and hung themselves...

Like the NHL has done... and for really no good reason other than not thinking about the long term consequences...

i agree and this is why the players reject the "partners" concept. they dont want to be partners. they want to be paid. the owners know business, and if the owners are freely choosing to pay them x dollars, then they know best.

its so simple its driving me mad. IF YOU DONT WANT TO PAY A PLAYER 3.5m THEN DONT ! but dont cry if he leaves becuase someone else CHOOSES to pay it to him.

dr

you try telling this to the owners, they'll look you right in the eye and say you're wrong, if i don't pay him this much, my competitor will and then i'll be screwed, a player's value is driven up by supply and demand, if enough teams want you and you've put up 80 + points for the last 3 or 4 seasons then you're behind the wheel, and some idiot owner WILL pay 10 mil just because they think you'll keep doin it, but that isn't always the case and when said player falls on his face and only puts up 40 - 50 points that season, player y, who's a FA the next year will look and say i put up so many points two years ago, 70 points this year... i should be paid equal to him... so on and so forth and this is how the nhl has the HUGE out of control salaries, while yes i'll admit players thus far have taken less, many have done so JUST so they can get paid, but i'll agree, if the same cba is signed, salaries once again will be skyrocketing out of control, you have players who care about their teams and players who care about the $$$$, and unfortunately nowadays there's more who only care about the latter than the former,

IMO the cap wouldn't be just for the owners to control spending, but moreso for the players who make way too much to begin with, and as we've seen and heard, EVEN NHL PLAYERS say they make too much, yes not all of them say it, but all that have mentioned it have freely admitted that players today make too much

you try telling this to the owners, they'll look you right in the eye and say you're wrong, if i don't pay him this much, my competitor will and then i'll be screwed, a player's value is driven up by supply and demand, if enough teams want you and you've put up 80 + points for the last 3 or 4 seasons then you're behind the wheel, and some idiot owner WILL pay

and you think the players should agree to a system where one party WANTS to pay you x million but isnt allowed to ?

if someone wants to pay it, then whats wrong with that ? if no one wants to pay it, the market will correct. if the money is still being paid, then thats ok.

why should OTT be forced to break up their team when their owner and fans are willing to pay to keep the players ?

dr

IMO, the players just want to operate in a system where they make the most money possible (what they can get away with)... and the owners now finally want to operate in a system where they pay the least money possible (what they can get away with)... This is how it is supposed to work to keep an equilibrium - to keep things in check! If the players want as much as they can and the owners keep giving it to them - eventually, there is not going to be any more to give - i.e. bankrupcy...

With the way things are now, there is nothing to suggest that the escalating salary problem would correct itself in a 'free market economy' (i.e. as a group, the owners do not have the sense or discipline or whatever to control themselves!!) - therefore, the players want to maintain the status quo... The players love a system that allows out of control owners to act out of control...

I don't blame the players for their 'no cap' stance... I don't blame the owners for their 'cap' stance... IMO, it's the nature of the beast - such is business... The players want to stay in a system that has kept paying them more year after year - and the owners now want the salaries to stop increasing - and even better - decrease...

But I do side with the owners (even though I think the salary escalating problem is their fault)... IMHO, the players are getting too good of a deal - IMO, the NHL allowed the NHLPA to become too powerful - and I believe that it's killing NHL hockey...

I believe that the players should be multi-millionares (for what they do - and the large amounts of money that they help generate, IMO, they deserve it)- but not get paid so much that it ends up exploding the NHL - a league I grew up watching, with a team I've supported since a little kid...

I believe that the owners are guilty for the escalating salaries problem (IMO, it's not the players fault for getting as much as they can)... I don't have enough faith in the owners to turn the ship around on their own... It would be great if they could - but nothing proves to me that they would - IMO, the owners spending NEEDS to be controlled...

and thus, I support a cap - and support a lengthy lockout if necessary to get it...

IMO, salaries should be determined - 'at the top' - i.e. the NHL office... The NHL is the one who should be keeping an eye and hand on revenues and expenses... as any franchisee would...

Imagine a McDonalds (most obvious franchisee) business model that allowed the individual franchises to determine employee salaries... Imagine a business model that allowed the individual franchises to set how much they will charge for a big mac... Eventually the 'free market' between the franchises takes over - and the control the francisee has lessons and lessons to the point where it becomes the least powerful in the relationship... Not only does Macdonald's now compete with Burger King, Wendy's, etc... MacDonald's now competes with itself! The franchises start to think and operate like their franchise is what matters most of all - NOT the overall McDonalds... MacDonald's basically put a noose around its neck and hung themselves...

Like the NHL has done... and for really no good reason other than not thinking about the long term consequences...

hit the nail on the head, something needs to be put in place where teams work as a whole, yeah even in a franchise there's competition, but as you said, pay is the same across the board, it's what NEEDS to be done, whether by salary cap or some kinda base salary system that works mostly on bonuses

and you think the players should agree to a system where one party WANTS to pay you x million but isnt allowed to ?

if someone wants to pay it, then whats wrong with that ? if no one wants to pay it, the market will correct. if the money is still being paid, then thats ok.

why should OTT be forced to break up their team when their owner and fans are willing to pay to keep the players ?

dr

not saying any team should have to be forced to break up because of a cap, i'd hope there'd be some kind of a)franchise player exemption one or two players at most, or b) exemption for longevity w/ the club

Just one problem with that. There are a lot of players with money. Some of them have done quite well over the years. But they can't compete with the money the owners have at hand. The poorest owner is worth several hundred mil, the richest player is under a hundred mil. They may be able to get some backing, but they would have a hard time with the start up expenses.

Even player pay will be an issue. Will the players league be able to pay as much as the owners league? Probably not. And as much as the players say they are united, most of the players making less than $1M per year will go to whatever league will pay them the most. Europeans? They will go to whatever league will pay them the most. Rookies? They will go to the league that will pay them the most. You will be left with the die hard NHLPA supporters in the players league, and their numbers will slowly dwindle as they see they can still make more money in the owners league.

Not every player is Trevor Linden, I'm sure some of them actualy agree with a cap but won't go against what the union is saying. If the owners do form a new league and buy the team names from the NHL we might see some of these players sign with the new league....Brett Hull for example was considering the WHA but in the end signed with Phoenix, in the new league, Phoenix would have the same owner and same budget so they could probably sign Hull at the same salary, it would take one player and I bet you the rest of the core of the team would follow. Another example is Daniel Alfredsson who has been a Senator all of his career and took less than he would get on the open market to stay with the team, there's nothing that say he'll sign with the new leagues Senators and then influence the rest of the team to do so....then the players form a new union.

hit the nail on the head, something needs to be put in place where teams work as a whole, yeah even in a franchise there's competition, but as you said, pay is the same across the board, it's what NEEDS to be done, whether by salary cap or some kinda base salary system that works mostly on bonuses

Ya, but only if the goal is to have a healthy, successful business :D

My proposal is that all teams have the same base salary budget - whatever it is - i.e. $45,000,000... That is a fixed cost for every team - a 'cap'... Teams can spend less if they want...

When certain player performance milestones are met, the individual player makes a % of revenue generated. I.e. if Naslund hits 40 goals - he receives x% of the Canucks revenue generated for the season (where the NHL determines what the percentage is - through CBA negotiations with the NHLPA)... These performance milestones are variable costs - and they could make players mega-rich (if Cooke, for example, got 40 goals next season he would make several million more than his 'base salary' - i.e. he is compensated fairly for his achievement... while NOT altering his contract and base salary for the following year - assuming he's signed a two year contract)... The higher the performance and the more money a franchise makes, the more money the player makes, and because it is a variable cost, what is paid out is directly tied to how much is coming in - It's not 'out-of-owner-pocket'... and if Naslund does not reach 40 goals - he is not paid like a 40 goal player would (i.e. his 'compensation' accurately depicts his achievement - his salary depicts what he has done for the Canucks in the past, and has the potential to accomplish - and his variable cost depicts what he has actually done)...

When certain team performance milestones are met, all players make a % of revenue generated. i.e. If the Canucks make the playoffs, the players get y% of revenue... if the Canucks get a 100 point season, the players get z% of revenue... etc. The more success a team has, the more money a franchise makes, the more money the player makes, the more money the owners make... everyone is happy...

Teams that make large profits (generate a lot of revenue) will still be in higher demand (as far as which teams the players want to play for) - as the potential is there for the players to make more (because of the variable 'compensation' costs - and higher revenues)... yet, there is cost certainty amongst the league at the same time...

With a system like this, an added benefit is that players will want to stay with (or go to) successful teams (i.e. successful teams will generate more revenue as they go farther in the playoffs, etc. - thus the players get compensated more because of the variable 'compensation')...

For example, Ottawa will NOT have a large threat of having to dismantle their team (an argument that I've read a few times here)...

IMO, this is salary cost certainty - a lower fixed cost that is certain and the same for all teams - and certain player and team milestone variable costs (% of generated revenue for the season - where the %s are the same for all teams)...

Good players will not want to stay with poorly run (or break even) teams as x% of 0 = 0... Therefore, good teams that generate large amounts of revenue are rewarded...

I don't see how a system like this would be bad for the owners, OR the players... In exchange for a lower fixed salary cost - I would negotiate a higher variable cost...

If the team is making money, this implies that the team is being successful, which implies that the players are doing a good job - therefore large amounts of money made all around...

If the team is not making money, this implies that the team is not being successful, which implies that the players are not doing a good job - therefore there is not a large amount of money all around... No one is happy or making a lot...

A system like this, IMO, is absolutely fair for both the players and the owners...

Tom? Demented Reality? Anyone? Tell me how this proposal, which incorporates a salary cap is NOT good for the players - as well as the NHL... Please point out what I am missing...

huh ? players take pay cuts all the time. they are more than willing to concede "some" salary, they just will not agree to do it in a cap enviroment.

get the facts straight.

dr

Players take pay cuts all the time? I think yoiu should get your facts straight! If they always take pay cuts, explain to all of us why they bother with arbitration, and why they bother to hold out? When it is a proven FACT that by holding out the salary they lose is never made up anyway. Not to mention the FACT that they rarely have a decent year, let alone a good one.

not saying any team should have to be forced to break up because of a cap, i'd hope there'd be some kind of a)franchise player exemption one or two players at most, or b) exemption for longevity w/ the club

As ridiculous as it may sound, the players have to realize that if they absolutely do not want a cap, then they should expect to have no more guaranteed contracts. If they have a bad year, the team can walk away, or pay them according to their output. We all know that this arbitration thing is a total crock. They need to find a better way to judge what a player should get as a raise, and what better way then to make all contracts made up of incentives. # of games played, goals scored, assists, PP pts, ice time, hits, blocked shots, etc...Give all of these NHL lawyers something to do. The days of Lapointe having a decent year and then getting 5 years and 25 million dollars have to go, I realize that it is not the players who are having the brain cramps, and if someone offered me that money, I would sign it right away, but they need to come with a system whereby before a team signs a player they should have to clear it with a non biased opinion like arbitration should be, and that way maybe someone can slip a reality pill to the prospective GM and stop him before he makes a mistake that then throws the whole value system in the league out the window. I do not begruddge the players anything, and I do think the owners are to blame for what is going on in the NHL, but the only way to fix it is to find a way to work together, and if you look at the other pro sports like Basketball and Football, it really works.

Players take pay cuts all the time? I think yoiu should get your facts straight! If they always take pay cuts, explain to all of us why they bother with arbitration, and why they bother to hold out? When it is a proven FACT that by holding out the salary they lose is never made up anyway. Not to mention the FACT that they rarely have a decent year, let alone a good one. The demented part of your name sure fits!

i didnt say ALL players take paycuts... i said players in the NHL take pay cuts.

and when the get raises, its because the owners have CHOSEN to give it.

leave the insults out of it.

dr

As ridiculous as it may sound, the players have to realize that if they absolutely do not want a cap, then they should expect to have no more guaranteed contracts. If they have a bad year, the team can walk away, or pay them according to their output. We all know that this arbitration thing is a total crock. They need to find a better way to judge what a player should get as a raise, and what better way then to make all contracts made up of incentives. # of games played, goals scored, assists, PP pts, ice time, hits, blocked shots, etc...Give all of these NHL lawyers something to do. The days of Lapointe having a decent year and then getting 5 years and 25 million dollars have to go, I realize that it is not the players who are having the brain cramps, and if someone offered me that money, I would sign it right away, but they need to come with a system whereby before a team signs a player they should have to clear it with a non biased opinion like arbitration should be, and that way maybe someone can slip a reality pill to the prospective GM and stop him before he makes a mistake that then throws the whole value system in the league out the window. I do not begruddge the players anything, and I do think the owners are to blame for what is going on in the NHL, but the only way to fix it is to find a way to work together, and if you look at the other pro sports like Basketball and Football, it really works.

i agree .. if the players are going to make "salary cap" their battle, they will have to negotiate other areas.

-arbitration
-buyouts
-qualifying offers

these are three. one other area the owners should try and negotiate is an extra round of playoffs. say a wild card best of 5 round for 4 more teams. this gives the owners another source of revenue without having to pay the players. hey, if the players want to make the money, its going to be on their backs. fact is, if the owners could generate income by making the players play 500 games a season, then so be it. 500 is obviously an exageration, but if the owners truly are losing money and the players truly will not budget on the salary cap, there has to be another way to skin the cat.

dr

i find this to be oxymoronish....and yes i knwo that aint a word, but if they didn't care what they were paid then they wouldn't care if it was within a cap or not, plain and simple the players must care what they get paid or they woudln't be so against a cap being put in place.. while the players may not care if they get 4 mil or 8 mil...they DO care what they get paid

and you answer to this will most likely be somewhere around the area of "it's a players right to get paid for what he brings in'' and you'll also argue that it's the owners fault if they pay the player more than they really wanted to keep that certain player, but that's a catch 22, said player said he wants a larger salary than what he's been offered, note: said player is a premier player in the league, should the owners cave and give him x million more than what they wanted they stand a chance of losing money becuase they went outside their budget... if they don't re'sign him and he becomes UFA they lose him for nothing, OR they make a trade such as the Weight to STL deal, yet they stand a chance at losing money as well.. w/ said player off team there's the possibility that you won't make it as far in the playoffs, if you even get there, however w/ said player on the team you'd be pretty much a lock for a playoff spot

all the above counts for possible lost revenue, not to mention letting a premier player go, who in most cases would be a fan fav... could dicourage fans and alienate them, also counting in lost revenue... it's cause and effect when you sign anyone to any contract, if the potential effect is great enough to make an owner pay the extra and go over budget a little, then obviously he'd be a fool to not sign and have a negative effect be blanketed over his team, i think i've rambled on enough for right now

The problem with that Garry is not that they don't care being paid or not, they just want to be a free market.

Let me explain myself. Let's suppose you put a CAP & miraculously the NHLPA accept.

Year 1 : we see a decrease of salary of 10% & now 22 teams out of 30 teams are making profit.

Year 5 : we see a stabilization of salary but the REVENUE GOES UP & now all 30 NHL FRANCHISE are making money & they make money more & more each year after that.

I know you probably like so many other will say, THE HELL with players they make 2 millions a year they shouldn't cry about the owner making 20-30 millions a year.

The players no matter what will never get sympathy of the fans because of envy.

It's the owners fault anyway. There the ones forking over all this cash that has put them in this situation. :shakehead

So the owners form their own new league and the players form their own new league. Which one has more appeal, the one whose biggest feature is that is owned by the same people who owned the NHL or the one whose biggest feature is that its players are the ones who played in the NHL?

Let them both start their own leagues. It would be the best thing for the fans to have two competitive major pro hockey leagues.
Question: Who would pay the players in their new league? It seems to me like if there were billionaires lining up to buy NHL teams than there wouldn't be financial problems in the first place.

Maybe they'll work for free :lol

Question: Who would pay the players in their new league? It seems to me like if there were billionaires lining up to buy NHL teams than there wouldn't be financial problems in the first place.

Maybe they'll work for free :lol

A communist league... :handclap: :yo: :bow: :handclap:

im confused ... if the players dont agree to a hard cap, the owners will in turn spend foolishly ?

how can they cry poor, but then turn around and spend like drunken sailors. the fact is, they will spend BECAUSE of 2 reasons

1) they can afford to
and / or
2) the choose to

what a messed up argument you are making.

You forgot choice #3 which is why the league is where it is.

A few owners choose to think only of themselves.

All 30 owners at this time are speaking thru Bettman and everyone is holding the party line. That does not mean they are all on the same page with this after a new cba comes into play. We are where we are today because of the owners, they created this market and it is messed up. We will find out which owners in this group will not want a 31 million dolllar hardcap at some point and are willing to compromise that to keep their spending advantage to make up for poor hockey management abilities with their franchises.

And your right.
1. Some teams can afford to lose some more money than other teams.
2. Those teams are willing to make the choice and take a larger loss for a chance to win.

Every year it's the same two or three owners every year driving up the market for the other teams. Philadelphia, Detroit and the Rangers claim to lose money operating their franchises or claim to have to make the finals to break even. If there is no cap they will continue to do the same and the player agents know this and are counting on it.

All 30 owners at this time are speaking thru Bettman and everyone is holding the party line. That does not mean they are all on the same page with this after a new cba comes into play. We are where we are today because of the owners, they created this market and it is messed up. We will find out which owners in this group will not want a 31 million dolllar hardcap at some point and are willing to compromise that to keep their spending advantage to make up for poor hockey management abilities with their franchises.

Yes and Bob Goodenow and Trevor Linden speak for the players... but there are some players who have different views and opinions, some even ready to accept a cap. So the PA is weak and the union the owner's are forming is also weak, it's obviously just a matter of who caves first.

The problem with that Garry is not that they don't care being paid or not, they just want to be a free market.

Let me explain myself. Let's suppose you put a CAP & miraculously the NHLPA accept.

Year 1 : we see a decrease of salary of 10% & now 22 teams out of 30 teams are making profit.

Year 5 : we see a stabilization of salary but the REVENUE GOES UP & now all 30 NHL FRANCHISE are making money & they make money more & more each year after that.

I know you probably like so many other will say, THE HELL with players they make 2 millions a year they shouldn't cry about the owner making 20-30 millions a year.

The players no matter what will never get sympathy of the fans because of envy.


If the salary cap is tied to a percentage of revenue, the players share increases with the revenue increase...

Not every player is Trevor Linden, I'm sure some of them actualy agree with a cap but won't go against what the union is saying. If the owners do form a new league and buy the team names from the NHL we might see some of these players sign with the new league....Brett Hull for example was considering the WHA but in the end signed with Phoenix, in the new league, Phoenix would have the same owner and same budget so they could probably sign Hull at the same salary, it would take one player and I bet you the rest of the core of the team would follow. Another example is Daniel Alfredsson who has been a Senator all of his career and took less than he would get on the open market to stay with the team, there's nothing that say he'll sign with the new leagues Senators and then influence the rest of the team to do so....then the players form a new union.

But even when they do form a new union, the CBA is already in place with a salary cap. It will be difficult do do away with that once it is in place unless the salary cap is set at a rediculously low percentage of revenue.

But even when they do form a new union, the CBA is already in place with a salary cap. It will be difficult do do away with that once it is in place unless the salary cap is set at a rediculously low percentage of revenue.

Yeah I was just saying that they would form a new union.... and they'd need to so the owners don't take abuse of them and make them play at ridiculously low salaries (like the NHL was in the '40).

Yeah I was just saying that they would form a new union.... and they'd need to so the owners don't take abuse of them and make them play at ridiculously low salaries (like the NHL was in the '40).


I've got no problem with that at all. I just wasn't sure where you were going...

Ya, but only if the goal is to have a healthy, successful business :D

My proposal is that all teams have the same base salary budget - whatever it is - i.e. $45,000,000... That is a fixed cost for every team - a 'cap'... Teams can spend less if they want...

When certain player performance milestones are met, the individual player makes a % of revenue generated. I.e. if Naslund hits 40 goals - he receives x% of the Canucks revenue generated for the season (where the NHL determines what the percentage is - through CBA negotiations with the NHLPA)... These performance milestones are variable costs - and they could make players mega-rich (if Cooke, for example, got 40 goals next season he would make several million more than his 'base salary' - i.e. he is compensated fairly for his achievement... while NOT altering his contract and base salary for the following year - assuming he's signed a two year contract)... The higher the performance and the more money a franchise makes, the more money the player makes, and because it is a variable cost, what is paid out is directly tied to how much is coming in - It's not 'out-of-owner-pocket'... and if Naslund does not reach 40 goals - he is not paid like a 40 goal player would (i.e. his 'compensation' accurately depicts his achievement - his salary depicts what he has done for the Canucks in the past, and has the potential to accomplish - and his variable cost depicts what he has actually done)...

When certain team performance milestones are met, all players make a % of revenue generated. i.e. If the Canucks make the playoffs, the players get y% of revenue... if the Canucks get a 100 point season, the players get z% of revenue... etc. The more success a team has, the more money a franchise makes, the more money the player makes, the more money the owners make... everyone is happy...

Teams that make large profits (generate a lot of revenue) will still be in higher demand (as far as which teams the players want to play for) - as the potential is there for the players to make more (because of the variable 'compensation' costs - and higher revenues)... yet, there is cost certainty amongst the league at the same time...

With a system like this, an added benefit is that players will want to stay with (or go to) successful teams (i.e. successful teams will generate more revenue as they go farther in the playoffs, etc. - thus the players get compensated more because of the variable 'compensation')...

For example, Ottawa will NOT have a large threat of having to dismantle their team (an argument that I've read a few times here)...

IMO, this is salary cost certainty - a lower fixed cost that is certain and the same for all teams - and certain player and team milestone variable costs (% of generated revenue for the season - where the %s are the same for all teams)...

Good players will not want to stay with poorly run (or break even) teams as x% of 0 = 0... Therefore, good teams that generate large amounts of revenue are rewarded...

I don't see how a system like this would be bad for the owners, OR the players... In exchange for a lower fixed salary cost - I would negotiate a higher variable cost...

If the team is making money, this implies that the team is being successful, which implies that the players are doing a good job - therefore large amounts of money made all around...

If the team is not making money, this implies that the team is not being successful, which implies that the players are not doing a good job - therefore there is not a large amount of money all around... No one is happy or making a lot...

A system like this, IMO, is absolutely fair for both the players and the owners...

Tom? Demented Reality? Anyone? Tell me how this proposal, which incorporates a salary cap is NOT good for the players - as well as the NHL... Please point out what I am missing...

doesn't sound like a bad idea at all, didn't understand you fully the first time, a bunch on my mind earlier, but now that it's spelled out it aint too bad at all,

IMO, the owners spending NEEDS to be controlled...


I think this is the wrong use of market levers. Better and fairer is to make their spending ineffective in gaining an unfair advantage.



I don't see how a system like this would be bad for the owners, OR the players... In exchange for a lower fixed salary cost - I would negotiate a higher variable cost...


It sounds similar to one of the 6 proposals put forth by the owners. You make it sound a bit like the owners give the players stock options. Im not sure owners would agree to that particular percentage of revenue type bonus as an individual performance bonus.

Of course right now the biggest variable revenue is the playoff booty. And the variable cost of that now is very low. Its all gravy for the owner. .

Is the premise of players getting a percentage of the revenue that the problem is that when the owner negotiated his salary budgets he had no idea what his revenues would likely be? He was negotiating the salary based on the fact that all the games would be sold out at high prices and when attendance didnt max out, he lost money?

Perhaps since determining revenue by looking at the books of something designed to be a tax shelter is very misleading, they could use paid attendance as a proxy. If the teams collectively exceed 80% capacity attendance, all players get a bonus.


One of the problems with incentive based bonuses is that some great players never reached greatness until they found a 2-way game. Modano, Yzerman, Lecavalier. Performance bonuses would make them less of a team player which is so needed for success in the NHL.


Fans shouldnt want something that encourages selfishness in players for stats over team goals. It may be good for running a hockey pool where points are all that counts, but really we need role players sacrificing their stats for the team. Let the businessmen decide how much these are worth to them. They are smart enough to do it.

It sounds similar to one of the 6 proposals put forth by the owners.

Well, that's the proposal that I support :thumbu:

You make it sound a bit like the owners give the players stock options. Im not sure owners would agree to that particular percentage of revenue type bonus as an individual performance bonus.

Not so much a player stock option... but tying 'player compensation' more to a variable cost (as actual player output is 'variable' from season to season) than to a fixed cost... IMO, a variable 'compensation' is more fair and reasonable - given that players cannot guarantee their output from year to year - because the player output is not guaranteed, IMO, neither should their compensation be guaranteed... For example, Naslund cannot absolutely guarantee that he will score 40 goals next season... If he only scores 15 goals next season - IMO, he shouldn't be compensated as if he did score 40 goals... Naslund gets paid a guaranteed high fixed salary (because of his contributions in the past, and his potential to score 40 goals) but the 'variable' compensation he receives is lower because he didn't actually produce the results for the season...

IMO, one of the most frustrating parts of being a business owner is having to pay employees a lot of money when they are not getting the results - or doing the job that they are paid to do... this frustration is compounded when there is another employee who is generating the results, yet he is not being compensated for it...

For example, say Cooke scores 40 goals next season... Because of his contributions in the past he does not have a very high fixed salary (when compared to Naslund's fixed salary)... Yet, he produced over and above expectations and scored 40 goals... IMO, Cooke should be rewarded for this actual output - for the season he scored the 40 goals in - Cooke should receive the compensation that a 40 goal scorer should receive... If from then on out, Cooke proves to be a 40 goal scorer, then the next time his contract is negotiated, his fixed cost salary goes up significantly... If that one 40 goal season was a fluke, not much changes as far as his fixed salary goes - yet he is still compensated fairly and recognized financially for the one 40 goal season that he did achieve...

Is the premise of players getting a percentage of the revenue that the problem is that when the owner negotiated his salary budgets he had no idea what his revenues would likely be? He was negotiating the salary based on the fact that all the games would be sold out at high prices and when attendance didnt max out, he lost money?

IMO, the premise is that the owner has no idea what the player output will be like from season to season... Right now, the owner is expected to guarantee a player high compensation, yet the owner has no guarantees if the player will actually produce the expected results season to season... While it is reasonable, IMO, for the owner to absorb some of the risk - and thus pay high quality players high fixed compensation - with the potential to pay the player high variable compensation... IMO, the players also have to absorb some of the risk - after all, the owner is putting faith in him (the individual player) to perform... IMO, it is only fair for the individual players to stand behind the quality of their talent... and thus, absorb some of the risk by accepting (in addition to a fixed compensation) a 'variable' compensation based on actual performance...

One of the problems with incentive based bonuses is that some great players never reached greatness until they found a 2-way game. Modano, Yzerman, Lecavalier. Performance bonuses would make them less of a team player which is so needed for success in the NHL.

First, I don't consider this an 'incentive based bonus'... but rather a 'variable compensation that rewards what the player accomplished for the season'... and I see the 'fixed' salary as a compensation that rewards what the player has accomplished in the past - and has the potential to accomplish before the season starts...

Performance bonuses would include more than just stats... For example, those three players you mentioned are captains... Team captains (and alternate captains) are team leaders - and thus would be subject to higher compensation - Also, if the player has been a captain for several years with the same team, this would reflect in his 'fixed' compensation - and a higher variable compensation (for example, team captains receive x% of revenue more for the same output that a regular player would receive)- as his importance to the team is presumably higher - given that he is a captain... Things like years with the team, roles the player plays in (i.e. penalty kill, shutdown center, etc.) would play into compensation more than just stats... IMO, it is necessary and imparative to reward 'roles' not just stats... and even with stats - things like '# of times on ice during a game winning goal' are very telling - and IMO, should also count when determining player compensation...


Fans shouldnt want something that encourages selfishness in players for stats over team goals. It may be good for running a hockey pool where points are all that counts, but really we need role players sacrificing their stats for the team.

Agreed... In fact, I would make 'team achievements' very high variable costs - that apply to all players on the team... After all, the higher the achievements, the more money the franchise makes, and thus, the more money available to pay to the players...

For example,

Assume Todd Bertuzzi's base salary is $5 million (fixed cost - just for being alive and a member of the Vancouver Canucks)... After the season, the Canucks achieved a hundred point season, made the 3rd round of the playoffs, and Bert scored 100 points while being a leader on the team... Bert's compensation for the year - $10 million... he deserves it, and the money is there to pay it to him - as the Canucks generated a lot of money...

Now assume after the season, the Canucks achieved a fifty point season, last in the NHL, and Bert scores 30 points while floating around the ice virtually every game... Bert's compensation for the year - $5 million... he deserves it, and the money is there to pay it to him - even though the Canucks didn't generate a lot of money for the season...

Right now, the owner is expected to guarantee a player high compensation, yet the owner has no guarantees if the player will actually produce the expected results season to season... While it is reasonable, IMO, for the owner to absorb some of the risk


Its reasonable for them to assume all of this risk. They are the risktaking capitalists. The players are the employees.

Im still a little fuzzy on the distinction you are making between a variable cost and performance bonus.

How will this variable cost be determined? Sounds like you are saying by a judgement of what its worth, except in terms of a % of revenues.

How is this overpaying for someone now, that you are referring to, manifesting itself? I know that in Ottawa for example, we had 28-29 yr old Bonk and Lalime coming due for $3-4mil contracts on the salary track we had them on. It was decided they werent worth it. We allowed their salaries to get ahead of their worth to us. We were paying them for performances that went undelivered.

Since they were RFA's, we had to continue qualifying them at this level. If only we knew for sure they would reject the qualifying offer, we could make it and be off the hook. We could just let them sit until someone gave us a good trade. But they likely wouldnt, so we walked. Got 3 and 4th round picks. We have a farm system, and young players that can shift to take new roles. No Sens fans are really crying too hard over these. We probably would of a few years ago, lamenting the injustice of it all , oh the humanity for us all poor small markets.

But now we know we can find good role players we need for that price on the UFA market, so if we are missing something we'll get it. We dont deserve to get compensation for the RFAs we allowed to become overpaid underachievers. And Im not sure we really feel threatened because some other team is willing to take them from us.


If they were UFAs that were no longer performing 2 years into a 5 year contract signed after they poached this player from another team not thinking he is worth it, I really dont see the problem or where sympathy is coming from.



Now assume after the season, the Canucks achieved a fifty point season, last in the NHL, and Bert scores 30 points while floating around the ice virtually every game... Bert's compensation for the year - $5 million... he deserves it, and the money is there to pay it to him - even though the Canucks didn't generate a lot of money for the season...


You'd be willing to pay $5mil for that? I think you would be better off trading Bertuzzi for the next Chara-Spezza before they are proven and go on a long term rebuilding program to develop a youthful core to get a team that can compete into a playoff spot and have a shot at growing into a champ. It may be a nice warn fuzzy to have the games elite powerforward playing cheaply on a develpoing team, but why would owners or players want to provide incentives for that unnatural event to occur.

Oh hell.... lets just have the owners put the financial system they want in place and use replacement players. (It wouldn't work but at least we would have some sort of Hockey.)

Well one rumor squashed about an NHL acquistion for a potential owner's league(at least for the time being):
WHA denies reports of sale to NHL (http://www.worldhockeyassociation.net/)

In a number of current NHL markets there are enough arenas in the area so that both an Owners League and an NHLPA-backed league could field teams. In some cases, they may have to play at oddball times because of other tenants (NBA, minor league hockey, AFL, ABA, for example). More than likely, it would be an NHLPA League that would probably end up at these secondary arenas if they choose to put their teams in current NHL markets. One example being the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale area. Office Depot Center (The Panthers' arena), American Airlines Arena, and Miami Arena. Another is the NYC metro area, with MSG, Continental Airlines Arena, and Nassau Colisseum.

Ya, it perhaps would be difficult to prove...

Just to be clear, I see the Petrolium company collusion example different from the NHL collusion example...

Petrolium companies are all separate businesses that are in the oil industry... If collusion exists, this is cross-industry price fixing...

In contrast, the team franchises all belong to the same business (the NHL)... I personally don't have a problem with the team franchises fixing salaries (as they all belong to the same business - in fact, this is both common and legal in the franchising business - and IMO, I think that the franchisee - the NHL - should probably be determining the NHL salaries based on the salaries in the overall free market 'professional hockey industry')... But I do have a problem with the NHL doing it secretly - if they agreed with the NHLPA a completely different arrangement... IMO, that's collusion and illegal... In this case, the NHL is not obligating their legal contract... In this case, the NHL is being deceptive in getting around their legal contract through a 'secret' agreement amongst the franchises - and that's illegal...

The phrase collusion can and should be applied to any instance where one group of people or organizations pool efforts or make agreements to disadvantage another group of people. The word is used when such an agreement is tacit or otherwise. Collusion DOES apply (and I think most historical instances have been so) when there is an oligopoly, or oligopolistic competition (a small number of large/powerful companies in a large industry). Banking, Oil and Gas, Transportation, and Communications are all very good examples.

Oh hell.... lets just have the owners put the financial system they want in place and use replacement players. (It wouldn't work but at least we would have some sort of Hockey.)

i believe the implications could include decertifing of the union which would eliminate the entry draft and allow all players to be unrestricted free agents.

as discussed in another thread, the owners NEED the union to keep the rules of hte league from being in anti trust.

something like that.

dr

i didnt say ALL players take paycuts... i said players in the NHL take pay cuts.

and when the get raises, its because the owners have CHOSEN to give it.

leave the insults out of it.

dr

You're right, there is no need for insults, I just got a little over the top there.

You forgot choice #3 which is why the league is where it is.

A few owners choose to think only of themselves.

All 30 owners at this time are speaking thru Bettman and everyone is holding the party line. That does not mean they are all on the same page with this after a new cba comes into play. We are where we are today because of the owners, they created this market and it is messed up. We will find out which owners in this group will not want a 31 million dolllar hardcap at some point and are willing to compromise that to keep their spending advantage to make up for poor hockey management abilities with their franchises.

And your right.
1. Some teams can afford to lose some more money than other teams.
2. Those teams are willing to make the choice and take a larger loss for a chance to win.

Every year it's the same two or three owners every year driving up the market for the other teams. Philadelphia, Detroit and the Rangers claim to lose money operating their franchises or claim to have to make the finals to break even. If there is no cap they will continue to do the same and the player agents know this and are counting on it.

I agree. If you look back at the last baseball strike, the owners basically caved, so that they wouldn't lose any more revenue, and the first thing to happen after the new agreement...Albert Belle gets signed to a ridiculous contract!!! Truth be told, I am not a baseball fan in the least, but I can see the same sort of thing happening in the NHL. They strike, possibly lose the year and the playoffs, then they make some headway, get some sort of deal in place and resume playing the following year, only to have some moron owner say to hell with the greater good of the game, I need to sign this guy and BAM! Back to square one. My point is this, if they are going to strike and lose the year, they had better get a great deal done before they come back. Could you imagine, they strike all season, and then nothing changes? That is too much for this hockey fan to take!

The phrase collusion can and should be applied to any instance where one group of people or organizations pool efforts or make agreements to disadvantage another group of people. The word is used when such an agreement is tacit or otherwise. Collusion DOES apply (and I think most historical instances have been so) when there is an oligopoly, or oligopolistic competition (a small number of large/powerful companies in a large industry). Banking, Oil and Gas, Transportation, and Communications are all very good examples.

Agreed... I was pointing out that I consider the Oil example different from the NHL example (not exactly apples to apples) - as I consider the Oil example to be cross-industry collusion, whereas I consider the NHL example to be cross-franchise collusion... But both are examples of collusion...

I just wanted to be clear that I don't consider the NHL to be an industry - where the franchises are individual businesses operating in the 'NHL' industry - but rather the team franchises are simply that - franchises that operate under the NHL business (franchisee) that operates in the 'professional hockey industry'...

:amazed:

Its reasonable for them to assume all of this risk. They are the risktaking capitalists. The players are the employees.

As you know, whenever any two parties come together to transact business of any kind, one side is always asking the other (either consciously or otherwise) to assume more or all of the risk...

In this case, between the NHL and NHLPA parties, the NHLPA wants the NHL to assume all of the risk... The NHLPA wants the player compensation (salary) to be both high and guaranteed - regardless of how well the players actually perform... The NHLPA wants the players to receive high compensation while having no discourse if the players don't perform to the level expected... In other words, the NHLPA wants the players to assume no risk... The NHLPA wants the 'NHL economy' to continue down a path that does not hold the player responsible for their performance... Some will argue (including the NHLPA) that in a 'free market economy' it's up to the owners to decide how high (or low) the salaries will be... But IMO, and I think history backs me up, regardless of how nice and fair this system seems in theory, overall player salaries always increase... regardless of actual player performance...

Thus, IMO, the owner's budget (their fixed cost) that they assign to player salaries needs to be controlled - with an upper limit capped... IMO, if the players don't want to assume any of the risk, they have no 'fairness' argument here... They should simply accept what the owners decide to do (whatever it is)... IMO, if the owners are the ones expected to absorb all of the risk - then it is reasonable for the owners to absorb all of the reward... If this is the way the NHLPA wants it, then IMO, the NHLPA shouldn't concern themselves at all with what the owners make, what the NHL and specific teams generate in revenue, etc... If this is the way the NHLPA wants it, IMO, the NHLPA should simply accept the salary that the owners decide that the players will be paid (in any system the owners decide)... and that's it... If the owners are the ones expected to assume all of the risk, then the owners should be expected to reap all of the rewards - and decide to pay the players whatever the owners want - in any system the owners want... IMO, there is nothing more to negotiate and discuss... If the NHLPA doesn't budge on the risk allocation factor - then **** the NHLPA and the players... they are being totally unreasonable...

If the owners are taking on all of the risk, they should be making as much profit as they want (i.e. the owners should decide how much of a reward they will reap for their risk - the owners should be the only ones who decide what their risk is worth) - and pay the players a much lower salary than the players are getting now - but just high enough that the players don't decide to play in Europe, in the WHA, in the AHL, etc. Just high enough to keep the players in the NHL... The level of risk should be correlated to the level of reward... Do you agree?

Im still a little fuzzy on the distinction you are making between a variable cost and performance bonus.

It usually takes three rum and Cokes before I start to make sense :thumbu:

How player compensation works now is guaranteed base salary (fixed cost) + bonuses (fixed cost)... Bonuses imply that the player has done such a good job, that they deserve a 'bonus' above the base salary...

In my proposal, I break 'player compensation' down to guaranteed base salary (fixed cost) + a not guaranteed 'performance' salary (for lack of a better word) variable cost... This 'performance' salary component of compensation adjusts the player's overall salary depending on how well the player actually performed for the season - and how much money the franchise actually made for the season... and because it is not a fixed cost, how much the player earns does not have an upper limit... The more revenue a franchise generates, the more salary the player has the potential to make... Yet, because this component of 'player compensation' is tied to revenue - this ensures that salaries don't escalate at a dangerous rate...

I don't like to use the word bonus, because to me, this implies 'gravy' and not 'meat and potatoes'... With a salary + bonus pay model, the base salary is high, and the bonus is lower (when compared to the base salary)... In my proposal, the 'performance' salary more accurately adjusts each players overall compensation based on how the players actually perform for the season... It's not a 'bonus' per se, but a 'salary adjuster' that takes each player's contribution (and the team's success) into account... In my proposal, the base salary (fixed cost) + the 'performance' salary (variable cost) = the players' meat and potatoes... and the 'team' performance (variable cost) = 'gravy'... In my proposal, players have lower base salaries (which are fixed costs) and much higher 'performance' salaries (which are variable costs - % of revenue generated)... and 'team performance' compensation (also a variable cost - % of revenue generated)...

I see the base salary as compensation for what the player has done in the past - as well as what the player has the potential to do... I see the 'performance' component of salary as compensation for what the player (and team) has ACTUALLY done... which is variable from year to year - and thus, the player compensation that pays players for their services rendered should also be variable from year to year... In good years - the players should be paid more... In bad years, the players should be paid less...

In my proposal, while the base fixed salary is 'capped' and lower (then salaries are now)... the player has the opportunity to make A LOT more money than they are now (IF the players and the team performs well - i.e. IF the players are willing to assume some of the risk!)... as the variable components are directly tied to actual performance AND team revenue... While the base salary component of player compensation is 'capped' and lower (and guaranteed)... the players overall earning potential is MUCH MUCH higher then it is even under the current system!

How will this variable cost be determined? Sounds like you are saying by a judgement of what its worth, except in terms of a % of revenues.

Damn work!... I don't have time right now to finish my thoughts, respond to your other good points, or proofread what I wrote above... If what I wrote above isn't clear or doesn't make sense... my apologies... I look forward to responding and discussing this with you further at a later time (and perhaps date)...

If the owners are taking on all of the risk, they should be making as much profit as they want (i.e. the owners should decide how much of a reward they will reap for their risk - the owners should be the only ones who decide what their risk is worth) - and pay the players a much lower salary than the players are getting now - but just high enough that the players don't decide to play in Europe, in the WHA, in the AHL, etc. Just high enough to keep the players in the NHL... The level of risk should be correlated to the level of reward... Do you agree?


Feeling prolific today? :)

Well, I think. Isnt it that way now? When you say pay the players a much lower salary, you mean lower than the ones the owners thought they were worth when they signed them? Are all the players Phoenix signed this summer being paid what Phoenix thinks they are worth to them. Sure they would like to get them cheaper, but do they find it worth it?

If they later come to find that it wasnt worth it, it would seem to have been a bad risk in hindsight.

The owners probably project what reward they would like to reap from their risk. They may evaluate the reward and take the minimum risk necesary or they are comfortable with. I dont see why anybody would be allowed to make as much profit as they want. As much as they can, sure. You cant always get what you want as Mick would say.



In my proposal, while the base fixed salary is 'capped' and lower (then salaries are now)... the player has the opportunity to make A LOT more money than they are now (IF the players and the team performs well - i.e. IF the players are willing to assume some of the risk!)... as the variable components are directly tied to actual performance AND team revenue...


Like we signed Hasek to a $2mil base with a huge bonus if we win the Cup.

Well one worry i might have with this is that player like Yashin may think he can make more money on a team like NYI, and decide to hold out until we traded him to a team where he was eligible to make more money. Or a player like Gleason would decide not to sign with us after 2 years from the draft and go to a team where he has better odds to make more money. Wait. But this would encourage UFAs to go to the rich teams who are doing well and winning and will be able to afford bigger bonuses. Wait.

Just fyi. Your proposal sounds a bit like the owners 2nd of 6 proposals, on Andres Stars page, except they didnt seem to suggest compensating depending on how much money the team made.

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/cba.htm
2.) A Performance-Based Salary System, in which a player's individual compensation would be based, in part, on negotiated objective criteria and, in part, on individual and team performance

Im not sure I completely understand what they are getting at. Or exactly what it helps. Say we had Bonk and he was only now worth 1.5mil with bonuses because he and the team did bad. We still dont want him.

What startup expenses? The biggest expense for the NHL is the players.

If the players are on board with their own league, what startup expenses do they have? Arena leases can easily be covered by the PA's warchest. They can hire all the front office staff that the owners laid off.



They will have to commit to contracts that are quite significant if they want to get the arenas. They hire GMs and coaches, they will want contracts that are secured (just like the players want secured contracts). They could end up committing $200m-$300m across a 30 team league. It will be 25-30 team league, after all the lesser players will demand jobs too or they will veto the rich stars creating 6-10 teams and giving themselves jobs with cushy salaries while the lesser players queue for the dole.

Do you see Lidstrom or Brodeur throwing in their life savings to build up enough capitial to pay other players with a 50% chance of losing it all while other players bludge their butts off on the ice eating fat salaries (yashin, turgeon etc etc)? I don't. Solidarity will break down if Lidstrom see Yashin bludging away eating up the salary he put in to float the franchise.

What I find quite funny about the players league is that no player would put his money in without a guarantee of getting back. The players don't want to commit to a fixed income in the NHL but they would demand it in the NHPLA league. Those who chip in will want security and salaries based on performance of the franchises. Wow sounds like the NHL owners now :joker:

GEEZ. Anything but actually solve the problem. Just make a new league and let it decay into sadness. :shakehead

How doesn't it solve the problem??? The NHL restarts as a league with a $20 million (or less) salary cap and then the ticket prices are more reasonable for fans everywhere. Then they could expand to even more markets.

Sounds great to me!!

Another scare tactic. NHLPA says it will hold out for a year, owners say screw you we're going somewhere else, and a CBA is signed on September 14th.

NHLPA would never let this happen, because without the NHL the union is null.

Perfect. Let's wrap up a deal and we're done. Then we get to watch hockey in 35 days or so.

So the owners form their own new league and the players form their own new league. Which one has more appeal, the one whose biggest feature is that is owned by the same people who owned the NHL or the one whose biggest feature is that its players are the ones who played in the NHL?

Let them both start their own leagues. It would be the best thing for the fans to have two competitive major pro hockey leagues.

Yeah, let the 500+ NHLPA guys run their own league into the ground with their own salary demands. :lol :lol :lol

If it saves hockey and we keep the same team names, I could live with a new league run by owners. Just call it the NAHL for North American Hockey League. Because if you think about it, National Hockey League doesnt make sense for an international league like it is. Im really sick of the escalating contracts, if this new league gives players the option of continuing their current contracts but installs a cap and eliminates arbitration I will be very happy and the players would stay.

They would keep the same name wouldn't they? They own the rights to the name. So would owners keep their team names. They own the rights.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason why the league cannot afford to have a lockout. Goodbye expansion markets and new fans.

And goodbye new fans and small market teams if the players in the NHL get their way.

I hope the owners do start another league, when the CBA expires...just use the AHLers/young ones...I know a lot of people won't be too happy about it, but I'm sick and tired of these ridiculous arbitration rulings, and if this is the only way to get rid of these rulings, good for the owners/and even better for the league.

It's best for fans too, because the ticket prices can be reduced / BETTER BE REDUCED!!!

no hockey fan should have to deal with this crap.

Of all the statements in this thread, this one is the most true. :handclap:

I just recently returned from a cross-country road trip and discussed Hockey some with people not in Hockey markets (New Mexico, Oklahoma and such). Amazingly, the objection to hockey I heard most was that the rules were confusing and because of this they didn't understand what was going on (We all know how untrue that is, but obviously there is a need for some education). Next in line was that they had trouble following the puck, and I truely believe HD will eventually help with this aspect.

That's just Americans pulling excuses out their butts. The reality is that they don't like hockey because they didn't play it/see it when they were young. The NHL has to plant seeds of hockey in the youth of the American south. Then they will reap a fan harvest in 20-30 years.

What startup costs? Do you know anything about business? Here's a list of the things that would have to be paid for before ever playing a game:

Lease for arena
Office Space
GM Salary
President Salary
Coaches
Marketing personnel or outsourcing
Customer Service Personnel
Scouts
Sales Personnel
Lawyers
Training of arena personnel
Marketing
Untilities
Uniforms
Web Development
Player signing bonuses
Computers, Printers, Copiers, Routers, etc.
Office Supplies

And that's just scratching the surface.

Yeah, I didn't understand his logic on how it would be cheaper for the players to start a league than the owners. The owners already have everything together. The players have nothing.

They don't want to be paid under a cap because it limits how much they can be paid. Of course they care what they're paid.

:lol Yeah, let's let the NHL GMs start paying the players $50,000 contracts and see if they still don't care. :lol

many players are taking paycuts and have in the past. they dont want a cap, but will agree to contracts that are less than todays market value. what choice do they have ? if an owner only offers than 1m and they used to make 2m, they either take the pay cut or find someone else to pay them the 2m.

a) if someone is willing to pay them the 2m, then why should they agree to a system that limits that.

b) if no one is willing to pay them 2m, then they will have to take a paycut, right ?

pretty simple and no cap is needed.

dr

That would be a great way for things to work if all 30 teams worked from the same budget. However they do not, therefore your system doesn't work. New York will always get the player for 2m because Calgary doesn't have 2m to spend. That is why hockey is dying in small markets. That is why the fans are hurting.

How any fan can support the players is beyond me.

And the other post just above yours explains even more the pressure on GMs to pay big contracts. Frankly they just don't always have a choice but to pay more.

its so simple its driving me mad. IF YOU DONT WANT TO PAY A PLAYER 3.5m THEN DONT ! but dont cry if he leaves becuase someone else CHOOSES to pay it to him.

dr

To: Small Market NHL team fans.

Please do not cry when a large market team takes your best player away.

Thanks for your continued support.

Signed: NHLPA

It's not about NOT wanting to pay a player 3.5m. It's about NOT being able to. That's the problem!! I'm sure the GMs in the league would be more than happy to hand out blank cheques to players and have them fill in what they want.

It's the fans who pay the biggest price for this sillyness.

It's not about NOT wanting to pay a player 3.5m. It's about NOT being able to. That's the problem!!

It's not a problem at all. The Devils and Avalanche each traded away enough talent during their Cup-winning years to build another NHL team, and they are STILL competitive. Player personnel budgets are a reality for every team.

To: Small Market NHL team fans.

Please do not cry when a large market team takes your best player away.

Thanks for your continued support.

Signed: NHLPA

It's not about NOT wanting to pay a player 3.5m. It's about NOT being able to. That's the problem!! I'm sure the GMs in the league would be more than happy to hand out blank cheques to players and have them fill in what they want.

It's the fans who pay the biggest price for this sillyness.

sheeesh .... of course its the fans who pay, so why should the fans, in NYR for instance, pay for players in CRL ?

damn that large market in PHX stealing Brett Hull from the small market Red Wings.

damn that large market CGY stealing Chris Simon from that small market NYR at the deadline last year. NYR knew they couldnt afford to resign him, but CGY traded for him anyway knowing they could.

damn that large market in PIT stealing Mark Recchi from that small market in PHI.

i am curious brother simpleton, what team cant afford to pay a player what he is worth ?

dr

sheeesh .... of course its the fans who pay, so why should the fans, in NYR for instance, pay for players in CRL ?

damn that large market in PHX stealing Brett Hull from the small market Red Wings.

damn that large market CGY stealing Chris Simon from that small market NYR at the deadline last year. NYR knew they couldnt afford to resign him, but CGY traded for him anyway knowing they could.

damn that large market in PIT stealing Mark Recchi from that small market in PHI.

i am curious brother simpleton, what team cant afford to pay a player what he is worth ?

dr

how do you judge a player's worth?... the simple answer to that could be stats on ice, however that's not the case, in this 'free market' of the nhl two teams get in a bidding war and no matter how many times you claim if you don't want to pay a player such an amount of money, it doesn't quite work like that if two or more teams want the player, they start by saying yeah we'll sign you this much this many years if that don't work they start adding money if that still don't work they add years. thus bringing us to the overpaid players of today being stuck with a team cause no other team will trade for that player with an outrageous contract, no matter how much you argue against this view, THIS is how it's been and THIS is what's gotta be controlled or stopped somehow someway

damn that large market in PHX stealing Brett Hull from the small market Red Wings. damn that large market CGY stealing Chris Simon from that small market NYR at the deadline last year. NYR knew they couldnt afford to resign him, but CGY traded for him anyway knowing they could. damn that large market in PIT stealing Mark Recchi from that small market in PHI. i am curious brother simpleton, what team cant afford to pay a player what he is worth ?

dr

:lol

Brett Hull, Chris Simon, Mark Recchi. Those are real big names in today's NHL right? :lol Nobody else wanted Recchi or Hull. Simon is a nobody. Let's find some better examples, please.

Yep, NYR couldn't afford Chris Simon. :lol Only Calgary could pick up the big price tag on him. lol :lol

:lol

Brett Hull, Chris Simon, Mark Recchi. Those are real big names in today's NHL right? :lol Nobody else wanted Recchi or Hull. Simon is a nobody. Let's find some better examples, please.

Yep, NYR couldn't afford Chris Simon. :lol Only Calgary could pick up the big price tag on him. lol :lol

who cares, signing guys like Kovalev to huge deals is of no benefit to the team that signed him.

is team A better by paying Kovalev 8m per season or by not having him ? id say they are better by not having him. so why should we feel sorry for another team that cant afford to pay Kovalev 8m ?

dr

how do you judge a player's worth?... ..we'll sign you this much this many years

you answered your own question ...

dr

you answered your own question ...

dr

you didn't answer the question.. i was posing a hypothetical situation that happens over and over again, using more money each time, thus driving salaries sky high, with what you quoted off my last post is simple if only one team is after that player, but many times there is more than one team vieing for that player's talent, and whether or not his stats show it the teams often try to outbid their oponents ( other teams ) for the player, thus often overpaying a player for a good many years and driving up salaries of other lpayers in the league when they look and say 'i've done more than him so i deserve more' which would be valid but the fact that the first player is overpaid makes it a moot point when it comes right down to it, no matter how much you say 'then they shouldn't offer it if they can't afford it' it doesn't work that way, try telling that to the 30 GM's in the league and you'll get a chorus of laughs and ppl telling you to go be a stand up comic, the present day cba is so skewed in the players' favor that the GM's have little power in these situations, the board needs to be bent so it's less warped and straightened out so both parties (nhl/nhlpa) can see past the bow in the board, right now it's too big to see over thus putting us where we are now...the stalemate of bettman and goodenow

.... but many times there is more than one team vieing for that player's talent,

so let me get this straight .. two (or more) teams are offering player similar money, yet you need me to tell you how a players value is determined ?

if he wasnt worth what he was asking, why would 2 (or more) teams be willing to pay it ?

a players value is determined by what an owner is willing to pay him. period.

dr

so let me get this straight .. two (or more) teams are offering player similar money, yet you need me to tell you how a players value is determined ?

if he wasnt worth what he was asking, why would 2 (or more) teams be willing to pay it ?

a players value is determined by what an owner is willing to pay him. period.

dr

yet when a player underperforms then where does that leave his value when he's got a guaranteed contract for 3 or more years?... right in the overpayed/underachievers category that many players are put in, many players aren't worth what they're asking however they get it for the simple fact that owners don't want their best players playing elsewhere or an owner doesn't want another team getting a certain UFA so they overpay him where no one else would even think of offering a contract to that particular player, the player's value is determined by what an owner is willing to pay him holds some water, but not much, not enough to be considered valid IMO, would you play 9 mil/year for holik?, most GM's out there wouldn't, but sather wanted him that badly and he didn't want any competition, thus creating most of the overpayed/underachievers of today, not saying sather acted alone, many GM's have been known to do similar

bottom line, a player's value should be as a result of what he puts out on the ice, yes he should get payed something because any player in the nhl would be among the elite of the world, but value should be a result of what that player brings, and unless you're talking about lemieux or gretzky... maybe howe or orr, aint no player worth even close to 9 mil, salaries SHOULD be incentive laden based on production, base salary just for being among the best players in the world, but if you feel you're worth x number of dollars you better show you're worth that much, im sure many would agree aside from the few that feel players should make a mint while owners keep shelling out and never getting a thing back

yet when a player underperforms then where does that leave his value when he's got a guaranteed contract for 3 or more years?...

thats the point of a "contract" ....

why should we feel sorry for an owner who has to live up to a contract ? we expect the players to live up to a contract, even if they are underpaid (so to speak).

dr

would you play 9 mil/year for holik?, most GM's out there wouldn't, but sather wanted him that badly and he didn't want any competition

well, NJD and TOR both offered similar money. so what is it ? a players worth isnt determined by what another party is willing to pay ?

who are we to say what a guy is worth, Bobby Holik doesnt care what you get paid and doesnt tell your employer you are overpaid.

three teams lined up to pay Holikd 45 million dollars, doesnt that indicate thats how much he was worth at the time ?

its not rocket science, if the player wasnt worth it, shame on the people offering it. why should i feel sorry for a stupid owner who offers a player much more than he should. and if another GM gives in to a player using a Holik or LeClair comparable, shame on that GM for giving in.

sheesh ... this isnt health care, it doesnt have to be fair.

dr

...no player worth even close to 9 mil,

says who ? why draw the line at 9m, how about no player is worth 150,000 or 1,500,000 ?

seriously, i dont know what you do, but you are worth what your boss will agree to pay you and not a penny more or less. same with hockey players.

dr

says who ? why draw the line at 9m, how about no player is worth 150,000 or 1,500,000 ?

seriously, i dont know what you do, but you are worth what your boss will agree to pay you and not a penny more or less. same with hockey players.

dr

These guys could make as much money as the can get for all I care, so long as the teams that pay them are able to remain a healthy part of this league. The unfortunate part is that hockey is, and never will be, a sport that can garner the finances of football or baseball. At some point, it does become about the actual dollars involved. In a strict sense, is it fair to restrict what they make? No, it isn't. But they are part of something larger than just themselves. The foundation for that larger entity is starting to erode, whether you believe it or not. If it does, which I believe it would in about five years on this present course, far worse problems will appear for players and owners alike. Losses of every kind would result for both sides. I have a feeling neither side wants that.

And unless you play in some professional sports league, it's not too fair to compare anyone to an NHL player in terms of how your relative worth is perceived. It's not static across industry lines (or even company lines). Far too many differences in far too many categories for such a blanket statement to be true. Again, I'd elaborate but there's too much to cover. I'd be nice if that were true but alas, 'tis not.

The foundation for that larger entity is starting to erode, whether you believe it or not. If it does, which I believe it would in about five years on this present course,

ok, so lets go with your doomsday scenario and the league basically crashes in 5 years and shuts down.

does that mean the demand for Pro hockey dries up ? no, there will still be 25-30 markets that will support a pro hockey league. a new league will spring up, using the foundation of whatever is left of the NHL and the new league will correct the market.

dr

ok, so lets go with your doomsday scenario and the league basically crashes in 5 years and shuts down.

does that mean the demand for Pro hockey dries up ? no, there will still be 25-30 markets that will support a pro hockey league. a new league will spring up, using the foundation of whatever is left of the NHL and the new league will correct the market.

dr

Is that supposed to be a better option than fixing the problems with the current league? A new league will not spring up over night.

Is that supposed to be a better option than fixing the problems with the current league? A new league will not spring up over night.

i didnt say it was a better option.

the best option would be to extend this CBA, start hockey in October and have the owners not offer more than they can afford.

although, the owners should take the players offer of a 5% roll back, lowered entry level contracts and reduced arbitration right (or zero).

dr

ok, so lets go with your doomsday scenario and the league basically crashes in 5 years and shuts down.

does that mean the demand for Pro hockey dries up ? no, there will still be 25-30 markets that will support a pro hockey league. a new league will spring up, using the foundation of whatever is left of the NHL and the new league will correct the market.

dr

You get the point, except for the fact that the league would be a shell of what it once was. The salaries that the players covet now would merely be pipe dreams.

I don't buy everything the owners are saying either. I do believe that many of the 20 teams that claim to be losing money could still be viable businesses at the current level. Some of the owners could manage that. But there are some that simply can't, they just don't have the resources to keep with the current market. Those teams would fail, and that would be the disaster. In some other industries, I would say good riddance. If you can't keep pace, it's better for the rest that you'd go out of business. But in this industry, that actually hurts the remaining businesses.

One of the biggest factors of that is in how all the outside influences perceive the NHL and its teams. Failing businesses don't inspire a lot of confidence; TV, advertisers, fans, etc. You show these people that your league has trouble sustaining itself, there will be less buying into it. Trying to put the spin on it that a stream-lined league is better and more efficient than its bulky predecessor is just a mild form of damage control. Anyone with some intelligence and the ability to do a little research will see that the NHL or one of its teams is more of a liability. It's not perceived as an asset anymore, and that is where the hurt comes in. You may be able to build it up again, but there will be skepticism towards the product and that will definitely slow the growth. This isn't even Business 101, this is more common sense than anything else.

I'm sure the last thing the PA wants is less teams. That means less jobs. If this union really does represent all players, they will do whatever it takes to make sure all 30 teams stay in the league. Anything short of that is contradictory of their stated goals, which makes this current situation dangerous. Which makes me quite hesitant to believe that they will continue on this path. What I said above may not happen, but the chances of it are far greater on this road everyone is currently one. Why would they want to give this scenario even a chance to play out? It doesn't make enough sense to for me to believe what they're saying at the moment. These are smart men, I know they have thought of such a scenario and its part of their process right now.

If you look at this all one way, it's fairly simple. You look at it another way, it's overly-complex. It's all quite confusing. But easier to absorb if you keep your mind open to all the possibilities.

if he wasnt worth what he was asking, why would 2 (or more) teams be willing to pay it ?dr

They are willing to pay it so that the player plays for them and not someone else. You can't win hockey games without good players. You can't have good players if you don't outbid the opposition for that player's services.

Teams like Edmonton can't get into bidding wars cause they will lose to teams like the New York Rangers who will offer more. Of course New York is going to offer more money to a given player, because that extra cash will make that player want to play for them instead of a team like Edmonton. Whether a player is only worth 2 million a year or not is pointless. If paying him 2.5 million will encourage the player to leave Edmonton (who can't offer more than 2 million) and join New York, then that is what New York will do. They would be stupid not to, because they would have failed to improve their team. When they sign the player, then New York is a better team for it, and they don't care cause they got the cash. However now the small market Edmonton Oilers are a worse team because of it. Then another player somewhere else expects more money because the player who signed with New York is earning 2.5 million so he thinks he should too. So player salaries go up. Is New York's GM the one to blame? No! He has to improve his team or he gets fired. He just happens to have a bigger cash reserve to draw on than Edmonton. He did what he had to do, but player's salaries around the league will go up because of it.

It's clearly not about "wanting or not wanting" to pay a player a certain amount. New York's GM doesn't "want" to pay the player 2.5 million. But if that's what it will take to improve his team then he will "HAVE" to do it, or else his job will be on the line. Edmonton's GM in this case would kind of "want" to pay 2.5 million to keep the player. But it's just not in the budget. So the small market teams suffer again, and the salaries go higher. It's a never ending cycle.

They are willing to pay it so that the player plays for them and not someone else. You can't win hockey games without good players. You can't have good players if you don't outbid the opposition for that player's services.


Who did Tampa Bay and Calgary have to outbid to get their good players. Are you saying they dont have good players. Clearly there is a better way to get good players, and that is to draft, develop, and trade for them before they get good.

You are upset because Edmonton cant buy enough good players. But thats exactly what is good. We dont want teams to be able to buy a cup. NYR and Tor have an advantage in that they can spend more than Edmonton, but the real way to develop a champion is to build it first. And it aint easy or quick. This is why the current marketplace created by this CBA is so great - you cant buy a champ. you must build it like everybody else.

They are willing to pay it so that the player plays for them and not someone else. You can't win hockey games without good players. You can't have good players if you don't outbid the opposition for that player's services.

Teams like Edmonton can't get into bidding wars cause they will lose to teams like the New York Rangers who will offer more. Of course New York is going to offer more money to a given player, because that extra cash will make that player want to play for them instead of a team like Edmonton. Whether a player is only worth 2 million a year or not is pointless. If paying him 2.5 million will encourage the player to leave Edmonton (who can't offer more than 2 million) and join New York, then that is what New York will do. They would be stupid not to, because they would have failed to improve their team. When they sign the player, then New York is a better team for it, and they don't care cause they got the cash. However now the small market Edmonton Oilers are a worse team because of it. Then another player somewhere else expects more money because the player who signed with New York is earning 2.5 million so he thinks he should too. So player salaries go up. Is New York's GM the one to blame? No! He has to improve his team or he gets fired. He just happens to have a bigger cash reserve to draw on than Edmonton. He did what he had to do, but player's salaries around the league will go up because of it.

It's clearly not about "wanting or not wanting" to pay a player a certain amount. New York's GM doesn't "want" to pay the player 2.5 million. But if that's what it will take to improve his team then he will "HAVE" to do it, or else his job will be on the line. Edmonton's GM in this case would kind of "want" to pay 2.5 million to keep the player. But it's just not in the budget. So the small market teams suffer again, and the salaries go higher. It's a never ending cycle.

what players have EDM lost by being outbid for by a team like NYR, TOR, DET or PHI (or other big spender) ?

Petr Nedved ? Surely you arent saying a team in the desert has the resources to pay hockey players that a team in the heartland of hockey doesnt ?

Doug Weight ? Surely you arent saying that STL is any better off or that EDM is any worse off because they couldnt afford to pay him 8m ?

MA Bergeron ? Oh wait, didnt they just sign him yesterday to a long term deal that escalates to almost 2m in the last year of the deal. If EDM is so *poor* why are they giving losers like Bergeron huge deals. Why should I feel sorry for their poor managment decisions.

So anyhow, instead of giving us the cliche "NYR can pay more than EDM", why dont you actually show us even ONE example of where EDM lost a player and was worse off for it.

Why dont you show us where the ability to pay players has helped anyone win a cup. DET can pay its players, but the core of that team was drafted. COL can pay its players, but the core of that team was drafted. TBY, nope. NJD, nope. The big spenders, PHI, TOR, and NYR havent one anything in decades. Big markets like BOS, CHI and LAK havent won anything in decades.

Small markets like MIN, CRL, ANA, BUF, WSH, CGY, TBY & OTT have more collective playoff success than any of the big spenders.

So what is it ? I dont see how money has helped anyone win.

DR

Who did Tampa Bay and Calgary have to outbid to get their good players. Are you saying they dont have good players. Clearly there is a better way to get good players, and that is to draft, develop, and trade for them before they get good.

You are upset because Edmonton cant buy enough good players. But thats exactly what is good. We dont want teams to be able to buy a cup. NYR and Tor have an advantage in that they can spend more than Edmonton, but the real way to develop a champion is to build it first. And it aint easy or quick. This is why the current marketplace created by this CBA is so great - you cant buy a champ. you must build it like everybody else.

?? :banghead: What does this have to do with anything? Will Edmonton be able to keep those good players they draft? Eventually those good players will leave to sign big contracts elsewhere. Gretzky is the perfect example.

. Gretzky is the perfect example.

lol ... the owner in EDM put 15,000,000 dollars in his pocket by trading Gretzky.

dr

what players have EDM lost by being outbid for by a team like NYR, TOR, DET or PHI (or other big spender) ?

Petr Nedved ? Surely you arent saying a team in the desert has the resources to pay hockey players that a team in the heartland of hockey doesnt ?

Yes, because of the American dollar compared to the Canadian dollar.

Doug Weight ? Surely you arent saying that STL is any better off or that EDM is any worse off because they couldnt afford to pay him 8m ?

:shakehead Arguing with you is pointless because you are blind to the obvious. :shakehead How doesn't Edmonton hurt losing Doug Weight? He was their franchise guy. He was what the fans came to see. He would be great playing beside Ryan Smyth right now. Gosh, Edmonton didn't even make the playoffs this year. How can you possibly say Doug Weight wouldn't help them? Yes Edmonton is worse off not having Doug Weight. The point is they couldn't pay him the money he wanted, so he's gone and Edmonton missed the playoffs. The fans suffer because of it too.

Edmonton would be better off paying Weight 8 million if they could, because that would make the fans happy, and make the team more competitive. But since Edmonton can't pay that much, and teams like Edmonton can't pay that much, then we need a salary cap so that those small market teams have an equal playing ground. 8 million is too much to pay for Doug Weight. I can say that!!! Why? Because the NHL cannot survive as a 30 team league paying out those kind of salaries. That's how we can say a player is being payed "too much."

MA Bergeron ? Oh wait, didnt they just sign him yesterday to a long term deal that escalates to almost 2m in the last year of the deal. If EDM is so *poor* why are they giving losers like Bergeron huge deals. Why should I feel sorry for their poor managment decisions.?

Bergeron? I guess that's what Edmonton had to pay so that the kid won't strike. If players are FA's they will sign elsewhere. If they are RFA's they will strike. Either way, the fans and team performance hurts, if the player won't/can't pay.

So anyhow, instead of giving us the cliche "NYR can pay more than EDM", why dont you actually show us even ONE example of where EDM lost a player and was worse off for it.

Edmonton lost Gretzky. That's the answer to that question. :shakehead

Why dont you show us where the ability to pay players has helped anyone win a cup. DET can pay its players, but the core of that team was drafted. COL can pay its players, but the core of that team was drafted. TBY, nope. NJD, nope. The big spenders, PHI, TOR, and NYR havent one anything in decades. Big markets like BOS, CHI and LAK havent won anything in decades.

So what if the core of Detroit is drafted. That is irrelevant. If Detroit couldn't afford to pay players like Lidstrom $10 million a year then he would be gone, and Detroit wouldn't be a contender every year. :shakehead

Small markets like MIN, CRL, ANA, BUF, WSH, CGY, TBY & OTT have more collective playoff success than any of the big spenders.

Yes, but as Gary Bettman said, only the big market cities can remain contenders year in year out. Many of those teams above didn't make the playoffs the season after they had their great playoff run. Look at Calgary, they already lost their second most important player in last years playoff run in Craig Conroy. If Calgary had $3+ million to throw at him they'd have gotten him back. But because they lost him, they are going to be a weaker team.

Look at Calgary, they already lost their second most important player in last years playoff run in Craig Conroy. If Calgary had $3+ million to throw at him they'd have gotten him back. But because they lost him, they are going to be a weaker team.

well here is the thing. you cant cry the players make too much money and then say that the teams are hard done by when the decide they dont want to pay a player too much. edit: CGY didnt try to resign him, the didnt want him back.

link:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040903.wduha3/BNStory/Sports/

" I was disappointed Calgary didn't do anything. The writing was on the wall there. They were going in a different direction. Now, they've got (Daymond) Langkow and some other guys, so they must have had a plan in place"

Craig Conroy is overpaid at 3m. CGY should be congratulated for letting him go, not felt sorry for.

Why pay a guy more than he is worth ?

DR

Why pay a guy more than he is worth ? DR

:shakehead It has already been explained to you why teams pay a guy more than he is worth.

They are willing to pay it so that the player plays for them and not someone else. You can't win hockey games without good players. You can't have good players if you don't outbid the opposition for that player's services.

Teams like Edmonton can't get into bidding wars cause they will lose to teams like the New York Rangers who will offer more. Of course New York is going to offer more money to a given player, because that extra cash will make that player want to play for them instead of a team like Edmonton. Whether a player is only worth 2 million a year or not is pointless. If paying him 2.5 million will encourage the player to leave Edmonton (who can't offer more than 2 million) and join New York, then that is what New York will do. They would be stupid not to, because they would have failed to improve their team. When they sign the player, then New York is a better team for it, and they don't care cause they got the cash. However now the small market Edmonton Oilers are a worse team because of it. Then another player somewhere else expects more money because the player who signed with New York is earning 2.5 million so he thinks he should too. So player salaries go up. Is New York's GM the one to blame? No! He has to improve his team or he gets fired. He just happens to have a bigger cash reserve to draw on than Edmonton. He did what he had to do, but player's salaries around the league will go up because of it.

It's clearly not about "wanting or not wanting" to pay a player a certain amount. New York's GM doesn't "want" to pay the player 2.5 million. But if that's what it will take to improve his team then he will "HAVE" to do it, or else his job will be on the line. Edmonton's GM in this case would kind of "want" to pay 2.5 million to keep the player. But it's just not in the budget. So the small market teams suffer again, and the salaries go higher. It's a never ending cycle.

Craig Conroy is overpaid at 3m. CGY should be congratulated for letting him go, not felt sorry for.DR

Weren't you the one saying that we shouldn't judge how much a player is worth? What are you doing now?

says who ? why draw the line at 9m, how about no player is worth 150,000 or 1,500,000 ?

seriously, i dont know what you do, but you are worth what your boss will agree to pay you and not a penny more or less. same with hockey players.

dr

Great, Calgary's management should get a medal. The team will not have the success they did last year, and the fans lost a favorite player. Way to go Calgary! :joker:

Now the LA Kings will be a better team. That's okay. They paid more for Conroy than Calgary would be able to. The LA GM will get to keep his job because he improved the team. The Kings can spend what they want because there is no salary cap, so they pay whatever they can.

This is not a system that works for all teams.

Weren't you the one saying that we shouldn't judge how much a player is worth? What are you doing now?



Great, Calgary's management should get a medal. The team will not have the success they did last year, and the fans lost a favorite player. Way to go Calgary! :joker:

Now the LA Kings will be a better team. That's okay. They paid more for Conroy than Calgary would be able to. The LA GM will get to keep his job because he improved the team. The Kings can spend what they want because there is no salary cap, so they pay whatever they can.

This is not a system that works for all teams.

right .. so big market LAK is better for signing Conroy and letting Palffy go ?

whats your point ? teams make player personel decisions, sometimes it means cutting salary. why should we care ?

dr

right .. so big market LAK is better for signing Conroy and letting Palffy go ?

whats your point ? teams make player personel decisions, sometimes it means cutting salary. why should we care ?

dr

We've already shot down all of your arguments, yet you keep dancing around throwing them back at us.

Because some teams have to cut more salary than others. :banghead:

Then teams are less competitive because of it. :banghead:

It's not an even playing field. :banghead:

right .. so big market LAK is better for signing Conroy and letting Palffy go ?

whats your point ? teams make player personel decisions, sometimes it means cutting salary. why should we care ?

dr

What's your point ? Teams can make player personal decisions, sometimes meaning cutting salaries, and they can do it all under a cap so that everyone has equality financially. They can do just as you say under a cap, so why not let every team have an equal chance rather than give some teams a better chance with less salary to cut.

right .. so big market LAK is better for signing Conroy and letting Palffy go ?

whats your point ? teams make player personel decisions, sometimes it means cutting salary. why should we care ?

dr

1. has it been said that palffy definitely won't be back in a kings jersey next year?, just asking cause i haven't heard anything on it in awhile

2. point is the market is skewed to the players complete advantage, no matter if a team caves to a player's original demands or not, chances are better than not that a player who's a fan fav/star on a smaller market team won't be there much longer after his contract runs out because the smaller market can't pay what he's asking for... no matter if his demands aren't met, there's still a better than not chance that what he settles for would still be too high for the smaller market club

3. why should we care?.. so you're saying you wouldn't give a damn if you're favorite team lost all it's younger stars because they got greedy and demanded way too much money and your fav. team couldn't even possibly afford what they are asking?

3. why should we care?.. so you're saying you wouldn't give a damn if you're favorite team lost all it's younger stars because they got greedy and demanded way too much money and your fav. team couldn't even possibly afford what they are asking?

That's the reason why I don't understand any fan being on the NHLPA's side. Unless of course you are a Detroit fan. Then you want the current CBA. But that is a selfish perspective. I'm a Habs fan. The Habs would have to cut salary to get down to the salary cap, but that's fine. I am more worried about 30 strong teams rather than my own team being strong.

3. why should we care?.. so you're saying you wouldn't give a damn if you're favorite team lost all it's younger stars because they got greedy and demanded way too much money and your fav. team couldn't even possibly afford what they are asking?

yes, if VAN decided they did not want to pay Bertuzzi, Naslund, Jovo or whoever, I wouldnt cry one bit.

the fact is, a young star has no leverage, so why give in unless you CHOOSE TO for your own good reasons. the Canucks are not caving into the Sedins demand for an extra few hundred thousand and I support that 100%. you cant have it both ways. if the teams are crying poor, then DONT OFFER THE CONTRACTS YOU CANT AFFORD !!!

dr

yes, if VAN decided they did not want to pay Bertuzzi, Naslund, Jovo or whoever, I wouldnt cry one bit.

the fact is, a young star has no leverage, so why give in unless you CHOOSE TO for your own good reasons. the Canucks are not caving into the Sedins demand for an extra few hundred thousand and I support that 100%. you cant have it both ways. if the teams are crying poor, then DONT OFFER THE CONTRACTS YOU CANT AFFORD !!!

dr

this has already been gone over 1000 times here so i'll just say, if it were that simple then the league wouldn't have the problems it's having now. there would be 30 strong competitive teams and the season would be as exciting as the playoffs since everyone would have an equal oportunity to make the playoffs

That's the reason why I don't understand any fan being on the NHLPA's side. Unless of course you are a Detroit fan. Then you want the current CBA. But that is a selfish perspective. I'm a Habs fan. The Habs would have to cut salary to get down to the salary cap, but that's fine. I am more worried about 30 strong teams rather than my own team being strong.

as a detroit fan im not even on the pa's side, the current cba has done well for us in the past few years yes, but i'd rather see a healthy complete league, than one where going into the season the whole league knows detroit are huge contenders, yes it's nice, but i'd rather see some serious competition out there

this has already been gone over 1000 times here so i'll just say, if it were that simple then the league wouldn't have the problems it's having now. there would be 30 strong competitive teams and the season would be as exciting as the playoffs since everyone would have an equal oportunity to make the playoffs



as a detroit fan im not even on the pa's side, the current cba has done well for us in the past few years yes, but i'd rather see a healthy complete league, than one where going into the season the whole league knows detroit are huge contenders, yes it's nice, but i'd rather see some serious competition out there

first off .. why does each season have to start with every team having an equal opportunity to make the playoffs. for starters, 14 teams will not make hte playoffs. for seconds, some teams are in a rebuilding phase and finally others just dont deserve to be in the playoffs due to their poor managing.

secondly, it is as simple as not paying more than you can afford. if the Canucks dont want to pay the Sedins, what choice do the Sedins have ? play in Sweden ? ok, see ya. VAN took a stand with Schaefer and didnt pay him more than they wanted too and they can do it with the Sedins too.

its simple if you have balls. its simple if you dont give a rats ass what other teams do and only worry about managing your team. if hte player has leverage (arbitration or pending UFA) then so be it. make a business decision and walk away from the player. it wont hurt you to replace a guy who can command 4m with a young guy who makes 900k. really it wont.

dr

first off .. why does each season have to start with every team having an equal opportunity to make the playoffs. for starters, 14 teams will not make hte playoffs. for seconds, some teams are in a rebuilding phase and finally others just dont deserve to be in the playoffs due to their poor managing.

secondly, it is as simple as not paying more than you can afford. if the Canucks dont want to pay the Sedins, what choice do the Sedins have ? play in Sweden ? ok, see ya. VAN took a stand with Schaefer and didnt pay him more than they wanted too and they can do it with the Sedins too.

its simple if you have balls. its simple if you dont give a rats ass what other teams do and only worry about managing your team. if hte player has leverage (arbitration or pending UFA) then so be it. make a business decision and walk away from the player. it wont hurt you to replace a guy who can command 4m with a young guy who makes 900k. really it wont.

dr

it won't hurt??? really?? well when the player who's commanding 4 mil is one of the better talent on your team, or at least is an up and cmoing talent then i'd say it would considering that on the ufa market if a player's only looking at 900k he must not be that great, thus hurting the team's chances of getting very far

if you have the balls you do your best to keep the player that can help your team the most, and as i, and many others have mentioned, that often times involves more than one team vieing for the player, which increases what you have to offer to try your best to keep him on your team, THIS is how salaries have escalated so rapidly, THIS is how players end up overpaid thanks to one good season, THIS is where the majority of the problems occur

you might be fine saying see ya to the sedins...but there's many owners and gm's out there who wouldn't be so happy having to do that to their younger players especially

by what you're saying there should be 14 teams every year that can spend as much as they can to ice the next best things to allstar teams, just because only 14 teams will make the playoffs... should we forget about the other 16 teams just because they may be in a rebuilding process?... does a rebuilding team have the same shot as any other team in the league? ... i should hope they do, just because a team is in a rebuilding mode doesn't mean that they can't compete for the cup like the big spenders do... the teams that don't deserve to be in the playoffs, i'd be interested in who you think those are and why.

EVERY TEAM deserves to have a shot at making the playoffs, they deserve the best shot they can manage, it's one thing if they try and don't succeed, it's another to say nope, you suck so don't even bother, hell, why should those teams that don't deserve to be in the playoffs even be in the league... kick em out, tell em to make their own damn league and find their own damn trophy

edit: end sarcasm

it won't hurt??? really?? well when the player who's commanding 4 mil is one of the better talent on your team, or at least is an up and cmoing talent then i'd say it would considering that on the ufa market if a player's only looking at 900k he must not be that great, thus hurting the team's chances of getting very far

if you have the balls you do your best to keep the player that can help your team the most, and as i, and many others have mentioned, that often times involves more than one team vieing for the player, which increases what you have to offer to try your best to keep him on your team, THIS is how salaries have escalated so rapidly, THIS is how players end up overpaid thanks to one good season, THIS is where the majority of the problems occur

you might be fine saying see ya to the sedins...but there's many owners and gm's out there who wouldn't be so happy having to do that to their younger players especially

by what you're saying there should be 14 teams every year that can spend as much as they can to ice the next best things to allstar teams, just because only 14 teams will make the playoffs... should we forget about the other 16 teams just because they may be in a rebuilding process?... does a rebuilding team have the same shot as any other team in the league? ... i should hope they do, just because a team is in a rebuilding mode doesn't mean that they can't compete for the cup like the big spenders do... the teams that don't deserve to be in the playoffs, i'd be interested in who you think those are and why.

EVERY TEAM deserves to have a shot at making the playoffs, they deserve the best shot they can manage, it's one thing if they try and don't succeed, it's another to say nope, you suck so don't even bother, hell, why should those teams that don't deserve to be in the playoffs even be in the league... kick em out, tell em to make their own damn league and find their own damn trophy

edit: end sarcasm

i wish i knew how to quote properly, so bear with me.

1) if your best player is only making 4m and you cant afford to sign him, then there is a bigger problem for your team than the CBA.

2) the evidence shows that small markets and rebuilding teams have had more success than any of hte big markets. the game is played on the ice, not on paper and just because TOR, PHI, and NYR have spent alot, they have not done better than ANA, MIN, OTT, CRL, BUF, CGY or TBY in the last 5 years.

seriously, the fact that there has been multiple different teams in the final 4 in the last number of years isnt evidence of competitive balance ?

dr

edit: i never said signing a UFA for 900k, how about just promoting a guy from your organization ? you know, like the big spenders do ? COL over the years let a bunch of guys go and promoted guys like Drury, Hejduk, Svatos, Skoula, Aebisher etc ... COL lost the best goalie of his generation and didnt go out and replace him with a high priced UFA, they replaced him with a player in the organization.

yes, if VAN decided they did not want to pay Bertuzzi, Naslund, Jovo or whoever, I wouldnt cry one bit.

the fact is, a young star has no leverage, so why give in unless you CHOOSE TO for your own good reasons. the Canucks are not caving into the Sedins demand for an extra few hundred thousand and I support that 100%. you cant have it both ways. if the teams are crying poor, then DONT OFFER THE CONTRACTS YOU CANT AFFORD !!!

dr

If teams don't offer contracts they won't be competitive!! Even if they build through the draft, they won't be able to keep the stars they developed. This has already been answered!

A young star does have leverage, just like Yashin had. Ottawa hurt tremendously because of that holdout. They may have won the cup by now if they had been able to pay Yashin what he wanted.

If teams don't offer contracts they won't be competitive!! Even if they build through the draft, they won't be able to keep the stars they developed. This has already been answered!

A young star does have leverage, just like Yashin had. Ottawa hurt tremendously because of that holdout. They may have won the cup by now if they had been able to pay Yashin what he wanted.

lol ... poor OTT, they only traded Yashin for Spezza AND Chara and those theives in NYI are stuck with Yashin at 9m per season.

how did OTT lose on that ? my goodness man.

dr

If teams don't offer contracts they won't be competitive!! Even if they build through the draft, they won't be able to keep the stars they developed. This has already been answered!

.

clearly if teams cant afford to offer contracts they shouldnt be in the NHL. however at some point, you have to make decisions that a players value on the market doesnt match his worth to your budget.

case in point .. OTT dealt Bonk for a draft pick because they didnt want to pay him 3.5m per season. Good for them, but why should we feel sorry for them ?

dr

2) the evidence shows that small markets and rebuilding teams have had more success than any of hte big markets. the game is played on the ice, not on paper and just because TOR, PHI, and NYR have spent alot, they have not done better than ANA, MIN, OTT, CRL, BUF, CGY or TBY in the last 5 years.

seriously, the fact that there has been multiple different teams in the final 4 in the last number of years isnt evidence of competitive balance ?

dr


Good Grief!!! :banghead:

Ottawa has an owner who is bleeding green. They were bankrupt for a while. So was Buffalo. Anaheim made the final and died the next year, Minnesota is not a small market, Carolina made the final and died the next year, Calgary will probably not make the playoffs based on trends with Carolina, Washington, Florida, Anaheim, Buffalo etc. The cinderella teams never stay on top.

Teams like Detroit, Philladelphia, Toronto, have been on top of the league for a long time.

Competitive balance is year in year out. Not a cinderella run to the cup final only to lose - and then miss the playoffs the next year. That's what happens every year with these cinderella runs to the final.

These arguments have been answered already.

There is no way on this planet or any other that a team like Edmonton would be able to do as well as a team like Detroit over the next 20 years. If both teams had exactly the same players, Detroit would have had a more successful 20 years than Edmonton. End of story!!

Not paying players is as silly as telling a gas station to not pay a person to pump gas because they can't afford it. If no one pumps gas they will have no customers at all. If these teams don't sign players to keep themselves half-a$$ed competitive then the fans will leave and the team will fold.

These arguments have been answered already.

.

well, sorry if i dont take your word on the issue. just because you say so, doesnt make it so.

dr

i wish i knew how to quote properly, so bear with me.

1) if your best player is only making 4m and you cant afford to sign him, then there is a bigger problem for your team than the CBA.

2) the evidence shows that small markets and rebuilding teams have had more success than any of hte big markets. the game is played on the ice, not on paper and just because TOR, PHI, and NYR have spent alot, they have not done better than ANA, MIN, OTT, CRL, BUF, CGY or TBY in the last 5 years.

seriously, the fact that there has been multiple different teams in the final 4 in the last number of years isnt evidence of competitive balance ?

dr

edit: i never said signing a UFA for 900k, how about just promoting a guy from your organization ? you know, like the big spenders do ? COL over the years let a bunch of guys go and promoted guys like Drury, Hejduk, Svatos, Skoula, Aebisher etc ... COL lost the best goalie of his generation and didnt go out and replace him with a high priced UFA, they replaced him with a player in the organization.


I think that Ottawa and the teams who have built throught the draft and have been smarter with their money will soon be faced with...how are they going to keep this great team they built together? Do you see a point to what Ottawa has done, if they decide that Hossa, Alfredsson, Redden, Chara, Havlat, and Spezza are asking for too much money? They build and build, but when it comes time to make a serious run...they decide not to, because they can't afford it. I think that teams such as this need to understand that spending is a necessity in todays game if you want to remain competitive. Colorado has done a great job of using their draft picks and plugging holes of guys who are older and on the decline. But you really can't forget that they have spent a BOAT LOAD of cash on their players. On top of that they recongized that you can't win with what you've got in your system alone. So they go out year after year and like Detroit plug holes at the deadline. Blake, Bourque, Gratton, and Konowalchuk, not to mention UFA like Kariya, and Selanne. Even when Roy retired, they decided to go with Aebischer because they knew the team would make the playoffs. They had planned on trading for a more experienced playoff keeper come the deadline, but since the rest of the league knew they were over a barrel, they were asking for too much in return. So what do the Avs do? They cheap out! They go with Aebischer and the washed up Salo, and guess what? They get bounced. So here you have an a great team, with Sakic and Foote getting older, Forsberg set to jump ship back to Sweden, and Tanguay and Hejduk expecting more money. It is a formula that suggests if you are not willing to spend money you can win, but the chances are slim and if you do win, the chances of repeating are astronomical. I don't mean spending money for the sake of spendind ala Rangers, but building towards something and shelling out to keep it together, to see it your vision through to the end. Something most teams can't do, or are not willing.