HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   "Cap no good for fans" (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=105570)

H/H 09-24-2004 06:50 PM

"Cap no good for fans, says expert"
 
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...=1044442957278

oilers_guy_eddie 09-24-2004 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by article
Those who support a salary cap say it allows small-market teams to remain competitive against wealthy clubs. Ross counters it also penalizes smart businessmen who make good decisions.

"Yes, it does protect owners in advance from making really stupid decisions," said Ross.

But a salary cap can make it difficult for a team to rebuild, Ross said.

"What it also protects the owners against is an owner who could spend wisely on a new free agent who will put his team over the top. If a team has not been a contender recently, and they can spend more money to make more money, there should be no limit on their ability to do so."

Ross used the Vancouver Canucks as an example of an NHL team that turned itself around both financially and on the ice, through careful budgeting and smart player signings.

Huh? Who'd the Canucks sign? Messier?

djhn579 09-24-2004 08:16 PM

"It is very difficult to say this plan is going to be good for players."


One could say that having 30 financially stable teams, which provide over 700 well paying jobs with an average salary of $1.3M/year would be good for the players.

Much better than the average player sitting out for a full year and getting no money, or having fewer teams (and jobs) with teams folding every few years...

But of course, the owners aren't really losing money. They just thought it would be fun to alienate all of their fans because the game of hockey was getting too boring with all the clutching and grabbing, or because they want to make even more money, which is what obviously happens when you lock out players and alienate your fans... :shakehead

Jack Canuck 09-24-2004 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djhn579
"It is very difficult to say this plan is going to be good for players."


One could say that having 30 financially stable teams, which provide over 700 well paying jobs with an average salary of $1.3M/year would be good for the players.

Much better than the average player sitting out for a full year and getting no money, or having fewer teams (and jobs) with teams folding every few years...

But of course, the owners aren't really losing money. They just thought it would be fun to alienate all of their fans because the game of hockey was getting too boring with all the clutching and grabbing, or because they want to make even more money, which is what obviously happens when you lock out players and alienate your fans... :shakehead

This I totally agree with you on.

GKJ 09-24-2004 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oilers_guy_eddie
Huh? Who'd the Canucks sign? Messier?

And they got rid of him right?

Tom_Benjamin 09-24-2004 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
And they got rid of him right?

They've signed two or three guys a year. They've used free agents to fill specific needs. Almost all of them have been reasonably priced and every one of them was worth the money they paid. Cassels, LaChance, Baron, May, Arvedson and Linden were the key players.

Tom

Digger12 09-24-2004 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
They've signed two or three guys a year. They've used free agents to fill specific needs. Almost all of them have been reasonably priced and every one of them was worth the money they paid. Cassels, LaChance, Baron, May, Arvedson and Linden were the key players.

Tom

And of those, I'd say getting Linden back was the best thing they ever did, even if it did cost them a 1st rounder.

Wait...did I just talk HOCKEY? Sorry guys, my bad. ;)

Tom_Benjamin 09-25-2004 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digger12
And of those, I'd say getting Linden back was the best thing they ever did, even if it did cost them a 1st rounder.

Wait...did I just talk HOCKEY? Sorry guys, my bad. ;)

That year his contract expired. The Canucks resigned him to a three year deal. They did trade for him, but then signed him. In the sense we are discussing, he was a free agent.

He didn't really cost them a first rounder because it was Linden and Washington's second round pick for Vancouver's first. I can't remember what the exact difference in picks was, but the Canucks got Linden for dropping 15-20 places in the draft. From the mid twenties to the forty something. That's not very much.

Tom

habitual_hab 09-25-2004 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djhn579
One could say that having 30 financially stable teams, which provide over 700 well paying jobs with an average salary of $1.3M/year would be good for the players.

Much better than the average player sitting out for a full year and getting no money, or having fewer teams (and jobs) with teams folding every few years...

But of course, the owners aren't really losing money. They just thought it would be fun to alienate all of their fans because the game of hockey was getting too boring with all the clutching and grabbing, or because they want to make even more money, which is what obviously happens when you lock out players and alienate your fans...

Noting your sarcasm, please show how the owners overall are losing money.

djhn579 09-25-2004 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by habitual_hab
Noting your sarcasm, please show how the owners overall are losing money.

There are many sources stating that the owners have lost over $240M each of the last 2 seasons. If you choose to not believe the numbers being reported, nothing I could show you will make any difference.

If you were to go to Yahoo and do a search with the following words, you will see multiple sources...

financial losses NHL 2004

s7ark 09-25-2004 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by habitual_hab
Noting your sarcasm, please show how the owners overall are losing money.


Please see the Levitt report

LINK

habitual_hab 09-25-2004 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s7ark
Please see the Levitt report

LINK

Please see how the Levitt report fails to show anything of the sort:

linkage

and for more background reading...

oilers_guy_eddie 09-25-2004 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
They've signed two or three guys a year. They've used free agents to fill specific needs. Almost all of them have been reasonably priced and every one of them was worth the money they paid. Cassels, LaChance, Baron, May, Arvedson and Linden were the key players.

Tom


Well, I'm sure that jobbers will still be available under whatever CBA is worked out. And unless Goodenow wins big, they probably won't cost $2 mill a year either.

Quote:

"What it also protects the owners against is an owner who could spend wisely on a new free agent who will put his team over the top. If a team has not been a contender recently, and they can spend more money to make more money, there should be no limit on their ability to do so."

Ross used the Vancouver Canucks as an example of an NHL team that turned itself around both financially and on the ice, through careful budgeting and smart player signings.
Are the Canucks an example of a team that spent more money to make more money?

Hey, their payroll has gone up and their revenue has gone through the roof! So they must have, right? Well, no. Correlation does not imply causality (or however they phrase it in Logic 101).

The Canucks have assembled a successful team, and their revenues have skyrocketed as a result.
The Canucks have assembled a successful team, and their payroll has increased as a result. The increase in payroll has been a result of the collective success of the players, not vice-versa. Tampa Bay will follow the same pattern. The Devils and Nordiques are examples. On-ice success leads to higher payroll costs.

Can anybody help Dr Ross find an example of a team that "spent more money to make more money"? His notion that such a thing is even possible runs counter to what's been observed in the NHL, and most people who follow hockey agree, to some extent, that you can't build a winner by going out and spending money on free agents.

The best example of a team that has substantially improved its on-ice fortune (and theoretically, made more money) through a big free-agent signing is the Maple Leafs, whose acquisition of Curtis Joseph, then Ed Belfour, had a major impact on the team's performance. Aside from that, I'm having a hard time. Certainly most people who follow hockey would agree that spending your way to success has been a failure in most cases it's been attempted. I find this article rings a little hollow as a result.

Pepper 09-25-2004 11:42 AM

Notice how it's only Toronto and New York based papers that say cap is bad for the league and the fans? Larry Brooks, Al Strachan etc.

OlliMackBjugStud 09-25-2004 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pepper
Notice how it's only Toronto and New York based papers that say cap is bad for the league and the fans? Larry Brooks, Al Strachan etc.

a cap is bad for the fans and i dont live or work in toronto or new york.

dr

MS 09-25-2004 12:10 PM

I don't live in Toronto or NY either. A hard cap would ruin the game of hockey as we know it.

Old Hickory 09-25-2004 12:11 PM

I don't think a cap will increase player movement. It will more than likely keep it stagnant or decrease it.

Motown Beatdown 09-25-2004 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingsjohn
I don't think a cap will increase player movement. It will more than likely keep it stagnant or decrease it.


I guess you dont follow the NFL or NBA.

H/H 09-25-2004 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingsjohn
I don't think a cap will increase player movement. It will more than likely keep it stagnant or decrease it.

Very, very wrong. Just a look at the NBA, even star players get shuffled back and forward.

oilers_guy_eddie 09-25-2004 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H/H
Very, very wrong. Just a look at the NBA, even star players get shuffled back and forward.

...and that hardly ever happens in hockey... :dunno:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:01 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.