HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Are the big market teams the losers here? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1313535)

Steve 12-30-2012 10:13 AM

Are the big market teams the losers here?
 
I'm curious to know if anyone can offer some argument here to my thoughts. I can't seem to find how the large market teams benefit in anyway to this proposed CBA.

Sure there will be a decreased salary moving forward to player, however, a significant amount of this money will be re-directed out with revenue sharing.

The large market teams have already lost considerable amounts of money by losing games etc.. obviously these teams are not the reason we have a lockout.

If the cap is set to $60M next year, what do cap teams do if they have some young talent coming up looking for their first or second deals after their entry level contracts? Larry Brooks made some great arguments about NYR and having to sign players like McDonagh, Stepan and Hagelin.

I'm just looking to see if there is anything at all in the most recently proposed CBA to benefit the big markets. Not that they need help, but surely if they come out of this with a loss, it will be VERY difficult for Bettman to get support from big markets moving forward - especially if it turns out that the big markets accepted/supported a lockout to help the small markets at the expense of themselves.

Thanks in advance

Fish on The Sand 12-30-2012 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 56925779)
I'm curious to know if anyone can offer some argument here to my thoughts. I can't seem to find how the large market teams benefit in anyway to this proposed CBA.

Sure there will be a decreased salary moving forward to player, however, a significant amount of this money will be re-directed out with revenue sharing.

The large market teams have already lost considerable amounts of money by losing games etc.. obviously these teams are not the reason we have a lockout.

If the cap is set to $60M next year, what do cap teams do if they have some young talent coming up looking for their first or second deals after their entry level contracts? Larry Brooks made some great arguments about NYR and having to sign players like McDonagh, Stepan and Hagelin.

I'm just looking to see if there is anything at all in the most recently proposed CBA to benefit the big markets. Not that they need help, but surely if they come out of this with a loss, it will be VERY difficult for Bettman to get support from big markets moving forward - especially if it turns out that the big markets accepted/supported a lockout to help the small markets at the expense of themselves.

Thanks in advance

They make more money. That's all there is to it.

pepty 12-30-2012 11:39 AM

Ron Maclean seems to be onside with this, at least that's what I think this rather incoherent ramble about the Leafs and Wings saving the NHL is about or perhaps he too was just getting a bit too deep into the "porte".

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/...ple-leafs.html

Like Detroit,(the Leafs) they’ve known what it means to roll out some of the finest. From 1993 to 2002 they were in the Conference final four times, but since the 2004-05 lockout they have not made the playoffs.


Promote the best game by hiring the best players and paying them what they deserve. ....
In Toronto, go public with your remedy to the lockout, use your clout and pay the right people

.................................................. ............................

Paul Henderson in 1972. Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky in 1987. Mike Richter in1996. Sidney Crosby in 2010 and the countless brilliant performances at the world junior showcase, from Jordan Eberle to Jonathan Toews.

Every one of those moments has something in common: No owners

That the above players are playing for their country and not for a team that is overpaying them seems to be the main point but is lost on Maclean.

thinkwild 12-30-2012 12:34 PM

Something else those moments have in common - great tournaments with no parity. And perhaps even more significant - no whining about the lack of parity.

Many now look back at era of the Oilers and Isles great team's and not only do they all know when that was, but refer to it as a golden age of hockey. Perhaps a time of the least parity in the league - and again, the least whining about the lack of it. The most common complaint back then was that too many of the teams made the playoffs, 16 of 21 at one time, making a mockery of the reg season, and why cant the NHL get 30 teams like the other leagues and have meaningful regular seasons.


I'd suggest that the large markets do bear some responsibility for this lockout in that they allowed Bettman to try and achieve the revenue sharing required to make their league function off the backs of the players again. And they are gaining lower expenses for the same revenues again. Which surely must make some wonder - with all the disparity problems the league has and projects to continue having, the largest most profitable markets, the ones whose ridiculously inflated over the top license to print revenues and profits are drowning out all the small markets, these teams are actually going to come out of this lockout with even more profits? Nice job Gary, or is that Grover, ensuring the richest benefit like everyone else. That should be seen as an inexcusable solution.

pepty 12-30-2012 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkwild (Post 56928391)
Something else those moments have in common - great tournaments with no parity. And perhaps even more significant - no whining about the lack of parity..

Well then, it seems that you and Ron Maclean are on the same page, whatever that may be.

du5566* 12-30-2012 12:48 PM

Well in Boston Jacobs refused to spend the money necessary to compete with the other big market teams under the old system so any cap is a good cap for Boston. The Bruins will spend right to the cap, field a competitive hockey team, and Bruins fans will be happy.

KingsFan7824 12-30-2012 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkwild (Post 56928391)
Something else those moments have in common - great tournaments with no parity. And perhaps even more significant - no whining about the lack of parity.

Many now look back at era of the Oilers and Isles great team's and not only do they all know when that was, but refer to it as a golden age of hockey. Perhaps a time of the least parity in the league - and again, the least whining about the lack of it.

Know what else the Oilers/Isles era had? No unrestricted free agency. Why would anyone whine about parity? Any team, anywhere, could build a dynasty. Those tournaments didn't have players and agents signing with the highest bidder. Players were stuck with the team that they were on, by nothing more than where they happened to be born(for the most part).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 56925779)
If the cap is set to $60M next year, what do cap teams do if they have some young talent coming up looking for their first or second deals after their entry level contracts?

Manage their team? Isn't that what GM's are for?

thinkwild 12-30-2012 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 (Post 56928921)
Know what else the Oilers/Isles era had? No unrestricted free agency. Why would anyone whine about parity? Any team, anywhere, could build a dynasty. Those tournaments didn't have players and agents signing with the highest bidder. Players were stuck with the team that they were on, by nothing more than where they happened to be born(for the most part).

lol, touché, although you say that almost too wistfully. The greatest combination of clothes for value i ever had was when we had those glorious sweatshops of low cost labour, sigh, the good ol days.

Motown Beatdown 12-30-2012 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 56925779)
I'm curious to know if anyone can offer some argument here to my thoughts. I can't seem to find how the large market teams benefit in anyway to this proposed CBA.

Sure there will be a decreased salary moving forward to player, however, a significant amount of this money will be re-directed out with revenue sharing.

The large market teams have already lost considerable amounts of money by losing games etc.. obviously these teams are not the reason we have a lockout.

If the cap is set to $60M next year, what do cap teams do if they have some young talent coming up looking for their first or second deals after their entry level contracts? Larry Brooks made some great arguments about NYR and having to sign players like McDonagh, Stepan and Hagelin.

I'm just looking to see if there is anything at all in the most recently proposed CBA to benefit the big markets. Not that they need help, but surely if they come out of this with a loss, it will be VERY difficult for Bettman to get support from big markets moving forward - especially if it turns out that the big markets accepted/supported a lockout to help the small markets at the expense of themselves.

Thanks in advance


that's false. They will share around 200 million, of over 3 billion in revenue. It's chump change compared to the other leagues.

The big market clubs will just make more money in the end, hence why they have allowed these lockouts to occur.

Crede777 12-30-2012 01:41 PM

No, I think almost every market is a loser in some significant way.

Let's look at a few "small" market teams:
1. Columbus - Instead of being able to play, the Jackets have to endure being labeled the "last place team" for essentially 2 seasons in a row. Also, they lost the All-Star Game as well as much of the revenue in the Arena District which is generated by the Jackets games. It's so bad that Columbus is looking for ways to offset the loss for local businesses (particularly restaurants).

2. Phoenix - They made the Western Conference finals. A season without hockey may, however, nullify the boost in popularity the Coyotes' postseason run generated.

3. Florida - Much like Phoenix, last season's success in Florida may likely be tempered by a season without hockey.

(You can also add LA to the group of Phoenix and Florida although they aren't really that small and the Lakers aren't being their usual dominant selves.)

While the large market teams lose the most money immediately, the lockout is undoubtedly helping to foster a sense of ambivalence towards the NHL in all markets. This hurts small markets the most particularly after a season where many of the smaller markets performed well.

Freudian 12-30-2012 01:43 PM

Teams/players that couldn't show restraint this summer will be the losers and I don't feel sorry for them. The players/Fehr chose to use the cap escalator so we got a high cap for this season. Some teams chose to use that cap space despite knowing the league would look to reduce costs.

If there is any damage from cap crunch, it's self-inflicted.

JAX 12-30-2012 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crede777 (Post 56930109)
No, I think almost every market is a loser in some significant way.

Let's look at a few "small" market teams:
1. Columbus - Instead of being able to play, the Jackets have to endure being labeled the "last place team" for essentially 2 seasons in a row. Also, they lost the All-Star Game as well as much of the revenue in the Arena District which is generated by the Jackets games. It's so bad that Columbus is looking for ways to offset the loss for local businesses (particularly restaurants).

2. Phoenix - They made the Western Conference finals. A season without hockey may, however, nullify the boost in popularity the Coyotes' postseason run generated.

3. Florida - Much like Phoenix, last season's success in Florida may likely be tempered by a season without hockey.

(You can also add LA to the group of Phoenix and Florida although they aren't really that small and the Lakers aren't being their usual dominant selves.)

While the large market teams lose the most money immediately, the lockout is undoubtedly helping to foster a sense of ambivalence towards the NHL in all markets. This hurts small markets the most particularly after a season where many of the smaller markets performed well.

I think continuing with a salary cap that was rising to fast for small market teams to keep up with is worse then trying to contain it before it becomes impossible for them to put a team on the ice.

du5566* 12-30-2012 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freudian (Post 56930135)
Teams/players that couldn't show restraint this summer will be the losers and I don't feel sorry for them. The players/Fehr chose to use the cap escalator so we got a high cap for this season. Some teams chose to use that cap space despite knowing the league would look to reduce costs.

If there is any damage from cap crunch, it's self-inflicted.

I agree, I think the owners or at least the vocal majority have been pushing this agenda amongst themselves for years so no team/owner should be surprised by these developments. Teams whose owners allowed their GM's to hand out ridiculous contracts will suffer and rightfully so.

no1b4me 12-30-2012 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freudian (Post 56930135)
Teams/players that couldn't show restraint this summer will be the losers and I don't feel sorry for them. The players/Fehr chose to use the cap escalator so we got a high cap for this season. Some teams chose to use that cap space despite knowing the league would look to reduce costs.

If there is any damage from cap crunch, it's self-inflicted.

Not intirely, some teams can screw over other teams if they like. For example with the trades in the past. If say LA puts Richards and Carter in the minors for a period of time the Flyers have to put those players salary under their cap. If they retire the Flyers are have to have the salary under their cap for the entire time. This is a farce if you ask me and all past trades should be grandfathered. It handcuffs some teams spending that want to win.


Question though, how far does this go back? Will Gomez be under the Rangers cap if Montreal put him in the minors or he retired?

KingsFan7824 12-30-2012 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkwild (Post 56929859)
lol, touché, although you say that almost too wistfully. The greatest combination of clothes for value i ever had was when we had those glorious sweatshops of low cost labour, sigh, the good ol days.

I'm just looking at the context that teams back then found themselves in. If that was the golden age of hockey, it existed in a certain reality.

Usually, these days, it's fans in big markets that talk wistfully about dynasty teams, and how they want them back. Sure, in a free market, guess where a dynasty team has a better chance of happening? It's not Edmonton.

Ernie 12-30-2012 02:16 PM

The big markets will have gained little from the lockout. Pretty much all additional money the top 10 teams make due to the higher share of HRR will be rolled back into revenue sharing.

But they made out like bandits in the last CBA.

Riptide 12-30-2012 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motown Beatdown (Post 56929965)
that's false. They will share around 200 million, of over 3 billion in revenue. It's chump change compared to the other leagues.

The big market clubs will just make more money in the end, hence why they have allowed these lockouts to occur.

Yes it's false when you look at the total number, however it's likely MORE money being transferred than if the NHL followed that format. If the NHL shared 50% of the gate 30 ways, unless the average ticket price is over $330, teams are receiving MORE money (after you consider their gate contributions) by this method than they would by splitting the gate.

This method also ensures that teams that need it are getting it. An interesting observation when looking at average ticket prices (TMR - which is wrong anyway), that some of the teams with the lowest prices (and thus receiving money from the gate split/RS), were not the same teams at the bottom of the revenue list Forbes put out.

Seedling 12-30-2012 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freudian (Post 56930135)
Teams/players that couldn't show restraint this summer will be the losers and I don't feel sorry for them. The players/Fehr chose to use the cap escalator so we got a high cap for this season. Some teams chose to use that cap space despite knowing the league would look to reduce costs.

If there is any damage from cap crunch, it's self-inflicted.

Agreed. How does Minnesota look with a 60 mill cap? In tough to keep lots of guys. Calgary is a mess too.

Riptide 12-30-2012 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freudian (Post 56930135)
Teams/players that couldn't show restraint this summer will be the losers and I don't feel sorry for them. The players/Fehr chose to use the cap escalator so we got a high cap for this season. Some teams chose to use that cap space despite knowing the league would look to reduce costs.

If there is any damage from cap crunch, it's self-inflicted.

Yep, this.

Riptide 12-30-2012 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seedling (Post 56931229)
Agreed. How does Minnesota look with a 60 mill cap? In tough to keep lots of guys. Calgary is a mess too.

Pittsburgh and Detroit look pretty smart now. Detroit only because they didn't get their UFAs but now have a ton of cap space, and Pittsburgh when they didn't get Parise and dumped cap space.

I don't really blame Minny for those deals (I believe they were the only team who could make a business case to sign those deals - the other teams could afford them, or didn't care), but can't believe some of the signings Calgary did.

Fugu 12-30-2012 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkwild (Post 56928391)
Something else those moments have in common - great tournaments with no parity. And perhaps even more significant - no whining about the lack of parity.

Many now look back at era of the Oilers and Isles great team's and not only do they all know when that was, but refer to it as a golden age of hockey. Perhaps a time of the least parity in the league - and again, the least whining about the lack of it. The most common complaint back then was that too many of the teams made the playoffs, 16 of 21 at one time, making a mockery of the reg season, and why cant the NHL get 30 teams like the other leagues and have meaningful regular seasons.


I'd suggest that the large markets do bear some responsibility for this lockout in that they allowed Bettman to try and achieve the revenue sharing required to make their league function off the backs of the players again. And they are gaining lower expenses for the same revenues again. Which surely must make some wonder - with all the disparity problems the league has and projects to continue having, the largest most profitable markets, the ones whose ridiculously inflated over the top license to print revenues and profits are drowning out all the small markets, these teams are actually going to come out of this lockout with even more profits? Nice job Gary, or is that Grover, ensuring the richest benefit like everyone else. That should be seen as an inexcusable solution.


I was just reminiscing about the way the Wings built teams up in the old days, and I guess two things stuck out for me.

Parity, imo, is probably most achievable when there's a lot of player movement (aka trades). Players want a few things, beyond money, and that's playing time and hopefully a shot at contention. There was a sort of equilibrium right before the last round of expansion as teams like the Leafs, Wings, Habs et al. had decent players they picked up in the draft.

The equilibrium changed when the pressure on finding great players increased post-expansion and as players started getting more money, but nevertheless with an UFA age of 31.... the money was still deferred to the declining years as far as production.

Motown Beatdown 12-30-2012 02:27 PM

let me add these big markets will only see an increase in the value of their teams with a lower cap besides more money in pocket. It's a win win

no1b4me 12-30-2012 02:31 PM

I can't believe some of the "rich" owners are signing off on this. They really shot themselves in the foot on some of this.

Riptide 12-30-2012 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by no1b4me (Post 56931667)
I can't believe some of the "rich" owners are signing off on this. They really shot themselves in the foot on some of this.

Why? They make more money with a cap on spending and writing revenue sharing cheques than they do if they could spend freely.

no1b4me 12-30-2012 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riptide (Post 56931739)
Why? They make more money with a cap on spending and writing revenue sharing cheques than they do if they could spend freely.

Well, look at teams like the Rangers and Flyers for example. Dolan and Snider want to win the cup. If they are handcuffed by trades they made in the past and those players are sent to the minors or retire on their new teams the Flyers and Rangers are on the hook. They have to put the players salary under thier cap which hurts their chances of winning since their own roster has to be trimmed.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:37 PM.

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.