View Single Post
Old
09-25-2004, 11:32 AM
  #13
oilers_guy_eddie
Registered User
 
oilers_guy_eddie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Intolerable climate
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 10,678
vCash: 500
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.

oilers_guy_eddie is offline