View Single Post
Old
09-27-2004, 05:49 PM
  #11
nyr7andcounting
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
What does this mean? It means the end of elite teams in the NHL. No team would be able to keep more than 2 elite players and surround them with any kind of meaningful talent. Colorado would not have been able to keep Forsberg, Sakic, and Roy (or Blake, or Foote, or Hedjuk, etc.). Detroit would not have been able to keep Yzerman, Fedorov, and Lidstrom. Dallas would not have been able to keep Modano, Zubov, and Belfour. All teams would be mediocre, with a few stars sprinkled throughout. The NHL would become a neverending series of Islander-Oiler games--some talent on both sides, but largely just a pair of average teams slogging it out. I don't know if that's the NHL I would want.
Yep, just doesn't make much sense. It seems to me like a lot of people look at the success of the NFL and think that every league should be like that... but what they don't realize is that football is a very different sport from hockey. Sure it would be great if everyone had a chance to win, but that's not the way sports are. There are winners and there are losers. If management makes bad decisions and the team doesn't make the playoffs, it's their fault, those fans shouldn't be blaming the Red Wings because they have money. Plus there is nothing wrong with having good-great teams in your league.

Besides, money means very little in sports. Wether you have the highest paid player or the highest paid team, in the end the games are played on the ice or on the field. The Rangers are a perfect example of how money can be both good and evil. St. Louis spends money every year and puts a competative team out there, yet when was the last time they won the cup? Look at the recent teams in the cup finals... Calgary, Tampa Bay, Anaheim, New Jersey, Carolina. All smaller markets. Yanks spend a ridiculous amount and they make the playoffs every year, but look at who has beaten them as of late... Florida, Anaheim, Arizona. All smaller markets. When are people going to realize that because of the talent of the players and the emphasis on scouting, player personel and the like, most teams today are even despite how much they pay their players. Now, more than ever, winners and losers are decided on the ice through the effort and strategy of the entire team. Having one or two star players no longer wins you anything, at all, which is why people shouldn't be complaining about who has the most money and who has to use their's wisely. In fact, and the Rangers are proof, sometimes not having as much money as others is an advantage. Glen Sather built a dynasty and a perennial playoff team in Edmonton despite not having as much money as the big markets/barely having any money at all. He comes to NY and he can't even get the Rangers to the playoffs despite having all the money he wants. Having to use your money wisely leads to smarter decisions.

- put in a luxury tax, both on team and player salaries. Anything over $50 millon as a team, you pay a tax distributed to the smaller markets. Any player salary over $6 million and you do the same. And share some of the revenue, this way smaller markets don't lose as much (if they are even losing as much as they say, who knows).
- get rid of arbitration and increase RFA compensation for the lower level RFA's. It's bad enough team's have to give RFA's 10% raises if they want to keep their rights, atleast in raising compensation for the lower level guys you will take away most of their market and they won't have much leverage to demand much higher than the auto 10% raise.
- and, instead of supporting the owners, Bettman should slap them on their collective wrist and demand that in the future they don't shell out the $$$ like they have been doing.

The idea the NHL has that they can change the entire financial landscape of the league in one CBA is patently retarded. These changes will still allow players to shop services in a free market but their salaries will decrease, especially over time, and smaller market teams will have more $$$ coming in. Now if I can think of something that could reasonably help out, than how the hell can't execs making 6 figures do the same?

nyr7andcounting is offline