View Single Post
Old
02-10-2005, 10:35 AM
  #32
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Army
Small market is an ambiguous term.

I hear people refer to the Panthers as a "small market" team all the time. But in reality Miami is a huge market.

So what's the difference?
Do I really need to explain why Toronto is a large hockey market and Miami isn't?
Quote:
Having the low revenue (ie less successful) teams set the standard for the rest of the league is dangerous.

You say the salary structure is being set by the highest revenue teams. Well how do you think they got to be the highest revenue teams? Luck? No.

The high revenue teams got to where they are because they have great ownership, great management and they're in a market that can support hockey.

The owners should be looking at themselves in the mirror.
The New York Rangers aren't a well managed team. The Leafs don't need to be a well managed team and they would still lead the league in revenues. On the other hand the Oilers appear to be a very well managed team but they are slowly dying and they seem to have ownership that is very dedicated to the community.
Quote:
It won't turn them into better markets. That's one of Bettman's myths.

What it will do is allow poorly managed, non-progressive teams to remain poorly managed and non-progressive.

And like I said- that's very dangerous for the future of the NHL in the United States when you consider how poor management is killing once strong markets like Chicago and Boston.

Would a cap help these owners? Sure. They'd love to cap every players salary at $100,000 a year. That would be great for them.
That's ridiculous. With the current system well managed, progressive teams are in serious trouble because they can't compete with poorly managed high revenue teams.

Since when is only about Chicago and Boston?

mooseOAK* is offline