View Single Post
02-10-2005, 11:45 PM
Registered User
Stephen's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 35,546
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by barrel_master
I agree that business is business... that's exactly why the owners are doing what they're doing now. They're trying to create an environment where they can all do okay.

Unfortunately I have to disagree with your Oilers annalogy...

Peter Pocklingon, the former owner of the oilers was going to sell the team to someone from out of town... a group of local owners stepped in and bought the team and saved it. Since then they have repeatedly stated that they wanted a CAP like system, in part cause it will help them retain the players that we've developed and that would, in turn allow them to raise ticket prices to create more revenue. On another point, we haven't 'sold off' any players for years... we've been forced to trade quite a few of our fellows cause we knew that we would have to pay WAY too much to keep them.
Well, I'm really just referring to the Oiler's "we're in financial trouble and we'll have to leave town if things don't change" mantra that they've been repeating for a while now. I know the Pocklington situation was more of a individual financial issue, but it still true that they have been saying that NHL hockey is an endangered species in the small markets. They were struggling with a $10 million payroll in 1996, yet they've been able to soldier on with inflated costs throughout the years.

But my real point is that I don't believe the owners. I fail to see how any small market team is going to magically be able to survive with a $30-$45 million cap, or how this certainty will allow these owners to raise prices when these small market teams are collectively losing hundreds of millions of dollars with budgets significantly lower than those of today and of the past decade. If Nashville, for example, is having a hard time with a payroll in the mid $20 million range, what help is a $33.7 million cap as mentioned above?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the prescribed solution put forth by Bettman and the owners doesn't really seem to solve the problems they're claiming are there. It leads me to believe that they just want a bigger piece of the pie, which isn't wrong on its own, but it is hard to ask for.

Stephen is offline