View Single Post
Old
11-18-2003, 12:17 PM
  #50
discostu
Registered User
 
discostu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nomadville
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDaddyMeatWhistle
Why do you believe that the richer teams have an easier time getting to elite status? Colorado built an elite team while they were the one of the poorest teams in the league. The Rangers and Leafs have been the richest teams in the league for a long time and they've been unable to develop an elite team.

You're trying to come up with solutions for problems that only exist in the minds of the NHL's puppets, the hockey media.
You're trying to dispel something as a myth when the evidence is right in front of you.

Let's say that the CBA doesn't change, and 10 years from now, two teams, the Calgary Flames and the New York Rangers, are on the cusp of being an elite team. They are equal in terms of talent, experience and age. They have built a solid core of players, but they both have one major weakness, that of a playoff experienced, checking line centre. Let's also say that a player that has those attributes is available as a UFA.

It would make sense that both teams would be interested in that player's services, and both teams would make an offer. Based on what we know about the markets, who do you think will win the bidding war? They both will gain equally in terms of on-ice performance, but the Rangers market provides a greater return for the incremental success. It allows them to put a higher bid in for the player. The Rangers get their player, and move into elite status. The Flames miss out on their player, and struggle at the mediocre level.

But hey, keep on repeating your line that payroll doesn't performance. If you repeat it enough times, maybe it will come true.

As for Colorado, they built the elements for their team as one of the poorest in the league. They moved into elite status when the acquired Patrick Roy, a move made possible by their new economic condition. I don't see why you would bring it into the discussion, as it only serves to disprove your point.

The Rangers and Leafs have been poorly managed teams. I don't think anyone on these boards have claimed big money spent poorly will get you anywhere. People like to point to the Rangers as an example that you cannot buy a cup, but they have had the worst reign of management in the league. The Leafs on the other hand, have also been a poorly managed team, but not to the same extent as the Rangers. They have been near the top in league spending in the last 5 or 6 years, and it has propelled them to mediocre playoff success despite having a poor track record in terms of drafting and player development. If money truly didn't impact success, they would have been missing the playoffs for most of that time period.

discostu is offline