View Single Post
11-18-2003, 01:56 PM
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by discostu
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.
So are the Rangers and Flames in your example elite or mediocre? An UFA has never made the difference between a team being elite and mediocre. The closest is a goalie can turn an average team good but you can't become an elite team with one UFA. If not, why didn't the Rangers become elite when they signed Holik?

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

If it isn't true, how could the Ottawa Senators, with a $30M payroll, win the President's Trophy?

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.
What new economic condition? The Nords went from the poorest team in the league to something slightly better. The Avalanche were not a rich team in their first year. They played in an outdated arena and the Rangers trying to steal their best playing with a qualifying offer because it was perceived that the Avalanche couldn't afford him.

The only difference between Quebec's last year in the NHL and the Avalanche's first year was that the Avalanche had the promise of a modern arena to play in.

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.
So when rich teams fail it is because of poor management but when small market teams fail it is because they are small markets?

And how has Toronto been poorly managed under the Quinn years? They've been the best team in the league at signing UFAs. Have they been managed worse then Calgary or Chicago?

New Jersey has won numerous Cups without ever signing free agents but being strong at drafting and development. Toronto has won nothing while being strong at signing free agents but being weak at drafting and development. Tell me why small market teams are disadvantaged?

YellHockey* is offline