STL Post Dispatch: Blues [players] get economics lesson
View Single Post
11-19-2003, 02:08 PM
Join Date: Jul 2003
Originally Posted by
First, I have used a fictional scenario to simplify the discussion. I could use a real-life example (I think Dallas makes a good case), but there subjective aspects to it, and the discussion then leads to whether such-and-such a team really had an economic advantage or not, or how much impact that player had (i.e. they would have won the cup without him).
So you think Dallas Texas is a big hockey market? Its a big football market but when it comes to hockey its not. People support a winner. And because they are a winner they can afford a good team and they can afford to sign a free agent or two. I think that Dallas's situation when they signed Hull and/ or Belfour is not too different from the situation in Vancouver or Ottawa now. Or Atlanta in a couple years if Heatley recovers. Unless your bargaining agreement happens. Then those teams wont be able to keep their talented core together long enough for it to happen.
Originally Posted by
The fact is, this scenario is a possibility. You can try to push the argument to the side, but it doesn't change that fact. The original claim was that there was
area where a team can use economic advantage to increase their odds at getting them to elite status. I have provided an area where this is false. I am not trying, at this stage, to establish at how likely it is to occur (although I do think it is significant) because I cannot do that as long as there is a fundamental disagreement at the basic level.
The point that I was trying to make is that it is possible, and I have done so. People can choose to ignore the scenario, but given that it is possible, all they are doing is proving themselves to be ignorant. The original claim is still false.
As for your disclaimer, yes, in that case Calgary would have be the better team because of it, but it is dependant on the actions of the Rangers. They are in the drivers seat at the time. The Flames are relying on the Rangers of making an error. This puts them at a disadvantage. They can only succeed if the Rangers do not make the right choices, thus they are at a disadvantage. That still proves my point.
The scenario you made up is a remote possiblity. Not a big enough deal to worry about. Right now the Rangers sign lots of free agents and they dont make the playoffs. Toronto signs big name free agents and they are not getting any closer to a cup.
WHAT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND IS THE OPPORTUNITY COST TO SIGNING A FREE AGENT IS THAT A YOUNG PLAYER DOES NOT GET ICE TIME AND THUS DOES NOT DEVELOP. Thats why Toronto or the Rangers wont ever build winners by their current strategy.
To win in the NHL you need to develop a good young core of several very good players. You dont win under the current bargaining agreement by buying a team. You have to draft and develop a good portion of it. But if we let your bargaining agreement then there is no point drafting or developing a team, you can always go out and buy one. Do you want that?
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by CH