Why Paul Kelly thinks expansion would help end NHL lockout
View Single Post
11-01-2012, 08:43 PM
Join Date: Apr 2012
Originally Posted by
#1 - I'm not crazy, it's not my idea. Published report about the NHL using expansion as a CBA tactic here:
And this very thread.
#2 - "Watered down" is a myth. Quality hockey is about balance and style of play. A league of super sound technical players with all the fringe NHL players removed… might be boring as hell. Everyone would be in position, no one makes a mistake, and system would be more important than talent, so every team becomes a lock/trap team.
LOL! Yeah, and NHL hockey is more entartaining than Olympic Hockey.
#3 - There's really not a lot of difference between players #644 (28 teams) and #690 (30 teams); nor a big difference between #690 and #736 (32 teams)
#4 - The cap squeezes veterans out of the league (payroll inflexibility leads to teams using young, inexperienced - aka CHEAP - players for their role players instead of veteran depth guys) more than expansion. Some of these players would stick around longer with two more teams.
#5 - The current system of tying payroll to league average HRR ensures we will always be in this mess, unless all the teams have similar revenues and grow them at equal rates. The current situation is that the league average revenue is between the #10 and #11 revenue teams, making 10 teams too poor to keep up financially. Eliminating those 10 poor teams raises the average revenue, and CREATES NEW POOR TEAMS. If you simply axe the bottom every CBA, you'd ultimately end up in a situation where TOR is a "have" and one other team (NYR or MON) is a "have not" and everyone else folded.
In other words: "If we didn't have bottom feeder teams we wouldn't be in this mess" is a load of crap. If we didn't have THOSE bottom feeder teams, the next poorest would become the bottom feeder teams. It's a curve, someone has to be at the bottom. Be happy it's PHX, FLA, CBJ, NASH who lack history, and not BUF, OTT, PIT, WIN, EDM, MIN who've been NHL markets for a long time.
Define "bottom feeder teams": Of course (technically) there are always going to be teams on the bottom and teams on the top in terms of revenue, but that doesn't mean the league should keep the bottom teams because of that. If that's the case why doesn't the league just get rid of Toronto: Revenues will plummet (as will the cap) and the great hockey markets of Florida and Phoenix will thrive! Then we'll have the joy of another lockout as "NHL players' salaries take-up too much of the league's revenues".
Last edited by DyerMaker66*: 11-01-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DyerMaker66*