Thread: Trade immenent?
View Single Post
01-06-2004, 09:06 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St.Albert
Posts: 6,823
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by theoil
I used the word 'deserves' in pretty much the way you used it in your original post and it was meant to reflect that. You were wondering if Edmonton could prove that it 'deserves' a team.
I used "deserves", which was probably a poor choice in language. What I should have said, instead of:

And ultimately, if it isn't, if the market won't bear it, EDM probably doesn't deserve an NHL team.


And ultimately, if it isn't, if the market won't bear it, EDM simply can't afford an NHL team.

I guess I am a little skeptical about the business side of hockey. I don't comment on trades much because I don't think I know enough about other team's players and I defer to a lot of you concerning how good or bad so and so is playing.
fair enough, I sometimes like to think the people involved are making great personel and business decisions, but in the end I don't think that many GM's would do a better job than Lowetide, for example, if Lowetide had all the information available to him that a GM has.

But business. I understand business. I have been running businesses for over 25 years. If you think that there is a 'market' for paying customers and ticket prices but that salaries and drafts are something different then you understand business differently than I do because to me the one is inextricably tied to the other or you have a monoply which is illegal.
They are I suppose tied together in the a team probably wants to keep keep their expenses under their revenues, and if your costs go up you'll pass it on to the consumers (ticket holders) provided they will pay it. but the ticket market is much more of an open free market scenario than the restricted system of player allotment in the NHL.

No. the situation is that the entire package is controlled through the constraints of the CBA which dictates every aspect of what is essentially a controlled artificial construct designed to make money.
the cba is an agreement between owners and the player's union. It has no bearing on what a team does in terms of setting ticket prices, except in that the CBA influences what you have to pay your help. That's only one (albeit the main) cost of doing business for an NHL franchise.

The problem is that the NHL is a business but currently operates as though it is 30 businesses imposing a standard for success outside the traditional understanding of competitive sport. In other words victories and losses are not fought in the public arena of the icerink but behind the scenes in the boardrooms of the very rich and the games have become a reflection of those victories and losses.
Is that true or isn't it? I'm not sold one way or the other. I agree absolutely witht he first part, the league is largely one big company with different franchises trying to make as much money as possible within their own market. Often the markets aren't fighting for the same clients, but in some cases one could make a case that indeed they are. Doesn't really apply to EDM though, IMO, not in any significant way.

With the return of some strength to the Canadian dollar we should be able to compete in this league unless the point continues to be victory by spending. And yes I know some of these teams are so stupid they can't even win by spending huge amounts of money but they can certainly keep about 20 other teams from winning by taking away their best players.
To tell the honest truth I think EDM is in a position where they could compete even with the current CBA. That is not to say that things wouldn't be easier if they had more money, but I do think the $$$ problems are exaggerated with a team like EDM.

1.3 mil to BG, 1.9 to Izzy, 3.9 to Salo, that's over 7 mil right there tied up in a 4th line goon, an average starter (in the past coupleyears, not this abomination of a season), and a guy with potential who really hasn't produced as of yet.

speeds is offline