I hear you, but I disagree as well. I am not proficient in using quotes, so I`ll go off memory....and use the edit feature a few times
1.) Boston will be better off than many teams. I guess this may be true. But remember that we have roughly 32-35 mil tied up in 8 or so players. Detroit and NYR also have few contracts that hamstring them past 04-05....I believe 3 each is what I read somewhere. But all in all, this is a topic that isnt clear cut....I say that 32 on 8 guys when you need to sgn 15 more to round out your roster is a HUGE issue. Others disagree.
2. A Cap. I believe we will see a soft cap and luxury tax, which will allow the big money makers forthe NHL to continue their spending ways. It will do the job of enticing them to avoid the 70-80 million dollar payroll, but will not keep wealthy teams from exceeding a soft cap by 5-10 a year. The NHL doesnt want to see the Avs, Wings, Flyers and Leafs take big financial hit...no way they allow this to happen.
3. The Canadien vs. US dollar thing. Their will be exchange accountability. And if in the event that their isnt, we have seen that the cap doesnt affect the Canadien/US dollar issue in the NBA to any great extent. I think this is a negligable effect thing. Ottawa was thought of as poor...their ownership now is willing tospend to a significantly higher degree. Canadien teams that dont want to spend will not spend...its a ownership choice. But Edmonton and Calgary can keep up with most teams in a cap world. Vancouver is a great example. They have been able to spend for a while now....but have chosen to NOT spend. It has nothing to do with the dollar or their ability to spend. They simply choose nolt to make 5, 6 or 7 mil a year offers on guys when they know that Colorado or NYR will go to 8. With a soft cap, Colorado wont really be able to go to 8....they`ll have to stop at 7, for example. This gives Vancouver the choice of matching the Av offer, or declining to. But at least they will now have an incentive to enter bidding. This is how some in that organization are looking at things.
4. I dont like your example of Sammy or Joe leaving to go to the Flames. First you see to assume that Calgary having ONE high saalried guy is the same as Boston having Gonchar, Thornton, Sammy, Lapointe and likely Nylander and Razor as high priced players. Boston has MANY high priced guys and will have to eventually consider how viable it is to keep as many high ticket guys as they appear tobe looking at. Calgary has but one, and could afford to probably take on one more. They certainly couldnt take on 2 additional high priced guys. But with their excellent crop of youngsters ready to come up, the addition of 1 top tier guy who makes big bucks can be easily swallowed....they can count on fairly regular playoff gates.
5. Your thoughts on Europe. You are assuming that European leagues will open up more roster spots to US and Canadien players...thus eliminating their own domestic players guaranteed jobs. That wont happen. For the most part, SEL fans want to watch Swedish stars. They are no different than most of us are.
6. Wont see anymore Andreychuks. I totally disagree on this one. You will see just as many Andreychuks...the same 3-5 that are in the league each year. Older vets will contunue to be a large part of the league. Its the mid teir/lower teir and older vets who will take the salary hits. The Andreychuks may have to settle for an MHL minimum contract, but there wont be a decrease in their numbers. There is no place for them to go! And with slightly lower lifetime contract numbers, I would actually predict that many MORE will attempt to stay on, as a means of maximizing earnings potential.
7. Players breaking ranks. Big problem with this happening is that the players lose all of their "defense" and representation. They become totally dependant on the good faith of ownership. A team would negotiate without the protective parameters of the CBA assisting the player. A team could break a contract basically at will. It could be terminated for lack of performance before it is completed. To much risk for the individual players. They would have no recourse if the teasm chose to stop paying the players at large! Too much risk.
None of us know what will happen. You and others disagree with me and thats cool....you may be right, or on the other hand, I may be right.
More likely is that both are right to a certain extent...or both are TOTALLY wrong!
Either way, its fun debate.
Last edited by Jeff from Maine: 05-25-2004 at 02:14 PM.
I simply dont see how some people..seemingly everyone in america, can prefer to watch a dull, slow boring game like baseball on tv then hockey. Same with basketball. Basketball is perhaps even more boring then baseball, and I'm not even counting all this college and ncaa crap. Who cares about kids that havent done anything yet in the big time? I never had school spirit or took pride in my school..I dont see why everyone in america seems to. I just wanted to get the F out.
But Hockey is fast, hard hitting, exciting..there's fights and it's all legal..(not just that but hockey fights actually have some relevance to the games)..just everything about hockey is more exciting then any other sport going.
1. NCAA basketball...especially come March Madness time
To me, there is NOTHING better than mens college basketball....and the womens game is getting MUCH better as far as TV coverage and "watch-ability" are concerned.
2. NFL Playoff football
3. Little League World Series
Jeff -- Cuz we like you, we'll allow you, oh, 3-4 hours to reconsider your aberrant/deviant position here regarding NCAA hoop and cleanse it from the board. Never happened. Jeff from Maine? Never wrote that. Uh-uh.
Nothing personal Jeff but I disagree on a bunch of your points.
I wixh I could be as optimistic. There is no new CBA yet, there is no agreement from the NHLPA on cost certainty, and several of these teams may be belly up before (if) a new CBA happens.
I think the series itself will be good for the NHL, screw the ratings, network TV is tommorrow's roadkill, NHL will do better on a private network recruiting their own sponsors, undercutting the network middlemen. IF THEY EVER SKATE AGAIN.
That is the problem. If this series electrifies Canada, the only benefit might be more Canadians vacationing in Tampa next winter.
I disagree that "all teams" will. Many may be worse off after a lockout. As I understand it, in place contracts do not dissolve when the CBA expires. Teams with commitments are just defering them with a lockout. That is one reason the Bruins, with fewer commitments, are in better shape financially. Does that mean they will go for UFAs when the league starts back up? Not necessarily. But they could, much better than poor boys like Pitt, Wash, Buff, Edmtn, and moreso than teams that are bound up longer term and possibly cap-constipated like NYR, DET, AVS.
What the Bruins might do is trade youth for veterans and dump others (Murray, Rolston, etc). Not that I want this, but it is what I think will happen.
Even if player prices go down, if there is a cap-like device in place, it won't allow teams who are financially strapped the ability to take on more contracts. It will cause over-salaried teams to dump players. But poor teams may not have the money, especially after a long lockout, to pick up these players, even at a discount. Unless they dump others.
That will only happen if the Canadian dollar achieves equity in some manner with the US dollar, in NHL or real terms. For example, if the cap is in US dollars or the Canadian Gov. gives their teams a break. A cap will lower salaries some and prevent the big $$ teams from grabbing all the best players, but that does not mean that Calgary or Edmonton will be able to afford more of them.
Then again, after getting to the finals the Xxxxx (Whoops, Daryl not Brian) Sutter way, who is to say Calgary will want to sit at that table with all the fat losers?
Not logical, in my mind at least.
If Sammi or Joe-Bob are too expensive for the Bruins to keep, either will be too expensive for Calgary to add and keep Iginla.
Team Cap and budget dollars are two different things. Calgary will be under cap (whatever it is) because they have to be.
I think that NHL teams will learn to follow the SNL casting model rather than the "Friends" casting model: Market your new talent, and when they get too pricey, dump 'em. Mid level veterans are going to end up in the IHL or Europe, and fewer players will last long enough to even reach free agency (even if they lower it to 30 years of age).
We will never see another Dave Andreychuk, for example.
I also think there is a good chance that the NHL will dissolve its relationship with the NHLPA and say "who wants a job?" and players will break ranks.
I do not think either the US or Canadian governments will lift a finger to help this pseudo-union survive.