HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

VOTE for the CBA you would like next season ?

View Poll Results: Which CBA is the best ?
CAP 40M$ + UFA @ 27 years old 39 29.77%
Same CBA + 5% paycut + Rookie Cap bonuses 24 18.32%
Luxury Cap 45M$ ($ for $) + UFA @ 29 years old + Rookie Cap bonuses. 68 51.91%
Voters: 131. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-08-2004, 05:56 PM
  #51
Licentia
Registered User
 
Licentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
First, you can find any nimrod off the street and he'd be a good McDonalds employee. But how many superstar hockey players are there? If I work at McD's and wanted a raise because I'm a great employee, they could fire me and hire anybody to replace me. I'm not intregal. Jerome Iginla is intregal to the Flames.

Now, lets say I'm the best McD's employee in the world, and the franchise I work at would be devestated if I left. Knowing this, the owner of my McD's franchise wants to give me a raise, but alas, he can't becuase he has a cap, and I'm forced to work at another McD's that has enough cap room for me. The first one is so bad off without me, it goes out of business. My new one becomes the best run and most profitable in the enitre chain.

What did the first franchise owner do wrong? He hired an outstanding employee and wanted to keep him , but was prevented. The second owner didn't have to do any reseach on me. He knows my reputation from the previous franchise. He makes out big time because he just so happened to have the right cap room at the right time.
A better answer to you is that the situation you describe above is what small market teams face everyday. At least with a cap, all teams would have to face that situation. Then good management and scouting/drafting/player development will be more important than ever.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 06:04 PM
  #52
Licentia
Registered User
 
Licentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
How did Detroit build their team? I think you need to look into this a little closer.

NOBODY will be able to be consistent contenders under a cap. This isn't even a theoretical issue. Look at the NFL.
It doesn't matter how Colorado and Detroit built the core of their teams. Small market teams can build a good core too. The difference is how teams like Detroit and Colorado make huge free agent signings to bring in important players to push that core over the top. Calgary could never sign on a Dominik Hasek and a Ray Bourque and a Rob Blake and a Derian Hatcher and a Luc Robitaille and a Brendan Shanahan and a Brett Hull, etc. The list goes on and on my friend. That's what the difference has been in the NHL for too long.

You also can not tell me that Colorado (with all the great young players they've drafted) could not remain a contender for a long time. The core of that team could still be based on the great players they've drafted. Instead they've traded many of the young players to get a better player sooner than wait for that young player to develop. But even if they did wait for the young players to develop, they'd still be a fantastic team.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 06:06 PM
  #53
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
They can't. But they have a constant flow of good young players coming up to fill the void. And no team can hold on to more of those great players than another, because all is equal financially under a cap.

Like some NHLPA fans argue, New York "sucked" when they signed all those free agents and you can only win by drafting well. I've heard that argument repeatedly. Well, under a cap that's what teams will be forced to do. Build a smart team through the draft, and not just go out and buy a team and then "suck." All those great young players coming up through the system will keep any team on top for a long time.
And when you draft a lot of talented players, those players are eventually going to want a raise. At some point a team that drafts well will run out of cap space, forcing them to give up some of those players. Should teams that draft well become farm teams for the rest of the league?

The Red Wings drafted Lidstrom. As Lidstrom became better, he got raises. Whether they were in line with what he should've gotten is not the argument I'm having. Along about 1998, he bcame the best defensemen in the league, and in 1999 his contract ran out. Under a cap, the Red Wings probably would not have been able to resign him. Also in 1998, the Red Wings drafted Jiri Fischer, someone who will probably become a pretty good defensemen some day. He could not have stepped into Lidstrom's spot in 1999. The Red Wings would have suffered, even though they made a great draft pick in Lidstrom, and a good pick in Fischer. So the Red Wings would have taken a step back and not been contenders for a while. Fischer still hasn't developed, and may not. Meanwhile a team with the cap room signed Lidstrom, and became a contender. What did that new team do? The didn't have to have any scouting staff to realize Lidstrom would be a huge addition. They didn't have to have the foresight to draft him. They didn't have to develop him. They did absolutley no work, and received one of the best players in the league, only because they had less money tied up. Under a cap, it would be about who can afford a contract, because by definition every team could. It bcomes who has the least amount tied up in a cap when a superstar, or even a good player becomes a free agent.

A cap system actually encourages teams to draft poorly. They don't need to spend anything on scouting or minor league coaching, they just let other teams do it. By drafting poorly, they are not going to have to eat their cap up by resigning anyone. They just have to sit around until Atlanta can't fit Kovalchuk into their cap, or Calgary can't fit Iginla into their's, or Florida can't fit Luongo into their's. Teams that draft poorly are going to have their choice of superstars, pretty much on a yearly basis.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 06:07 PM
  #54
Licentia
Registered User
 
Licentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by loveshack2
Wealther McDonald's dont steal the better employees from the poorer McDonald's because there is no such thing as a better McDonald's employee, for all intents and purposes one McDonald's employee is identical to another. And their production impacts very little on the performance of the franchise. That couldnt be further from the truth when talking about a sports team.
I worked at 7/11 for 3 years. Trust me, crappy employees do cause a business to be less successful. I've worked with my fair share of lazy people who couldn't care less if people are walking through spilt Slurpee. Customers don't really appreciate that.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 06:08 PM
  #55
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
A better answer to you is that the situation you describe above is what small market teams face everyday. At least with a cap, all teams would have to face that situation. Then good management and scouting/drafting/player development will be more important than ever.
But its not the same unfairness for everybody. You already agreed with me on that. Some teams will have less cap room than others. Therefore some teams will have an advantage.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 06:19 PM
  #56
Licentia
Registered User
 
Licentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by loveshack2
Wealther McDonald's dont steal the better employees from the poorer McDonald's because there is no such thing as a better McDonald's employee, for all intents and purposes one McDonald's employee is identical to another. And their production impacts very little on the performance of the franchise. That couldnt be further from the truth when talking about a sports team.
And a hockey team will not die if it doesn't have a "super star" player. As long as a team is successful fairly consistently, it will survive. Look at Edmonton. They don't have any Super Stars. Ryan Smith has been good at times, but there is no real "super star."

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 06:24 PM
  #57
Licentia
Registered User
 
Licentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
I never said there should be NO CAP or that I was anti-cap, so get your arguements straight. Just because TB & OTT are on the pro-cap side, most of the league is who aren't the spenders, doesn't mean there is a better solution than the hard cap. I never said I agree with the current CBA either. Actually the solution I offered tends to apply to all teams evenly and fairly, but I guess you have your own agenda.

If you look at how Detroit was built, they were able to turn a lot of their prospects into more valuable players, and oddly enough many of those prospects flopped as well which shows how good the management was. There were also some key homegrown talent that helped to build the team (Yzerman, Federov, Lidstrom, Holmstrom, etc).

My point is that a non-Homegrown style cap would still allow all teams to add some key free agents, but it'd slow down the growth in the UFA market, which is what has really inflated to the point of absurdity. The rookie contracts could be worked on as well. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but if you took the league average of players of UFA age requirements, you'd see that there is probably a very high average compared to the league average under $1.8 million. Even if the UFA average was $2.7 million, that'd be 50% greater than the league-wide average. The UFA's are cashing in, and there are a few GM's who are too eager to outbid each other for reasons including hockey and not.

Some of the teams are able to stockpile the higher priced players from other teams as well (see NY, STL, TOR) that they wouldn't be able to do under the non-homegrown cap. That would moderate the RFA salaries even more.

Odds are the non-homegrown cap is as big of a nightmare to the NHLPA as a hard cap, but it's far more flexible by comparison and offers more. The NHL owners could even lower the UFA age and still keep some leverage because of it as well because of the UFA's counting towards a cap.
Well I don't know what I said to you that I thought you were anti-cap. I just want each team to have an equal opportunity financially. I don't care if it's a cap or luxury tax as long as all teams have the same opportunity financially.

I don't know what you mean by non-homegrown cap, I guess you mean luxury tax?

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 06:43 PM
  #58
Licentia
Registered User
 
Licentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
And when you draft a lot of talented players, those players are eventually going to want a raise. At some point a team that drafts well will run out of cap space, forcing them to give up some of those players. Should teams that draft well become farm teams for the rest of the league?

The Red Wings drafted Lidstrom. As Lidstrom became better, he got raises. Whether they were in line with what he should've gotten is not the argument I'm having. Along about 1998, he bcame the best defensemen in the league, and in 1999 his contract ran out. Under a cap, the Red Wings probably would not have been able to resign him. Also in 1998, the Red Wings drafted Jiri Fischer, someone who will probably become a pretty good defensemen some day. He could not have stepped into Lidstrom's spot in 1999. The Red Wings would have suffered, even though they made a great draft pick in Lidstrom, and a good pick in Fischer. So the Red Wings would have taken a step back and not been contenders for a while. Fischer still hasn't developed, and may not. Meanwhile a team with the cap room signed Lidstrom, and became a contender. What did that new team do? The didn't have to have any scouting staff to realize Lidstrom would be a huge addition. They didn't have to have the foresight to draft him. They didn't have to develop him. They did absolutley no work, and received one of the best players in the league, only because they had less money tied up. Under a cap, it would be about who can afford a contract, because by definition every team could. It bcomes who has the least amount tied up in a cap when a superstar, or even a good player becomes a free agent.

A cap system actually encourages teams to draft poorly. They don't need to spend anything on scouting or minor league coaching, they just let other teams do it. By drafting poorly, they are not going to have to eat their cap up by resigning anyone. They just have to sit around until Atlanta can't fit Kovalchuk into their cap, or Calgary can't fit Iginla into their's, or Florida can't fit Luongo into their's. Teams that draft poorly are going to have their choice of superstars, pretty much on a yearly basis.
I understand your point. Detroit would probably lose Lidstrom, and Detroit and it's fans would suffer. I agree with you 110%. That would really suck for sure.

But you see, all the small market teams face the situation you describe right now without a cap. Why should only some teams face that situation while teams like Detroit are exempt?

It's there where your argument stalls like a German Panzer in a Russian winter.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 06:53 PM
  #59
Licentia
Registered User
 
Licentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
But its not the same unfairness for everybody. You already agreed with me on that. Some teams will have less cap room than others. Therefore some teams will have an advantage.
In the NHL now, it's always the small market teams that have less "cap" room than others due to a smaller revenue. Currently, it's always the same small market teams that have to lose players to large markets due to having less "cap" room than the large markets like Detroit. The fairness will come in because the situation will finally be able to occur both ways, where teams like Detroit will finally lose top players like a Niklas Lidstrom to a team like Calgary, Edmonton, Pittsburgh, etc.

I can't wait until the day when I see a superstar elite player leave a big market city to go to a team like Edmonton/Calgary/Pittsburgh/etc. I'd love to see Pittsburgh sign Lidstrom. Or Calgary sign Martin St.Louis. It's about time things work both ways!

That's the best NHLPA fan argument I have gotten yet though. I really had to think there.


Last edited by Licentia: 09-08-2004 at 07:07 PM.
Licentia is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 06:55 PM
  #60
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
A cap system actually encourages teams to draft poorly. They don't need to spend anything on scouting or minor league coaching, they just let other teams do it. By drafting poorly, they are not going to have to eat their cap up by resigning anyone. They just have to sit around until Atlanta can't fit Kovalchuk into their cap, or Calgary can't fit Iginla into their's, or Florida can't fit Luongo into their's. Teams that draft poorly are going to have their choice of superstars, pretty much on a yearly basis.
I have a little trouble with this idea. A team is going to intentially draft poorly, on the chance that they may get to bid on a "superstar", even though that superstar will do nothing for the team if they don't have a decent supporting cast around them? So, how many years is a team going to draft poorly and be uncompetetive to be able to get enough cap room to sign this star player? Then let's say they do get one star player, maybe even two. They are still going to be little better than average since they have drafted so poorly. What fans are going to support a team like that?

A cap maybe unfair to a certain extent to teams that draft well, but drafting well is only part of what a team must do well to be successful. They must also manage their assets well. To manage your assests well, you assess who on your team is essential to your success, and you work to keep those players. Those that are not essential, but are becoming pricey get traded for draft picks or prospects. Since your team is so good at drafting, they should have a steady stream of good players coming in to replace the good players you need to let go. If a team is truly good at drafting, they should be able to handle this "unfairness" pretty well.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 07:07 PM
  #61
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
I understand your point. Detroit would probably lose Lidstrom, and Detroit and it's fans would suffer. I agree with you 110%. That would really suck for sure.

But you see, all the small market teams face the situation you describe right now without a cap. Why should only some teams face that situation while teams like Detroit are exempt?

It's there where your argument stalls like a German Panzer in a Russian winter.
And I never said it was fair for teams now. All I'm saying about a cap is that TEAMS THAT DRAFT WELL WILL BE PUNISHED, doesn't matter if its Detroit, Calgary or the Rangers. My argument against a hard cap has nothing to do with what I think of the current system. I would wholeheartedly endorse either a luxury tax, which increases revenue to small market teams(something a cap does not), or a NBA style cap, which allows teams to go over to retain their own free agents.

And once again, all teams would not face the same situations under a cap. We've been over this, and you agreed with me.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 07:12 PM
  #62
Licentia
Registered User
 
Licentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
I have a little trouble with this idea. A team is going to intentially draft poorly, on the chance that they may get to bid on a "superstar", even though that superstar will do nothing for the team if they don't have a decent supporting cast around them? So, how many years is a team going to draft poorly and be uncompetetive to be able to get enough cap room to sign this star player? Then let's say they do get one star player, maybe even two. They are still going to be little better than average since they have drafted so poorly. What fans are going to support a team like that?

A cap maybe unfair to a certain extent to teams that draft well, but drafting well is only part of what a team must do well to be successful. They must also manage their assets well. To manage your assests well, you assess who on your team is essential to your success, and you work to keep those players. Those that are not essential, but are becoming pricey get traded for draft picks or prospects. Since your team is so good at drafting, they should have a steady stream of good players coming in to replace the good players you need to let go. If a team is truly good at drafting, they should be able to handle this "unfairness" pretty well.
Another point to mention, is that not every player you lose to FA has to be replaced by a young player you drafted. Teams can always trade for another player who does the same kind of job, but for a little less money. That's what Tampa Bay has started to do. I bet Tampa will still be a contender after replacing some of their players who signed elsewhere, as long as Tampa manages well and holds on to their most important players. There are always players out there who do a similar job for a little less money. And you rarely would have to replace elite players on your team. It's mostly the mid to lower level players that you need to replace. A good GM can replace those players without catastrophic results, i'm sure.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 07:17 PM
  #63
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
I have a little trouble with this idea. A team is going to intentially draft poorly, on the chance that they may get to bid on a "superstar", even though that superstar will do nothing for the team if they don't have a decent supporting cast around them? So, how many years is a team going to draft poorly and be uncompetetive to be able to get enough cap room to sign this star player? Then let's say they do get one star player, maybe even two. They are still going to be little better than average since they have drafted so poorly. What fans are going to support a team like that?

A cap maybe unfair to a certain extent to teams that draft well, but drafting well is only part of what a team must do well to be successful. They must also manage their assets well. To manage your assests well, you assess who on your team is essential to your success, and you work to keep those players. Those that are not essential, but are becoming pricey get traded for draft picks or prospects. Since your team is so good at drafting, they should have a steady stream of good players coming in to replace the good players you need to let go. If a team is truly good at drafting, they should be able to handle this "unfairness" pretty well.
Well, under a cap I fully expect there to be at least one "superstar" and several very good players available every year because their original teams won't have the room to sign them. Maybe my exapml;e is a little extreme, teams obviously aren't going to draft poorly on purpose. I guess what i was getting at is that a bad few yeras of drafting will be alot easier to overcome.


I challenge anybody to find a better 20 years of drafting (not including Montreal when they had 1st choice of any Quebecios) than the Red Wings have had since 1983, yet how many true "superstars" have they gotten from those drafts? Yzerman, Fedorov and Lidstrom. My point is you can't just replace elite players, and elite players are going to be the ones too expenive to resign under a cap.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 07:30 PM
  #64
loveshack2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Old School
Country: Tokelau
Posts: 3,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
And a hockey team will not die if it doesn't have a "super star" player. As long as a team is successful fairly consistently, it will survive. Look at Edmonton. They don't have any Super Stars. Ryan Smith has been good at times, but there is no real "super star."
Thank you. I completely agree. So why the need for a salary cap if you dont really need star players anyway?
Quote:
I worked at 7/11 for 3 years. Trust me, crappy employees do cause a business to be less successful. I've worked with my fair share of lazy people who couldn't care less if people are walking through spilt Slurpee. Customers don't really appreciate that.
Im sure they don't. I'll bet it didnt stop them from coming back the next time they needed milk and bread though. Anyway the point was that players in the NHL have a tremendous impact on the success of their team, much more so than at McDonalds or 7/11. Im sure you can agree with that. I mean I like the guy who works at the corner store behind me but Im still not buying his jersey.

loveshack2 is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 07:48 PM
  #65
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
I understand your point. Detroit would probably lose Lidstrom, and Detroit and it's fans would suffer. I agree with you 110%. That would really suck for sure.
And would you say any team losing a superstar, or any player they drafted and wanted to keep because of a salary cap is fair or unfair? Again, throwing out the "its not fair now" story. I've agreed there needs to be changes.

If its fair, why? Give me some examples. If its not fair, how can you say a salary cap makes it fair for everyone?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 08:05 PM
  #66
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
And would you say any team losing a superstar, or any player they drafted and wanted to keep because of a salary cap is fair or unfair? Again, throwing out the "its not fair now" story. I've agreed there needs to be changes.

If its fair, why? Give me some examples. If its not fair, how can you say a salary cap makes it fair for everyone?

Any team losing a player they want to keep is not good for the team or the fans, but it's also not just the teams decision. The player has a big say in that, so I'm not sure if you can call it fair or unfair just because they lost a player.

What makes a team losing a player that they want to keep unfair is that some teams have vastly larger budgets than other teams. It's unfair because you can draft well, manage well, and develop players well, but someone else can still outbid you for a players services even if they already have as high a skill level or higher skill level than your team. And, they don't even have to out bid you for that players services, they can just drive up the player salaries to the point that your team can't meet the player's salary demand before that player is a free agent.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 08:09 PM
  #67
Licentia
Registered User
 
Licentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
And I never said it was fair for teams now. All I'm saying about a cap is that TEAMS THAT DRAFT WELL WILL BE PUNISHED, doesn't matter if its Detroit, Calgary or the Rangers. My argument against a hard cap has nothing to do with what I think of the current system. I would wholeheartedly endorse either a luxury tax, which increases revenue to small market teams(something a cap does not), or a NBA style cap, which allows teams to go over to retain their own free agents.

And once again, all teams would not face the same situations under a cap. We've been over this, and you agreed with me.
Then we are on the same side. I'm not arguing with people who want some sort of system to balance the NHL. I'm arguing with the current CBA lovers. That's what i'll call them from now on instead of NHLPA fans.

I was wrong to agree with you, because I realize that fairness under a cap is just a matter of perspective. If you are the team who loses someone then it's unfair, but it's fair for the team who gains, and every team will have an equal opportunity for both failure and gain under a cap. That is total absolute equality only changed by the talents of the team's management. I just wanted to prove that I can lose an argument, because dr said that what I say is not right just because I think it is. I'm not like Adolph Hitler who maintained that Germany could still win the war until the Russians were walking through Berlin. I have and will again acknowledge the victor of an argument. In this NHLPA vs NHL "discussion," I have easily refuted every Current CBA Lover's argument. I just haven't seen any victors come from the CCL - Current CBA Lover's camp.

If every team had the same coaches GMs, scouts, draft picks, players etc from the last 10 years, like I argued before, then all teams would be even. Except that currently, all teams have different budgets based on revenue. Under a cap, all teams would be identical because not only would they have the same players, draft picks, management and coaching, they would have the same budgets to work from. That is complete equality that is only changed by the talents of the GMs, Scouts and Coaches. Under a salary cap, players will learn the harsh lesson that no one will pay them $10 million anymore. And they will have to choose to cut their salary or move their families elsewhere for $1 million or so more.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 08:23 PM
  #68
Licentia
Registered User
 
Licentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by loveshack2
Thank you. I completely agree. So why the need for a salary cap if you dont really need star players anyway?
I said Super Star. Not star. Super Stars make $10 million a year. Not star players.

You know darn well that teams need star players, therefore by your argument, we therefore need a salary cap.


Last edited by Licentia: 09-08-2004 at 08:35 PM.
Licentia is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 08:25 PM
  #69
Licentia
Registered User
 
Licentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by loveshack2
Thank you. I completely agree. So why the need for a salary cap if you dont really need star players anyway?

Im sure they don't. I'll bet it didnt stop them from coming back the next time they needed milk and bread though. Anyway the point was that players in the NHL have a tremendous impact on the success of their team, much more so than at McDonalds or 7/11. Im sure you can agree with that. I mean I like the guy who works at the corner store behind me but Im still not buying his jersey.
At that location it would cause there was a Petro Canada, Shell and Esso within a few blocks.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-08-2004, 08:32 PM
  #70
Licentia
Registered User
 
Licentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Any team losing a player they want to keep is not good for the team or the fans, but it's also not just the teams decision. The player has a big say in that, so I'm not sure if you can call it fair or unfair just because they lost a player.

What makes a team losing a player that they want to keep unfair is that some teams have vastly larger budgets than other teams. It's unfair because you can draft well, manage well, and develop players well, but someone else can still outbid you for a players services even if they already have as high a skill level or higher skill level than your team. And, they don't even have to out bid you for that players services, they can just drive up the player salaries to the point that your team can't meet the player's salary demand before that player is a free agent.
Well said.

It's also true that fans will only be mad at players for their leaving, not their team. Most of the time anyway...

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 03:55 PM
  #71
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Any team losing a player they want to keep is not good for the team or the fans, but it's also not just the teams decision. The player has a big say in that, so I'm not sure if you can call it fair or unfair just because they lost a player.

What makes a team losing a player that they want to keep unfair is that some teams have vastly larger budgets than other teams. It's unfair because you can draft well, manage well, and develop players well, but someone else can still outbid you for a players services even if they already have as high a skill level or higher skill level than your team. And, they don't even have to out bid you for that players services, they can just drive up the player salaries to the point that your team can't meet the player's salary demand before that player is a free agent.


You say that a team can draft, manage and develop well but be outbid when those players become free agents. I don't disagree with this, but no one has been able to tell me how you can keep those same playes under a cap.

You cannot equalize the abilty to scout and develop players. There will always be some teams that always find great prospects and others won't.

So my question is how is the management of teams equalized? If every team is truly equal, like people say it will be under a cap, how does the league exist? If every team had the exact same talent level, same quality of players, same coaching, same managment and same budget, wouldn't every game end in a tie?

The point of having a team is building one to compete with others in a league. The league has a system to determine who has the best team. All the teams could be equally great or equally terrible under a cap, it wouldn't matter. If they're all equal, there is no way to determine who is best, therefore no reason to play.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 04:56 PM
  #72
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
If they're all equal, there is no way to determine who is best, therefore no reason to play.
Or worse as many NFL coaches, players and media have talked about lately is the mediocrity and frustrations of a league with a cap and parity. Google - NFL parity or mediocrity - and im sure you'll find a few examples. They are finding what they once thought was perfect fairness was illusory.

It sure seemed unfair to me, a Sens fan, when we had to lose Yashin because we were a poor small market. Of course today we could afford him. Because we are winning. It is fair that winning teams can take these players, its a good hockey decision for losing teams with expensive players to trade them and rebuild with younger players.

There shouldnt be any embarassment over the idea fans are bandwagoners. That only great teams draw lots of fans other than the few perma-markets. This is the reality you have to accomodate with a system. This reality dicatates that not all teams will be good at the same time. We need a system that allows for great teams and rebuilding teams to co-exist. THis is why the concept of a system that generates 30 equal teams is flawed - it is not fair. Strange as that sounds.

$30mil teams may not seem to be able to compete with $60mil teams this year, but watch what happens if they have success. They become the $60mil team. Every team has equal opportunity to develop a $50Mil team. Even small market Ottawa who 2 years ago was the poster boy for why CBA changes were needed. Ottawa fans thought we had no chance against big spending Toronto 2 years ago. Now many of us know better.

It wasnt because we were small market, it was because we werent succesful yet. Getting that first success is th hard part and isnt advantaged by money. Sustaining success brings you into the big spenders club.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 05:26 PM
  #73
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild

It wasnt because we were small market, it was because we werent succesful yet. Getting that first success is th hard part and isnt advantaged by money. Sustaining success brings you into the big spenders club.
And since a cap precludes any team from being big spenders, sustained success is not possible.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 05:31 PM
  #74
Epoch
Registered User
 
Epoch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,212
vCash: 500
Luxury Cap 45M$ ($ for $) + UFA @ 29 years old + Rookie Cap bonuses.

Epoch is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:17 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.