HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

The Line Has Been Drawn. Choose Your Side!

View Poll Results: Are You Pro Owners or Pro NHLPA??
Owners All The Way Baby! Let's Have a Cap Or Tax! 127 82.47%
I Vote NHLPA! Open Market (with a few concessions) 27 17.53%
Voters: 154. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-11-2004, 07:43 PM
  #51
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
If another player scores more goals then you should get paid more.
That's why John Leclair was paid 9M$ back then.

Also is the salary of a player all related to goals ? Bobby Holik is paid 9M$ for his defensive ability.

Martin Lapointe & Michael Peca are paid 5M$ for his leadership


Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
If my neighbour has a better job then he should get paid more.
The same thing apply in hockey, a GM feel that player A worth is better than player B because the GM's think player A will bring more to the team than Player B.

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 07:53 PM
  #52
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
Colorado won cups with their core players, they add a few free agents but if you look carefully they made HUGE TRADES that made them give up a LOT OF FUTURE in order that today in 2004, they are very thin in prospect.

Can you tell me if it's a normal cycle that a team like Colorado was a power house for a few years & they will soon be in a HURTFULL rebuilding mode when Forsberg-Sakic-Blake will be gone ?

Detroit won cups with their core players, they add a few free agents but if you look carefully they made HUGE TRADES that made them give up a LOT OF FUTURE in order that today in 2004, they are very thin in prospect.

Can you tell me if it's a normal cycle that a team like Detriut was a power house for a few years & they will soon be in a HURTFULL rebuilding mode when Lidstrom-Yzerman & others will be gone ?

Toronto got a lot of money, they made more playoffs series than anyone in the last X years but they still are looking for 1 cup since 1967 !!! They hired very old UFA's & they have nothing in term of youth to trade for. (Technically they have some like Colaiacovo - Stajan) . Now is money so much a concern to you that makes you think that other teams then Toronto can't go to the cup without the same resources ?
I think you underestimate the importance of those "few free agents."

Calgary could never add players like Chris Chelios, Brett Hull, Rob Blake, Ray Bourque, Derian Hatcher, Brett Hull, Dominik Hasek, etc like Detroit and Colorado can. That's a problem that needs to be addressed.

You are a Habs fan. What if Kovalev was offered $6 million by Detroit to play for them this year. It's a real possibility. It won't likely happen due to the owners clamping down on salary this year, but any other year it could happen. Then Montreal is a worse team for it. Montreal can't pay $6 million for Kovalev. Kovalev would leave and get the better contract, and a better chance to win the cup. I certainly can't blame him if he left for that but myself, as a fan would be hurting because of it.

Why in the world do you NOT want to give Montreal the same budget as Detroit or New York? Why should teams with big budgets be able to outbid us for our best players? Why shouldn't we have an even playing field?

I just can't understand why people do not want every team to have an equal chance financially. When the budgets are all the same, then it is the talent of the management and scouts that makes the difference.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 08:00 PM
  #53
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
The same thing apply in hockey, a GM feel that player A worth is better than player B because the GM's think player A will bring more to the team than Player B.
I don't know why I keep coming back here to argue. It's making me sick.

Both the Detroit GM and the Calgary GM feel that player A's worth is better than player B's worth because player A will bring more to the team than player B.

But Calgary can only offer player A $2 million because they only have a $30 million budget. Detroit has a $50 million dollar budget, so Detroit can offer player A $3.5 million. Where is player A going to go? Who suffers because of it? (Hint: Calgary). Why anyone would defend such an imbalanced situation is beyond me.

I know the league isn't perfect. I know it's not a perfect world. But the owners and players have the opportunity to help save hockey in Canada and other small markets by creating an equal opportunity league for every team and fan. We already know what happened to Quebec City and Winnipeg. The same danger exists for Edmonton and Calgary. Why let that happen? Canada is where the majority of the best players in the world have come from. We invented hockey for heaven's sakes. Let's keep hockey here and give the Alberta teams a chance to survive.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 08:03 PM
  #54
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
But the owners and players have the opportunity to help save hockey in Canada and other small markets by creating an equal opportunity league for every team and fan. We already know what happened to Quebec City and Winnipeg. The same danger exists for Edmonton and Calgary. Why let that happen? Canada is where the majority of the best players in the world have come from. We invented hockey for heaven's sakes. Let's keep hockey here and give the Alberta teams a chance to survive.
Quebec City would have DIED anyway with a CAP because they wouldn't have a new arena. The Colisee never gave them enough revenue to compete even under a hard cap.

The danger in Edmonton & Calgary & Montreal & almost 3/4 of the teams is that if you have a BAD MANAGEMENT STAFF & ACCOUNTANT STAFF, you are at risk to lose a lot of money.

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 08:07 PM
  #55
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
I think you underestimate the importance of those "few free agents."

Calgary could never add players like Chris Chelios, Brett Hull, Rob Blake, Ray Bourque, Derian Hatcher, Brett Hull, Dominik Hasek, etc like Detroit and Colorado can. That's a problem that needs to be addressed.

You are a Habs fan. What if Kovalev was offered $6 million by Detroit to play for them this year. It's a real possibility. It won't likely happen due to the owners clamping down on salary this year, but any other year it could happen. Then Montreal is a worse team for it. Montreal can't pay $6 million for Kovalev. Kovalev would leave and get the better contract, and a better chance to win the cup. I certainly can't blame him if he left for that but myself, as a fan would be hurting because of it.

Why in the world do you NOT want to give Montreal the same budget as Detroit or New York? Why should teams with big budgets be able to outbid us for our best players? Why shouldn't we have an even playing field?

I just can't understand why people do not want every team to have an equal chance financially. When the budgets are all the same, then it is the talent of the management and scouts that makes the difference.
Why is that important ? It doesn't adress the reason why the OWNERS want a cap ?

The owners want a cap because they are saying they lose money. But even if they lose money that doesn't mean it's related to the CBA which a lot of teams is exactly that it's not due to the CBA. Stop fixating on not having Chelios. Detroit can have it if they want, I don't care. They sign Robyn Regehr for a FAIR PRICE !!

By the way ?

Why Robyn Regehr sign for cheap ? was it because he does not have any leverage to quit Calgary until he's 31 ? Do you think it's unfair to Robyn Regehr that he CAN'T GET his TRUE VALUE because he's stuck with the FLAMES ???

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 08:26 PM
  #56
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
Quebec City would have DIED anyway with a CAP because they wouldn't have a new arena. The Colisee never gave them enough revenue to compete even under a hard cap.

The danger in Edmonton & Calgary & Montreal & almost 3/4 of the teams is that if you have a BAD MANAGEMENT STAFF & ACCOUNTANT STAFF, you are at risk to lose a lot of money.
If they had gotten a cap way sooner Quebec would be fine.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 08:35 PM
  #57
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
Why is that important ? It doesn't adress the reason why the OWNERS want a cap ?

The owners want a cap because they are saying they lose money. But even if they lose money that doesn't mean it's related to the CBA which a lot of teams is exactly that it's not due to the CBA. Stop fixating on not having Chelios. Detroit can have it if they want, I don't care. They sign Robyn Regehr for a FAIR PRICE !!
I don't care why owners want a cap. I want a system where all 30 teams are equally competitive financially.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 07:45 AM
  #58
StevenintheATL
Registered User
 
StevenintheATL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: The ATL!
Country: United States
Posts: 2,747
vCash: 500
If a salary cap is all that bad, why haven't the NFL and NBA scrapped them? All a salary cap means is that you can't go over X amount of dollars on player payroll. It doesn't mean you have to spend that cap amount, it means you can spend up to X amount of dollars. If the league were maybe to throw in an exemption (AKA the Larry Bird rule from when the NBA introduced a salary cap) of several million dollars so a team can resign a player they otherwise couldn't with a cap, then perhaps something could be worked out. Unfortunately, the NHLPA wants no kind of cap whatsoever. They want a luxury tax, much like what Major League Baseball has. I'm sure the Rangers would love to have to be shelling out a luxury tax, especially since they've tried to do what the Yankees have, without much success. One of the big problems is the fact that a fifth of the NHL is Canadian-based, and the Canadian $ is weaker than the US $. The NHL has tried to balance that inequity, but those plans never really got too far. A salary cap can bring parity to the league, but even with that, you'll still have teams that would not be to successful (Who in the NHL would be the league's version or the LA Clippers?). The owners have tried in good faith to negotiate a new CBA, but the NHLPA has been very close minded and stubborn (They've presented 2 proposals in 11 months, while the owners have presented more than 6).

StevenintheATL is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 10:24 AM
  #59
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vespajet
If a salary cap is all that bad, why haven't the NFL and NBA scrapped them? All a salary cap means is that you can't go over X amount of dollars on player payroll. It doesn't mean you have to spend that cap amount, it means you can spend up to X amount of dollars.

The owners have tried in good faith to negotiate a new CBA, but the NHLPA has been very close minded and stubborn (They've presented 2 proposals in 11 months, while the owners have presented more than 6).
Lets see what happens when the next NFL CBA is due. And their have a new lower TV contract. It will be interesting. After the NFLPA has been called a bunch of cowards for their last negotiation.

Its not a contest to see who can come up with the most ideas.

Because to get a salary cap you will have to break the union. If they are weak and replaceable like the NFL players union, you can enforce a cap unheard of in the normal businessworld. But you dont have to. Even Bettman has said this. He said he doesnt need a hard cap to solve his problems.

So given that to get it, you have to lockout the players and wait who knows how long for someone to give in, or achieve the same objectives another way, which do you propose.

Besides the effects of a cap are much more pernicious than you make them out. It is not just a simple fair thing. It forces mass movement, league mediocrity, a diminishment of great competition, the marquee matchups and great teams that casual fans like to follow. It alters the team building concept.

A cap may be good in a league designed for gambling like the NFL, but even their fans are finding the artificial parity they created not as satisfying as they thought.




Quote:
Originally Posted by licentia
Calgary could never add players like Chris Chelios, Brett Hull, Rob Blake, Ray Bourque, Derian Hatcher, Brett Hull, Dominik Hasek, etc like Detroit and Colorado can. That's a problem that needs to be addressed
Calgary never developed a team like Detroit or Colorado that they could add those players to. No Calgary cant go out and buy a team to beat the teams that Colorado and Detroit largely developed slowly over years themselves. No team can. Many have tried, all have failed. This is a good thing.

Its a good thing they cant buy a team to compete against Colorado and Detroit. There is only one way to have a team than can beat them - you must develop one yourself - cheaply and patiently. Like everyone else - regardles of how much money they have.

If Calgary did do that, and had a 1st place team, and Detroit was missing the playoffs, I think you would find the team with the crazy rich owner would suddenly be different.

Why do you care if Calgary is competitive financially with Detroit, when they can beat them on the ice?

thinkwild is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 02:04 PM
  #60
justapantherfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunrise, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 3,205
vCash: 500
Owners All The Way Baby! Let's Have a Cap Or Tax!

justapantherfan is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 02:54 PM
  #61
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by justapantherfan
Owners All The Way Baby! Let's Have a Cap Or Tax!
Oh yeah!

Licentia 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 02:13 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.