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
Notices

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.

A hard cap doesn't prevent teams from keeping star players.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-22-2004, 09:09 PM
  #51
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnie
You miss the whole point: it is better to be able to keep some of your star players than none of them. The purpose of the cap is to spead the talent, not allow teams to to keep a roster of stars.
Why are we lookign to spread the talent out. If the Devils, Senators and Red Wings are better at finding stars in the draft than the Blackhawks, Coyotes and Blues, shouldn't they be rewarded for that ???

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 09:25 PM
  #52
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 25,455
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Why are we lookign to spread the talent out. If the Devils, Senators and Red Wings are better at finding stars in the draft than the Blackhawks, Coyotes and Blues, shouldn't they be rewarded for that ???

and they will be.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 09:32 PM
  #53
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
and they will be.
Exactly.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-23-2004, 09:06 AM
  #54
Commander Enigma
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
and they will be.
Under a hard cap? I disagree. Explain how. There's no better example than the Tampa Bay Lightening. They developed three young MVP caliber stars. When they are up for their next contracts each of them will be commanding a big raise. They built a championship team and that would translate to increased revenue if a 1-2 year lockout doesn’t kill whatever good will they’ve earned in the Tampa community. Under a hard cap, there’s no way they can keep all of them without say, getting rid of Khabibulin or Kubina or let one or two of them go to try and maintain a more balanced roster. In short, they either choose to keep the three of them and fill the rest of the roster with scrubs. Then they won't be as good and they will lose popularity and lose revenue.

In point of fact, a hard cap penalizes teams that draft well and benefits teams that don’t. Tampa will have to get rid of some of their best players, even though they developed most of them themselves, who will then be signed by teams that have the cap space to sign them. Those are teams that don’t already have players that they want to spend money on… teams that can’t find those players in the draft.

There are ways to prevent teams like the Rangers and Blues from going out and outbidding most other teams for high priced free agents without resorting to forcing teams like Tampa and Ottawa to break themselves up and rebuild again.


Last edited by Commander Enigma: 12-23-2004 at 09:12 AM.
Commander Enigma is offline  
Old
12-23-2004, 09:52 AM
  #55
arnie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Why are we lookign to spread the talent out. If the Devils, Senators and Red Wings are better at finding stars in the draft than the Blackhawks, Coyotes and Blues, shouldn't they be rewarded for that ???
They are rewarded. If you develop talent, you have them for more years, whwe they are yoiunger and when they are cheaper. Besides, if you have to trade star players vbecause of cap, you still get somerthing in return. It isn't like you give them away.

The bottom line is this. Without a cap, 15 teams in the NHL have no chance of ever winning The cup. If one of these is your team, you'd have a different attitude.

arnie is offline  
Old
12-23-2004, 10:00 AM
  #56
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkboy
Under a hard cap? I disagree. Explain how. There's no better example than the Tampa Bay Lightening. They developed three young MVP caliber stars. When they are up for their next contracts each of them will be commanding a big raise. They built a championship team and that would translate to increased revenue if a 1-2 year lockout doesnít kill whatever good will theyíve earned in the Tampa community. Under a hard cap, thereís no way they can keep all of them without say, getting rid of Khabibulin or Kubina. In short, they either choose to keep the three of them and fill the rest of the roster with scrubs. Then they won't be as good and they will lose popularity and lose revenue.

In point of fact, a hard cap penalizes teams that draft well and benefits teams that donít. Tampa will have to get rid of some of their best players, even though they developed most of them themselves, who will then be signed by teams that have the cap space to sign them. Those are teams that donít already have players that they want to spend money onÖ teams that canít find those players in the draft.

There are ways to prevent teams like the Rangers and Blues from going out and outbidding most other teams for high priced free agents without resorting to forcing teams like Tampa and Ottawa to break themselves up and rebuild again.
I just don't buy this. I firmly believe the game should be about making choices, for both players and owners. In the past decade it has been impossible to make a choice as an owner. The field was tilted in such a way that the players and the uber rich teams had such a massive edge that there was only two choices. Overpay players or trade them for a deminished return to the Uber rich teams that would pay the players what they wanted. Not fair choices for the owners as the players were/are grossly overpaid. A capped league allows all teams access to the same choices and also gives players numerous choices they have not had in the past. This becomes fair as all teams now have more control over their respective organizations and can no longer have choices dictated to them. It also forces the players into new territory and makes the negotiation game take on a new challenge.

In the past players waited and waited for the best deal. Teams went abouts signing their players and not knowing what they were looking at for a budget. As a player waited for others to sign and "set the market for his services" the urgency was only placed on the team and not on the player. Hold outs were common place because there was no urgency for the player. A salary cap changes all of that. Urgency is now placed on both sides. If a player wants to ensure that he gets the chunk of that budget that he feels he deserves he is going to have to be at the front of the line come negotiation time. He better get signed while there is budget space there. If the player waits he risks the team spending money on other players and eating into the money that he could potentially be making. The onus is no longer placed on the team to negotiate and get a deal done, the onus is placed on the player and take an active role in the signing of a contract. Once the cap gets put into place we will no longer have to worry about players holding out. If players want to make money they will be at the front of the line. If they want to sit on the sideline and watch, they will do just that. The finite salary structure will be there for agents and managers to work within and the smart players will be first in line. The smart teams will also make sure the important players are at the front of the line as well.

This fear floating around that says Tampa will be screwed makes me laugh. Why would the Bolts have to worry about this? First salaries around the league will adjust lower and the expectations of the players will be geared down. Players will no longer be able to demand salaries in above $7 million. That will be restricted to the elite superstars that have proven their worth over and over. The really good players will make in the $4-5 million range, so a team will be able to have four or five really good players (Lecavalier, Richards, Khabibulin, Kubina, etc.) and still matain their budget. They, like every other team out there, has choices to make. They are going to make the decisions that work best for their team and the players will make choices of their own. The players they view as key will be the players that they try and sign first. The players will have a choice as well. They will decide if playing in Tampa at a fair salary for a good team in a beautiful city with a great climate is important enough to strike a fair bargain, or of they believe money is the most important factor and force a trade to a team that has room for their salary demands. It is very unlikely that the salaries are going to stay at the level they are at and the players will have to find their comfort zone, as will the respective teams. The team's big challenge will be defining the salary structure and pecking order for the team. The player's challange will be making the decision as to which is important to him.

Frankly I don't see a huge challenge for Tampa. I think its pretty obvious who your important players are. Richards and Lecavalier are your stars, not superstars (yet) but the best on the team and should be paid accordingly. Martin St. Louis, while being a great player for Tampa, is a niche player and should receive a much smaller chunk of the pie. Richards and Lecavalier would be a welcomed addition to any team. St. Louis would be a player with limited appeal, even more so now that the salary structures are restricted. These factors will likely play into decisions made by every team. They will sign players that provide the best bang for the buck for their organization. A player like St. Louis may not provide similar bang for the buck playing in a different city. Again, choices will be made by both sides and forced on both sides. The players will now be subjected to the same impacts from salary demands that the owners have been subjected to in the past. Personally I think this is going to be very interesting and will make the game that much more interesting. Yes, there will be some negative situations faced by every team as players are shipped out because of salary structures. But I think that there are going to be many more positive situations develop because of the cap than negative ones and that will make the game better in the long run.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
12-23-2004, 01:58 PM
  #57
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnie
The bottom line is this. Without a cap, 15 teams in the NHL have no chance of ever winning The cup. If one of these is your team, you'd have a different attitude.
I'd love to hear this list of 15 .... fire away.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-23-2004, 02:11 PM
  #58
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quat
My feeling was that in a market such as the one suggested by Bettman, third line players wouldn't be making 4 million dollar contracts.
I doesn't matter the actual salary number, the same thing could happen if a guy like Draper makes $1 million. If you're out of cap room, you're out of cap room, and its not always because of bad management.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quat
Even under todays CBA, no team keeps all it's players,
I can name you one that did.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-23-2004, 06:03 PM
  #59
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 29,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
I'd love to hear this list of 15 .... fire away.
Calgary...Anaheim...Carolina...Buffalo...NYR (irony)...

Happy Holidays JFF.

Trottier is offline  
Old
12-23-2004, 07:49 PM
  #60
Commander Enigma
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnie
They are rewarded. If you develop talent, you have them for more years, whwe they are yoiunger and when they are cheaper. Besides, if you have to trade star players vbecause of cap, you still get somerthing in return. It isn't like you give them away.
Actually, trading becomes extraordinarily difficult with a hard salary cap. Just look at the factor that trades play in the NFL. Last season there was a splashy Portis-Bailey trade, but those come around every blue moon. Because to trade you usually have to match salaries in order to stay within the cap. Teams will not find it as easy to trade high priced players for prospects and draft picks in order to begin a rebuilding process. If they want to do that, they'll have to trade with a team that can absorb that players salary... or they will have to take on expiring contracts so that they can let the players walk and clean the salary off the plate. Though under the NHL's latest proposal, that would be tough because there is a minimum cap instead of a maximum cap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnie
The bottom line is this. Without a cap, 15 teams in the NHL have no chance of ever winning The cup. If one of these is your team, you'd have a different attitude.

This has already been brought up by other posters, but the myth lives on. In the past two seasons, the representatives in the Stanley Cup finals have all come from small markets. The only big market team to make it as far as the conference finals has been Philadelphia. One out of eight. Small markets can compete in the current system. It's a provable fact with tangible evidence to back it up. Not that I think the current system doesn't need to change, but this insistence that some people have that a hard cap is the one and only way to solve the NHL's problems is silly.

Commander Enigma is offline  
Old
12-23-2004, 08:17 PM
  #61
Commander Enigma
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
I just don't buy this. I firmly believe the game should be about making choices, for both players and owners. In the past decade it has been impossible to make a choice as an owner. The field was tilted in such a way that the players and the uber rich teams had such a massive edge that there was only two choices. Overpay players or trade them for a deminished return to the Uber rich teams that would pay the players what they wanted. Not fair choices for the owners as the players were/are grossly overpaid. A capped league allows all teams access to the same choices and also gives players numerous choices they have not had in the past. This becomes fair as all teams now have more control over their respective organizations and can no longer have choices dictated to them. It also forces the players into new territory and makes the negotiation game take on a new challenge.

In the past players waited and waited for the best deal. Teams went abouts signing their players and not knowing what they were looking at for a budget. As a player waited for others to sign and "set the market for his services" the urgency was only placed on the team and not on the player. Hold outs were common place because there was no urgency for the player. A salary cap changes all of that. Urgency is now placed on both sides. If a player wants to ensure that he gets the chunk of that budget that he feels he deserves he is going to have to be at the front of the line come negotiation time. He better get signed while there is budget space there. If the player waits he risks the team spending money on other players and eating into the money that he could potentially be making. The onus is no longer placed on the team to negotiate and get a deal done, the onus is placed on the player and take an active role in the signing of a contract. Once the cap gets put into place we will no longer have to worry about players holding out. If players want to make money they will be at the front of the line. If they want to sit on the sideline and watch, they will do just that. The finite salary structure will be there for agents and managers to work within and the smart players will be first in line. The smart teams will also make sure the important players are at the front of the line as well.

This fear floating around that says Tampa will be screwed makes me laugh. Why would the Bolts have to worry about this? First salaries around the league will adjust lower and the expectations of the players will be geared down. Players will no longer be able to demand salaries in above $7 million. That will be restricted to the elite superstars that have proven their worth over and over. The really good players will make in the $4-5 million range, so a team will be able to have four or five really good players (Lecavalier, Richards, Khabibulin, Kubina, etc.) and still matain their budget. They, like every other team out there, has choices to make. They are going to make the decisions that work best for their team and the players will make choices of their own. The players they view as key will be the players that they try and sign first. The players will have a choice as well. They will decide if playing in Tampa at a fair salary for a good team in a beautiful city with a great climate is important enough to strike a fair bargain, or of they believe money is the most important factor and force a trade to a team that has room for their salary demands. It is very unlikely that the salaries are going to stay at the level they are at and the players will have to find their comfort zone, as will the respective teams. The team's big challenge will be defining the salary structure and pecking order for the team. The player's challange will be making the decision as to which is important to him.

Frankly I don't see a huge challenge for Tampa. I think its pretty obvious who your important players are. Richards and Lecavalier are your stars, not superstars (yet) but the best on the team and should be paid accordingly. Martin St. Louis, while being a great player for Tampa, is a niche player and should receive a much smaller chunk of the pie. Richards and Lecavalier would be a welcomed addition to any team. St. Louis would be a player with limited appeal, even more so now that the salary structures are restricted. These factors will likely play into decisions made by every team. They will sign players that provide the best bang for the buck for their organization. A player like St. Louis may not provide similar bang for the buck playing in a different city. Again, choices will be made by both sides and forced on both sides. The players will now be subjected to the same impacts from salary demands that the owners have been subjected to in the past. Personally I think this is going to be very interesting and will make the game that much more interesting. Yes, there will be some negative situations faced by every team as players are shipped out because of salary structures. But I think that there are going to be many more positive situations develop because of the cap than negative ones and that will make the game better in the long run.
I think your POV is very broad and idealistic. You think the owners had no choices before and a hard cap will solve everything. I think it is proven that owners who put their trust in smart GMs could get competitive teams in the old system without spending 60 million a year. No need for me to rehash the evidence. That doesnít mean that I support the old systemÖ I think it is unfair that Detroit, NYR and St. Louis, among other teams, generally had the best shots at signing free agents. But I just donít think a hard cap is necessary to solve this. I would whole heartedly support a soft cap with certain exemptions, and I have yet to read any proponent of a hard cap explain what is wrong with that.

Iím not saying Tampa will be screwed, but they WILL be limited, and I ask why should they be? They did nothing wrong in building their team. They build a championship team by developing talent, making savvy acquisitions, and they did in all within a budget. They have affectively blown apart this myth that exactly this sort of team and this sort of market canít compete. They nearly lost to the Calgary Flames, no less. What more evidence do you need?

A soft cap would limit teams over the threshold from signing marquee free agents and making any trades in which they would add salary. Only teams under the cap could make moves like that. This would level the playing field without limiting teams from building themselves up exactly how they should do it.

Again, just explain what is the point of having a system that forces teams like Tampa and Ottawa to let talent they developed go to other teams. We all understand why the Rangers need to be limited, but a hard cap goes too far.

Commander Enigma is offline  
Old
12-23-2004, 11:03 PM
  #62
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkboy
I think your POV is very broad and idealistic.
Why thank you. After reading your post I would say that it is grounded in reality much more than what you suggested.

Quote:
You think the owners had no choices before and a hard cap will solve everything.
No, owners had choices, but the owners had very different choices based on their budgets. Six or seven teams essentially were free to make decisions that the other 23 or 24 clubs were not. The players were also capable of putting many of the teams into corners because they were able to practice collusion (someone from the player side had better explain why the players are allowed to do this but the owners are not) and the threaten the owners with lawsuits should they attempt to control the industry through salary fixing. The options many teams had were few and the one they got to exercise the most was shipping their talent out of town.

Quote:
I think it is proven that owners who put their trust in smart GMs could get competitive teams in the old system without spending 60 million a year.
Wow. Not spending $60 million. What a challenge. How many teams in the league last year managed to do that? All but two or three? Your number is a joke. Try a respectable number like $35-40 million. Any more than that is a crime IMO.

Quote:
No need for me to rehash the evidence.
Oh yes, please do rehash the evidence. I would like someone to point out how a team was capable of sustaining any level of success without the budget crawling in the $45-50 million range. Fact of the matter is that it is impossible to keep a team together once they have attained any level of success withoutbthe budget spinning out of control.

Quote:
That doesnít mean that I support the old systemÖ I think it is unfair that Detroit, NYR and St. Louis, among other teams, generally had the best shots at signing free agents. But I just donít think a hard cap is necessary to solve this. I would whole heartedly support a soft cap with certain exemptions, and I have yet to read any proponent of a hard cap explain what is wrong with that.
And how would a soft cap work? How is that going to prevent the big market teams from continulally over spending and buying the small market team's best players? How? If the Rangers are willing to spend $70 million now, and the "soft cap" is at $40 million, why would they not continue to spend $70 million on salaries and taxes? The fact of the matter is that the only thing that keeps teams from exceeding the cap is to have a hard cap. MLB has shown how assinine a luxury tax system is. The NBA has shown just how easily a soft cap system can be abused. The most successful league in sports, the NFL, utilizes a hard cap. The NHL needs a hard cap to protect all teams from over spending.

Quote:
Iím not saying Tampa will be screwed, but they WILL be limited, and I ask why should they be? They did nothing wrong in building their team. They build a championship team by developing talent, making savvy acquisitions, and they did in all within a budget. They have affectively blown apart this myth that exactly this sort of team and this sort of market canít compete. They nearly lost to the Calgary Flames, no less. What more evidence do you need?
What evidence? I want to see Tampa come back and sign their "star" players and maintain their budget. Without a cap that will be impossible. The Lightning do not have the revenue streams to sustain a budget more than what they had last season. How are they going to deal with the salary demands of Richards, Lecavalier, St. Louis, etc.? With the system in place all of those players will be seeing their salaries double or triple, because they have to be paid comparable to their peers who have attained such lofty heights. Tampa will be forced to make choices under either system. With their budget expexcted to increase substantially they will be forced to move a player or two. Ain't success grand.

It will also be interesting to see how Calgary handles success as well. They already lost Conroy. They have Jarome Iginla to get under contract. What about their hopes of long term success? Or does it not matter? Fact of the matter is that two smaller market teams who BUILT their teams will be likely FORCED into making moves. At least in a capped situation all teams face the same budget crunch and will face thesame challenges. This will help teams retain their players.

Quote:
A soft cap would limit teams over the threshold from signing marquee free agents and making any trades in which they would add salary. Only teams under the cap could make moves like that. This would level the playing field without limiting teams from building themselves up exactly how they should do it.
Bull. A soft cap prevents nothing. As I said earlier, if a team has been spending $70 million on salaries in the past they will not think twice about exceeding a soft cap and paying a penalty. Look to the NBA for proof. How many teams are over the soft cap? All of them? Soft caps don't work. They are nothing but another way for the players to gouge more money out of the owners and get that money into a pool where they have 100% documented proof that the revenue exists and can be spent. Soft caps play right into the players' hands and add to inflation.

Quote:
Again, just explain what is the point of having a system that forces teams like Tampa and Ottawa to let talent they developed go to other teams. We all understand why the Rangers need to be limited, but a hard cap goes too far.
All teams have to play by the same rules. Plain and simple. As soon as all teams start playing by the same rules some stability will ensue. If you don't believe this feel free to look at the NHL prior to the 1994 CBA and tell me about teams being forced to dump players because of salaries. It didn't happen. Only when the players were given carte blanche to collude and extort, sending salaries on an incredible inflationary spiral, did you begin to see teams dump players because of salaries. The existing system is the one that forces teams to dump their talent that they have developed, not the one suggested by the NHL. The NHL wants to get control over the game again and start building some stability. The players want to retain the system they have because they know it will continue to send salaries skyrocketting and giving the players more and more control over the game without assuming any sort of fiscal risk. The NHL is trying to bring some sanity back to the game from a fiscal position. A cap will do just that. How about YOU prove other wise. Prove that a cap will not allow teams to retain their home grown talent and will force them to move their players.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
12-23-2004, 11:08 PM
  #63
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
And how would a soft cap work? How is that going to prevent the big market teams from continulally over spending and buying the small market team's best players? How? If the Rangers are willing to spend $70 million now, and the "soft cap" is at $40 million, why would they not continue to spend $70 million on salaries and taxes? The fact of the matter is that the only thing that keeps teams from exceeding the cap is to have a hard cap. MLB has shown how assinine a luxury tax system is. The NBA has shown just how easily a soft cap system can be abused. The most successful league in sports, the NFL, utilizes a hard cap. The NHL needs a hard cap to protect all teams from over spending.
Do you honestly think that a hard cap is the reason why the NFL is the most popular sport in America ???

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-23-2004, 11:39 PM
  #64
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Do you honestly think that a hard cap is the reason why the NFL is the most popular sport in America ???
Reading comprehension a problem? I said "The most successful league in sports, the NFL, utilizes a hard cap". Successful. A large part of that success is a result of the fan interest being maintained through the whole season and from year to year. Each year the fans in almost every market knows they stand a chance of making the playoffs. The cap plays a big part in that success. Like it or not, it has contributed to teams being competitive, profitable and stable. Explain why the NHL should not implement a system that would encourage these basic tenets for the league?

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
12-24-2004, 11:49 AM
  #65
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
Reading comprehension a problem? I said "The most successful league in sports, the NFL, utilizes a hard cap". Successful. A large part of that success is a result of the fan interest being maintained through the whole season and from year to year. Each year the fans in almost every market knows they stand a chance of making the playoffs. The cap plays a big part in that success. Like it or not, it has contributed to teams being competitive, profitable and stable. Explain why the NHL should not implement a system that would encourage these basic tenets for the league?
Hmmm the NFL also has massive revenue sharing

the NFL also tell players exactly what they can and can't wear, so maybe all NHL players should:

use the same sticks
use the same helmets
tape their sticks in the same fashion
tape their socks in the same fashion
not be able to celebrate with teammates after a goal is scored

The NFL thinks all those things are widely important to maintaining order and developing a team image. Team over the individual.

Since the NFL is the most successful league in the world we should copy everything thay do, right ???


...just remember there is more than one way to make a buck ...

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-24-2004, 04:41 PM
  #66
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 29,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
Like it or not, it has contributed to teams being competitive, profitable and stable. Explain why the NHL should not implement a system that would encourage these basic tenets for the league?
Iconoclast, your point is taken (at least here). Though we may not agree with the way to get to leaguewide profitability and stability, there is no denying that those very real economic issues must be addressed in the new CBA. Clearly, the two sides, as of now, disagree on the solutions, as do posters on this board.

However, respectfully, it is intellectually dishonest to include competitiveness among the list of problems facing the NHL. I will not ignore the fact that three teams - Avs, Wings, and Devils - have clearly stood above the rest over the last decade, and that possessing a budgetary advantage has contributed to their success. (Though one despises the insipid cliche espoused by a few posters that those teams simply "buy Cups". )

Likewise, however, you and others on the opposite side of this argument must respect the fact that small-market teams also compete - really compete - for the Cup on a regular basis. Be it the Sabres, Hurricanes, Ducks, Flames or TB playing in recent Finals, or teams like Minnesota reaching Conference Finals. The response that these teams are " one-hit wonders" is weak, as it contradicts the argument (flawed, IMO) made by many pro-hardcappers: namely, we need "greater parity/competition," with more teams having a chance to win each year. Isn't that EXACTLY what has taken place among the aforementioned teams over the last several seasons?! (Rhetorical question. )

Regardless, I am simply debating (in a friendly manner) your POV. Nothing personal. Happy Holidays.

Trottier is offline  
Old
12-24-2004, 06:42 PM
  #67
Boomhower
Registered User
 
Boomhower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,800
vCash: 500
It's easy for NFL teams to keep their star players, because they can cut players who are making a fair amount of coin, but are no longer performing like they did when they first signed the deal.

However in the NHL, guaranteed contracts aren't going anywhere. Once a team commits money to 4 or 5 high calibre players over a long term, there won't be any money left to keep a player who happens to bust out and become a star.

Boomhower 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 03:08 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.