HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012-2013 Lockout Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-13-2012, 03:44 PM
  #26
Jackpot
Registered Abuser
 
Jackpot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Syracuse, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 653
vCash: 500
Should really think about a dedicated "Lockout" thread, not trying to offend anyone, it's really good information. But it's rather disheartening to check in on FA happenings / news and read through six pages of potential lockout news.. JMO

Jackpot is online now  
Old
08-13-2012, 03:46 PM
  #27
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackpot View Post
Should really think about a dedicated "Lockout" thread, not trying to offend anyone, it's really good information. But it's rather disheartening to check in on FA happenings / news and read through six pages of potential lockout news.. JMO
No offense taken.

Mods: I guess some of this can be directed to a new thread??? I don't know how this works.

CM Lundqvist is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 03:47 PM
  #28
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaneone View Post
How many players are allowed to play in the AHL?
Yeah, that is a pretty good question. Rangerboy might know.

CM Lundqvist is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 03:54 PM
  #29
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,868
vCash: 500
Quote:
#NHLPA executive director Don Fehr says players will provide an "alternative view" on Tues. "how the players see the world"
https://twitter.com/michaelgrange/st...00297364660224

Fehr is going to offer a luxury tax system. That's not cost certainty.

Disheartening? Reality of the situation. You can't talk about free agent moves and trades when the rules are going to change in 33 days.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 03:55 PM
  #30
Clowes Line
Cally's Chicken Parm
 
Clowes Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Yawk
Country: United States
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
Well, MSG didn't put up much of the money either. They got Chase to pay for it.

And why won't the NHL accept a luxury tax system?
Luxury tax would ruin the competitiveness of the sport. Big markets with a lot of money will be at an even bigger advantage, because while you get "taxed", it basically creates a system with no salary cap, as you can go over it as much as you want as long as you are willing to pay the tax. Teams like the Rangers who have owners like Dolan will always be able to take advantage of the luxury tax and it will create even more separation between the big market teams and small market teams.

Clowes Line is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 04:02 PM
  #31
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,770
vCash: 500
2012-2013 Lockout Discussion Thread

Please use this thread for all Lockout discussion and news

NYR Viper is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 04:02 PM
  #32
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreiders Underwear View Post
Luxury tax would ruin the competitiveness of the sport. Big markets with a lot of money will be at an even bigger advantage, because while you get "taxed", it basically creates a system with no salary cap, as you can go over it as much as you want as long as you are willing to pay the tax. Teams like the Rangers who have owners like Dolan will always be able to take advantage of the luxury tax and it will create even more separation between the big market teams and small market teams.
Not if it's a hard one like the MLB is using.

Since the new system was instituted in 2010, the Yankees have spent far less money on players and have made far more concerted efforts to get rid of salaries, see: AJ Burnett.

CM Lundqvist is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 04:02 PM
  #33
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreiders Underwear View Post
Luxury tax would ruin the competitiveness of the sport. Big markets with a lot of money will be at an even bigger advantage, because while you get "taxed", it basically creates a system with no salary cap, as you can go over it as much as you want as long as you are willing to pay the tax. Teams like the Rangers who have owners like Dolan will always be able to take advantage of the luxury tax and it will create even more separation between the big market teams and small market teams.
i don't think it would. it didn't in the past....

how is all this parity any improvement? is it exactly "fair" that an established franchise like edmonton or the islanders should get rewarded for S*cking year after year and acquire all of the best young talent when they haven't earned it?

Having these expansion teams in areas with weak or non existent hockey markets is what's hurting the sport.

NikC is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 04:06 PM
  #34
Clowes Line
Cally's Chicken Parm
 
Clowes Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Yawk
Country: United States
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
i don't think it would. it didn't in the past....

how is all this parity any improvement? is it exactly "fair" that an established franchise like edmonton or the islanders should get rewarded for S*cking year after year and acquire all of the best young talent when they haven't earned it?

Having these expansion teams in areas with weak or non existent hockey markets is what's hurting the sport.
Yes it is fair that teams who suck get lottery picks. How the **** else would they ever get better? Teams that win the Stanley Cup should get 1st overall pick?

Clowes Line is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 04:12 PM
  #35
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreiders Underwear View Post
Yes it is fair that teams who suck get lottery picks. How the **** else would they ever get better? Teams that win the Stanley Cup should get 1st overall pick?
my point is it goes both ways. why shouldn't more affluent markets be allowed to obtain expensive talent if they so choose? Certain markets fanbases (such as ours) wouldn't tolerate drastic rebuilds and have to build other ways.

draft lottery to support the struggling teams, luxury tax for the more affluent.

NikC is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 04:20 PM
  #36
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
https://twitter.com/michaelgrange/st...00297364660224

Fehr is going to offer a luxury tax system. That's not cost certainty.

Disheartening? Reality of the situation. You can't talk about free agent moves and trades when the rules are going to change in 33 days.
Well a team doesn't have to exceed the cap if they want cost certainty. And if they are willing to pay the tax then obviously they can afford it.

broadwayblue is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 04:20 PM
  #37
The Dark Passenger
HFNYR Blues GM
 
The Dark Passenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vermont -> Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 1,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Brandon Prust ‏@BrandonPrust8
I wonder how many blocked shots, hits, fights, stitches, broken bones, concussions, and surgerys gary has had? http://*******/QuwH0q
If there is a lockout this thing is going to get ugly.

The Dark Passenger is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 04:21 PM
  #38
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Passenger View Post
If there is a lockout this thing is going to get ugly.
Guess you're a glass half full kind of guy.

broadwayblue is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 04:35 PM
  #39
bulax17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 68
vCash: 500
Frolunda has already expressed interest in bringing Lundqvist in if there's a lockout: http://www.nyrangersblog.com/2012-ar...ut-occurs.html

bulax17 is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 04:40 PM
  #40
Kane One
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 28,826
vCash: 1000
I'm all for the luxury tax system. It's more fair to richer teams.

I feel bad for the poorer teams, but the fact of the matter is our fans are more willing to pay for expensive-as-**** tickets than other teams. I feel we should get something in return, like free agents.

Poorer teams' fans would complain about this, but how about they sell out their arena and pay the same price we do? If they did that, they will be able to compete.

I'm not saying to remove the salary cap as a whole, but have a more NBA-like system, or somewhere in between.

__________________

Last edited by Kane One: 08-13-2012 at 04:45 PM.
Kane One is online now  
Old
08-13-2012, 04:46 PM
  #41
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreiders Underwear View Post
Luxury tax would ruin the competitiveness of the sport. Big markets with a lot of money will be at an even bigger advantage, because while you get "taxed", it basically creates a system with no salary cap, as you can go over it as much as you want as long as you are willing to pay the tax. Teams like the Rangers who have owners like Dolan will always be able to take advantage of the luxury tax and it will create even more separation between the big market teams and small market teams.

Right now the Rangers are supporting ten other teams. Why shouldn't they get something for it?

Mr Atoz* is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 04:49 PM
  #42
mrjimmyg89
'13-'14 East Champs
 
mrjimmyg89's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,871
vCash: 500
Luxury tax is terrible. The NBA had that in place and there was NO parity. The best thing to ever happen to the Rangers is the hard cap that is currently in place. We'd still be watching overpriced old players if they didn't change that. I'm all for limiting spending. It promotes that teams need to build from youth and make smart decisions on signing players. It also would kill the market if someone drastically overpays for someone. Players who are around the same type of production would ask for the same money. Smaller market teams will shrivel up in that type of system.

8 teams in the NBA produced a profit in the luxury tax time. IF 8 teams in the NHL did that, the league would die. Luxury tax is a terrible idea. Keep the hard cap, promote more revenue sharing and go from their. Lowering the cap should also happen, but not at the expense of rollbacks that are drastic. I'd say something like a 10% rollback (which is over 50% less than what the owners want) and going to the cap used last season of 64.3 for two seasons and adjusting after that. That 10% rollback and 64.3 number would have maybe 1 or 2 teams over the cap and barely over, where one roster move, either trade or waiver/send down would put them back under.

mrjimmyg89 is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 04:54 PM
  #43
Kane One
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 28,826
vCash: 1000
Then maybe have a stricter luxury tax system than the NBA?

Kane One is online now  
Old
08-13-2012, 04:59 PM
  #44
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Passenger View Post
If there is a lockout this thing is going to get ugly.
The mudslinging has already begun.

My take? Any one who feels the need to make a comment should stop and ask themselves if they know anything about financials when it comes to a multi-billion dollar entity.

If they dont, they should just shut the hell up. That goes for fans, players, whatever.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 05:02 PM
  #45
Amazing Kreiderman
Night-shift fan!
 
Amazing Kreiderman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Netherlands
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 5,258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM Lundqvist View Post
NHL overexpanded into markets that couldn't function properly, Bettman is to blame for this. He should have been able to see that without a player like Gretzky who was marketable beyond anything that he couldn't sustain interest in markets dominated by other sports in climates that don't support a sport played in cold weather. The Atlanta Flames didn't work, what made Bettman think the Thrashers would thrive there? Columbus has a good fanbase, but has terrible ownership and front office management. They COULD be a very good franchise if ran properly.

Florida, Atlanta, Phoenix, Nashville. These are poorly run teams who don't make great money because they're in piss poor markets with mediocre ownership. Tampa Bay has had better ownership and managament. Smarter hockey minds need to be at the front of these organizations for them to sustain themselves.

Key words there... "SUSTAIN THEMSELVES". Stop holding onto teams who are dragging this league down.

Why should the players have to give back because of upper management incompetence? Why should the players who were offered these contracts BY THE OWNERS have to give back because of their greed?

It's one giant joke.
Well said and I feel the same way. Hockey is a sport that just doesn't do well in the Southern states. Basketball is the same. It doesn't work in Canada which is why there's only 1 NBA team in Canada but they have 2 in Los Angeles alone. A man in the position of Bettman should know his sport, know the market and act upon it. Phoenix did good this year but apart from the odd good season, the franchise doesn't have a future. After all these years I still don't understand how Quebec is without a franchise. Yes, the Nordiques didn't do well but was that the market or management?

Amazing Kreiderman is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 05:02 PM
  #46
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjimmyg89 View Post
Luxury tax is terrible. The NBA had that in place and there was NO parity.
I dont think the lack of parity on the NBA has anything to do with the luxury tax.

It has more to do with basketball being a silly game where 2 or 3 great players can consistently dictate the outcome of games for years on end.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 05:08 PM
  #47
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM Lundqvist View Post
NHL overexpanded into markets that couldn't function properly, Bettman is to blame for this. He should have been able to see that without a player like Gretzky who was marketable beyond anything that he couldn't sustain interest in markets dominated by other sports in climates that don't support a sport played in cold weather. The Atlanta Flames didn't work, what made Bettman think the Thrashers would thrive there? Columbus has a good fanbase, but has terrible ownership and front office management. They COULD be a very good franchise if ran properly.

Florida, Atlanta, Phoenix, Nashville. These are poorly run teams who don't make great money because they're in piss poor markets with mediocre ownership. Tampa Bay has had better ownership and managament. Smarter hockey minds need to be at the front of these organizations for them to sustain themselves.

Key words there... "SUSTAIN THEMSELVES". Stop holding onto teams who are dragging this league down.

Why should the players have to give back because of upper management incompetence? Why should the players who were offered these contracts BY THE OWNERS have to give back because of their greed?

It's one giant joke.

No Bettman is not to blame for over-expansion. The NHL was over-expanded long before Bettman came along. The other owners are to blame because they get to collect an expansion fee which they gladly pocket, forgetting that in a few years they have to bail the same owners out.

Mr Atoz* is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 05:11 PM
  #48
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,754
vCash: 500
Or you could get rid of teams that have and will continue to keep floundering due to their incompetent ownership and the fact that they're in markets that this game doesn't appeal to.

CM Lundqvist is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 05:15 PM
  #49
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjimmyg89 View Post
Luxury tax is terrible. The NBA had that in place and there was NO parity. The best thing to ever happen to the Rangers is the hard cap that is currently in place. We'd still be watching overpriced old players if they didn't change that. I'm all for limiting spending. It promotes that teams need to build from youth and make smart decisions on signing players. It also would kill the market if someone drastically overpays for someone. Players who are around the same type of production would ask for the same money. Smaller market teams will shrivel up in that type of system.

8 teams in the NBA produced a profit in the luxury tax time. IF 8 teams in the NHL did that, the league would die. Luxury tax is a terrible idea. Keep the hard cap, promote more revenue sharing and go from their. Lowering the cap should also happen, but not at the expense of rollbacks that are drastic. I'd say something like a 10% rollback (which is over 50% less than what the owners want) and going to the cap used last season of 64.3 for two seasons and adjusting after that. That 10% rollback and 64.3 number would have maybe 1 or 2 teams over the cap and barely over, where one roster move, either trade or waiver/send down would put them back under.
Well said.

I'm totally against a luxury tax. The hard salary cap has saved the Rangers from themselves. The Rangers took that money and invested in better facilities and better scouting. With the Luxury tax, you would be tempting the Rangers(as well as other big market clubs)to have an "arms race" to buy championships. That almost never works in Hockey. But teams will try it anyways.

I think its going to be a combination of player salary reductions(probably between 6-10 percent)and increased revenue sharing.

Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 05:16 PM
  #50
Amazing Kreiderman
Night-shift fan!
 
Amazing Kreiderman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Netherlands
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 5,258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM Lundqvist View Post
Or you could get rid of teams that have and will continue to keep floundering due to their incompetent ownership and the fact that they're in markets that this game doesn't appeal to.
We have 30 teams now and I think we can get rid of at least 2 (FLA & PHX). That leaves us with 28 teams which we can divide into 4 divisions, making it better structured.

Amazing Kreiderman 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 10:55 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.