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, and NHL revenues.

Goodenow Statement

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-21-2004, 09:56 AM
  #51
habitual_hab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: bc
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
I don't think it was fair. Plenty of geriatric players were cashing in while players in their mid-20s were playing twice as well and getting half as much. Thats doesn't seem fair or marketplace driven. If it was a true market price would Roenick get more than Thornton? etc
true market price? To a very large extent, the owners themselves determine what a player's fair market value is.

A good case in point is the Bobby Holik by the New York Rangers.

Holik insisted on getting a contract worth $9 million per season. Yes, it was an extravagent demand by a player and his agent, but what's overlooked is the fact that the Rangers, Maple Leafs and Holik's former club the Devils got into a bidding war for his services.

Rather than laugh off Holik's salary demands and tell him to come back when he was willing to be more reasonable, all three teams fell over each other trying to land him. The Leafs and Devils offered up $8 mil per season before the Rangers got him by agreeing to his demand for $9 mil per season.

Did Holik and his agent hold a gun to the collective heads of Glen Sather, Pat Quinn and Lou Lamoriello? Of course not. They floated a figure and those three, rather than telling Holik to take a hike, were willing to pony up exactly what he wanted, because they wanted him that badly. Holik knew there would be teams crazy enough to overpay him.


Holik got what three teams had determined to be fair market value. If the number is extravagant, so be it, but it's still fair market value.

habitual_hab is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 10:16 AM
  #52
Volcanologist
Spark up a Dubas
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kessel Apocalypse
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,519
vCash: 500
Gary holds up the players' latest offer...



Just thought this was funny... :lol

Volcanologist is online now  
Old
09-21-2004, 11:29 AM
  #53
Go Flames Go*
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
Does the NHLPA know what a free market is? What they are operating right now is not a free market. If it was a free market the Owners would cut players and get there money back if they don't perform, just like any other free market.

Go Flames Go* is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 11:43 AM
  #54
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habitual_hab
true market price? To a very large extent, the owners themselves determine what a player's fair market value is.

A good case in point is the Bobby Holik by the New York Rangers.

Holik insisted on getting a contract worth $9 million per season. Yes, it was an extravagent demand by a player and his agent, but what's overlooked is the fact that the Rangers, Maple Leafs and Holik's former club the Devils got into a bidding war for his services.

Rather than laugh off Holik's salary demands and tell him to come back when he was willing to be more reasonable, all three teams fell over each other trying to land him. The Leafs and Devils offered up $8 mil per season before the Rangers got him by agreeing to his demand for $9 mil per season.

Did Holik and his agent hold a gun to the collective heads of Glen Sather, Pat Quinn and Lou Lamoriello? Of course not. They floated a figure and those three, rather than telling Holik to take a hike, were willing to pony up exactly what he wanted, because they wanted him that badly. Holik knew there would be teams crazy enough to overpay him.


Holik got what three teams had determined to be fair market value. If the number is extravagant, so be it, but it's still fair market value.
This argument has been answered already. For New York, spending $9 million on Holik was a good deal. They thought he would improve their team. With the kind of revenues that New York earns, it really is a good deal for New York, because they were getting a good player, that their competition (Toronto, New Jersey) were not going to get. Why should a higher revenue team like New York lose the player to another team? Then New York won't be as good a team if they don't get Holik. The fact is that the deal the New York Rangers made was a smart deal economically for New York. New York can afford it!! But small market teams like Calgary can't afford $9 million for a top player, much less a defensive forward, nor can Calgary afford the after shock when other players expect more money because of the signing.

Your argument makes it perfectly clear why we need a salary cap. So teams like New York (who have no problem at all spending $9 million to steal that top player away from the competition) can't do that anymore. New York will be under the same financial restrictions Calgary is under a cap.

Again, for the New York Rangers, spending $9 million on Holik was beneficial to them.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 11:44 AM
  #55
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepNCheese


Just thought this was funny... :lol
Yeah, that's Bettman holding up the last NHLPA offer, is what is said in the article.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 11:45 AM
  #56
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Flames Go
Does the NHLPA know what a free market is? What they are operating right now is not a free market. If it was a free market the Owners would cut players and get there money back if they don't perform, just like any other free market.
They would "fire" poor performing players. Seems to me this is a typical union situation, which isnt a free market, because unionites can do whatever they want and not get fired.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 12:00 PM
  #57
Volcanologist
Spark up a Dubas
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kessel Apocalypse
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
Yeah, that's Bettman holding up the last NHLPA offer, is what is said in the article.
Yeah, that's what I just said.

It's funny.

Volcanologist is online now  
Old
09-21-2004, 12:00 PM
  #58
habitual_hab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: bc
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
This argument has been answered already. For New York, spending $9 million on Holik was a good deal. They thought he would improve their team. With the kind of revenues that New York earns, it really is a good deal for New York, because they were getting a good player, that their competition (Toronto, New Jersey) were not going to get. Why should a higher revenue team like New York lose the player to another team? Then New York won't be as good a team if they don't get Holik. The fact is that the deal the New York Rangers made was a smart deal economically for New York. New York can afford it!! But small market teams like Calgary can't afford $9 million for a top player, much less a defensive forward, nor can Calgary afford the after shock when other players expect more money because of the signing.

Your argument makes it perfectly clear why we need a salary cap. So teams like New York (who have no problem at all spending $9 million to steal that top player away from the competition) can't do that anymore. New York will be under the same financial restrictions Calgary is under a cap.

Again, for the New York Rangers, spending $9 million on Holik was beneficial to them.
My argument illustrates that a fair market system of wage negotiation is at work in the NHL. Owners want to install a salary cap? How about a salary cap along with a profit cap? The NHLPA's luxury tax works much better than imposing a system of mediocrity.

habitual_hab is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 12:05 PM
  #59
habitual_hab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: bc
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
They would "fire" poor performing players. Seems to me this is a typical union situation, which isnt a free market, because unionites can do whatever they want and not get fired.
Please tell me, without a players' union, how are NHL franchises going to obtain players and install a salary cap?

habitual_hab is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 12:52 PM
  #60
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habitual_hab
My argument illustrates that a fair market system of wage negotiation is at work in the NHL. Owners want to install a salary cap? How about a salary cap along with a profit cap? The NHLPA's luxury tax works much better than imposing a system of mediocrity.
I don't care how the NHL/NHLPA decide to get "cost certainty." As long as when next season starts, there is a system in place where all 30 teams will have an equal budget for player salaries.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 12:55 PM
  #61
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
I don't care how the NHL/NHLPA decide to get "cost certainty." As long as when next season starts, there is a system in place where all 30 teams will have an equal budget for player salaries.
Why should teams get equal salaries when they don't have equal talent? Why should Tampa be paid the same amount as Washington?

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 01:01 PM
  #62
habitual_hab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: bc
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Why should teams get equal salaries when they don't have equal talent? Why should Tampa be paid the same amount as Washington?
I think it's a godless, socialist, unionite conspiracy to impose medicocrity on the NHL first and then on the rest of the "free" world.

habitual_hab is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 01:31 PM
  #63
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Why should teams get equal salaries when they don't have equal talent? Why should Tampa be paid the same amount as Washington?
I don't understand your point. Teams will never have equal talent as long as there are some teams with bigger wallets then others.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 02:04 PM
  #64
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
I don't understand your point. Teams will never have equal talent as long as there are some teams with bigger wallets then others.
Why not consider the converse...

Teams will never have equal wallets as long as there are some teams with better talent then others...

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 02:06 PM
  #65
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,144
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
I don't understand your point. Teams will never have equal talent as long as there are some teams with bigger wallets then others.
Under the current system that's true. Under a new cap system differing talent levels will again be present but instead of it being monetary based it will be down to draft records, ability to manage salaries etc...

Keep in mind any cap system is most likely going to have a minimum (I'd guess 30-32 mil and an upper limit of 40-45 mil) that there will still be some monetary based differences but they will be limited and how good the management and coaching is will be the deteriming factors.

There will still be terrible teams and there will still be great teams. There will be teams that are terrible for years and year and great for years and year. A cap does not make every team a 0.500 club.

tantalum is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 02:07 PM
  #66
habitual_hab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: bc
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Why not consider the converse...

Teams will never have equal wallets as long as there are some teams with better talent then others...
Along with a salary cap, one could impose a "talent tax" on teams with better offensive, defensive and overall records. This would help bring about mediocrity at a faster pace.

habitual_hab is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 02:28 PM
  #67
joechip
Registered User
 
joechip's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gainesville, Fl
Posts: 3,228
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to joechip
Quote:
Originally Posted by HckyFght
Check out this take on the CBA impasse...

http://www.sportsfanmagazine.com/content/view/775/29/

See what you think?
-HckyFght!
Amen, Brother! I've been saying bring on the scabs for months now.

Ta,

joechip is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 02:36 PM
  #68
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Why not consider the converse...

Teams will never have equal wallets as long as there are some teams with better talent then others...
That's the way it is now in the NHL, but it's skewed toward some teams more than others presently. Under "cost certainty" each team will have the opportunity to be at both ends of the spectrum. Presently, Detroit can have better talent and still have a bigger wallet than teams like Edmonton. Under cost certainty, both teams could switch spots.

The league could also eliminate Free Agency in the new "cost certainty" cap or tax that the NHL imposes. Then we'll have no problems like the ones you explain, because every team will be required to keep all of its players under the cap. If a player doesn't like what he is offered under the cap, he can sit out until he is traded for a draft pick or he can grow up and say: "Maybe a million dollars isn't really that bad."

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 02:38 PM
  #69
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habitual_hab
Along with a salary cap, one could impose a "talent tax" on teams with better offensive, defensive and overall records. This would help bring about mediocrity at a faster pace.
Why impose mediocrity? How about my suggestion where there is NO free agency. Then every team can hold on to all their players until they decide to let them go. Then the league and fans will win.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 02:39 PM
  #70
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joechip
Amen, Brother! I've been saying bring on the scabs for months now.

Ta,
Scabs are good. Go scabs!

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 03:10 PM
  #71
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
That's the way it is now in the NHL, but it's skewed toward some teams more than others presently. Under "cost certainty" each team will have the opportunity to be at both ends of the spectrum. Presently, Detroit can have better talent and still have a bigger wallet than teams like Edmonton. Under cost certainty, both teams could switch spots.

The league could also eliminate Free Agency in the new "cost certainty" cap or tax that the NHL imposes. Then we'll have no problems like the ones you explain, because every team will be required to keep all of its players under the cap. If a player doesn't like what he is offered under the cap, he can sit out until he is traded for a draft pick or he can grow up and say: "Maybe a million dollars isn't really that bad."

You can't eliminate free agency. Curt Flood went to court over this.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 03:27 PM
  #72
habitual_hab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: bc
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
Why impose mediocrity? How about my suggestion where there is NO free agency. Then every team can hold on to all their players until they decide to let them go. Then the league and fans will win.
Lemme see, no PA but a cap and no FAs. The NHL would lose more in the courts then they would ever gain from those actions. Very illegal.

habitual_hab is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 03:28 PM
  #73
habitual_hab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: bc
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
Scabs are good. Go scabs!
SCabs are parasites.

habitual_hab is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 06:00 PM
  #74
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,278
vCash: 500
I love this expression, We need cost certainty. When in your life, have you ever uttered the phrase, the problem here is that we need cost certainty. Who other than a sycophantic corporate toady would ever utter such a phrase?

Why would the union remain collective Licentia if they removed free agency? They simply decertify and the courts wont allow it. Its unfortunate I know, but in the real world you cant impose your wishes on the labour force.

This is why I wonder about the plan to declare an impasse and then hope the courts legislate a salary cap for you. Courts would never allow a salary cap unless the union collectively agrees to it. Why would at impasse they choose this illegal action. Isnt it more likely they will say fine decertify, no caps, no restrictions on free agency, no drafts, and no trading. Or even better say the last best offer was actually the Unions.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 06:32 PM
  #75
habitual_hab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: bc
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
I love this expression, We need cost certainty. When in your life, have you ever uttered the phrase, the problem here is that we need cost certainty. Who other than a sycophantic corporate toady would ever utter such a phrase?

Why would the union remain collective Licentia if they removed free agency? They simply decertify and the courts wont allow it. Its unfortunate I know, but in the real world you cant impose your wishes on the labour force.

This is why I wonder about the plan to declare an impasse and then hope the courts legislate a salary cap for you. Courts would never allow a salary cap unless the union collectively agrees to it. Why would at impasse they choose this illegal action. Isnt it more likely they will say fine decertify, no caps, no restrictions on free agency, no drafts, and no trading. Or even better say the last best offer was actually the Unions.
Logically, this idea of the NHL declaring an impasse, use best last best/last just won't work because the NHLPA will most likely decertify and, like you said: "no caps, no restrictions on free agency, no drafts..."

So the owner-backing dreamers figure that since the NHLPA is decertified, players will jump back to the NHL, form a submissive PA that capitulates to the NHL's version of a CBA and everything will be fine. Jesus wept.

habitual_hab 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 10:53 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.