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.

Why Can't Fans Understand This???

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-25-2004, 11:58 AM
  #1
MePutPuckInNet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,385
vCash: 500
Why Can't Fans Understand This???

The oh so glorious figures of $1.8 million or $1.3 million are AVERAGES. Do we all understand what that means??

Illustration:
Player A, (a sack of crap center who USED to be good in his first 2 seasons - but has steadily declined in his attitude, production and all around general skill level), signed a groovy contract his first year in the NHL for a salary of $4,500,000.00 per year for three years. Regardless of his usefullness to the team. The owners offered him the deal 2.5 years ago and he was thrilled to accept. Who wouldn't be?

Player B, (a hard working forward who's been a suitcase in the league now for about 8 years - a good team guy with a good attitude although his skills aren't spectacular - he's still managed to actually average more points per season than Player A), has a one year contract for $750,000.00.

Player C, (a Toddler at center in the league with loads of promise - knows things are changing in the NHL and there will be no $10 million dollar contracts in his future, for sure - but he wants to play and he's happy just being able to do that), just signed a contract over the summer for a whopping total of $375,000.00.

So....we have Player A @ $4,500,000.00, Player B @ $750,000.00 and Player C @ $375,000.00. Bringing the grand total of salaries to $5,625,000.00. Now if you just read that total figure you may to think to yourself, 'WTF? Who do these people think they are making $5 million a year for a sport they love???' However, IF you looked at the entire scenario, you'd see that "those greedy players" aren't earning $5 million a year....in fact only ONE player is earning anything close to that. But, the AVERAGE salary of all THREE players is $1,875.000.00. And you may think to yourself, 'well hell, that's still more money than I'll make in my lifetime'. While that may be true, it's also COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. The fact of the matter is that Player B and Player C are NOT even close to the AVERAGE salary figure mark that the Bettman-ites are so hip to spew every chance they get. At which point most fans brains' seem to shut off completely, while they fail to consider exactly what that means...Because all they can see is the dollar sign $$$$$$$. And it appears that most of them are either incapable of seeing or simply refuse to see the bigger issues.

My point: The NHLPA IS concerned about this. A SALARY CAP WILL NOT CHANGE THE ABOVE SCENARIO. IT WON'T FIX THE PROBLEM. A team could STILL sign Player A to some whopper of a deal @ $9,500,000.00. Even IF a team salary cap of $30 million were in place, that ONE player would suck up nearly a THIRD of the payroll. By creating a salary cap for a team of $30 or even $40 million, you're creating a situation in which owners could STILL pay ONE player an outrageous sum of money - legally - and stiff the rest of the players on the roster.

HOW CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHY A SALARY CAP WON'T WORK???????

I hate the NHL right now. I hate the small percentage of players in the NHLPA who have sucked up money like it's going out of style, and refuse to see that THEY MAKE WAY TOO DAMN MUCH MONEY. I hate that we're not going to have hockey this season, maybe not for a long time...

But, I gotta tell you, I'm starting to hate "the fans", even more. I hate that too many people won't even CONSIDER that there are two sides to the story here.

MePutPuckInNet is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 01:07 PM
  #2
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MePutPuckInNet
The oh so glorious figures of $1.8 million or $1.3 million are AVERAGES. Do we all understand what that means??
An excellent point. The median income is about $1.1 million. The top 30% of the players make 70% of the money. Furthermore the vast majority of the players who are in the top 30% have achieved free agency at least once.

The other really important point is that the ALS is a negotiated number that is always a year out of date. There are only 690 roster spots but nearly 1000 players will play in the NHL in a typical season. Which players should count? The more that count, the lower the number. Every year the NHL and NHLPA negotiate the average. It really is a meaningless number.

The other important element in the equation is the fact that the top half of the players - the guys who make all the money - are also the guys who a) lose the big bucks if the owners have their way, b) don't really care if some teams go out of business (they will be working) c) have lots of money to get through a year or two without hockey and d) can get a job in Europe if they want one.

Except for the few players who might be losing a final year, this group is very solid behind the NHLPA.

The bottom half of the players haven't made it yet. While a lack of hockey does cost them and contraction would reduce their opportunities, many of them will play in the AHL this season where last season they might have bounced up and down between the AHL and NHL. Since every one of these players expects to develop into a star and make millions if there are no changes, they are very solid, too.

The players won't crack. One group has made bags of cash so they can afford to be locked out for the sake of the younger guys. The large majority haven't made bags of cash yet, so they will stay out because they see those bags of cash as their future if they win the dispute.

The owners on the other hand can't hold together. Some claim to be content in that they say they will lose less money by not playing. This may even be true. The top third of the league will always turn 75% of the profits. But both the Leafs and Canucks start losing big money as soon as the first exhibition game is cancelled. It will cost the Canucks $30 million if the season is lost. It will cost the Leafs even more. Likewise the Wings, Flyers and Avalanche.

There is no real pressure on the players, while the Flyers, Leafs and Canucks are already starting to mutter about the price. The most amazing thing about this dispute is the fact that the owners actually think they can win. It is lose-lose for them all the way.

The best they can hope for is a) no hockey for a year, b) friendly court rulings, c) the players decide to return under an imposed CBA and sue, d) the owners win the suits, and e) a miserable relationship with the players forever.

That's the future Bettman sees. That's the future Bettman is going to try to give us.

Hurrah!

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 01:07 PM
  #3
190Octane
Registered User
 
190Octane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fullerton, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,584
vCash: 500
Is 375,000 still enough for most of you to live on per year?

190Octane is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 01:21 PM
  #4
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The best they can hope for is a) no hockey for a year, b) friendly court rulings, c) the players decide to return under an imposed CBA and sue, d) the owners win the suits, and e) a miserable relationship with the players forever.

That's the future Bettman sees. That's the future Bettman is going to try to give us.

Hurrah!

Tom
and the real piss off is they have already won the battle, if they would just get to the table and negotiate some more.

even if they take the players offer "as is" they are up a hundred odd million dollars. however, they could probably extract another 100 million or so with a few hours negotiating, but refuse to unless they get a home run.

talk about scorched earth negotiating !

oh well, to all you pro cappers, be carefull what you wish for. you have no idea how good you have it as a fan of a league with a 31 year old UFA age.

CGY ... say bye to Iginla
TBY .. say bye to 1 of Richards, Vinny or StLouis
ATL ... nice knowing you Ilya
CRL ... send a postcard Jeff O Neill
PIT .... well Marc Andre was just drafted, so PIT you go ahead and pay to develop him and someone else can sign him when you are done and he is ready

and on and on ...

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 02:01 PM
  #5
190Octane
Registered User
 
190Octane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fullerton, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
CGY ... say bye to Iginla
TBY .. say bye to 1 of Richards, Vinny or StLouis
ATL ... nice knowing you Ilya
CRL ... send a postcard Jeff O Neill
PIT .... well Marc Andre was just drafted, so PIT you go ahead and pay to develop him and someone else can sign him when you are done and he is ready
I don't think you get it.

If there is a cap, there will be lower salaries around the board. Tampa, Atlanta, Calgary and Pittsburgh have low salaries already. They'd be able to fit their stars under a cap.

The teams that would be in trouble are NYR, Detroit and any other team paying aging veterans a lot more than they're worth to do the same thing that a player making 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 to do.

190Octane is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 02:14 PM
  #6
dkrause1971
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vishinator05
I don't think you get it.

If there is a cap, there will be lower salaries around the board. Tampa, Atlanta, Calgary and Pittsburgh have low salaries already. They'd be able to fit their stars under a cap.

The teams that would be in trouble are NYR, Detroit and any other team paying aging veterans a lot more than they're worth to do the same thing that a player making 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 to do.

Correct it would actually be easier for these teams to keep their stars. Stars in theory would be more spread thru out the league since each team would only have X amount to spend.


Don

dkrause1971 is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 02:30 PM
  #7
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkrause1971
Correct it would actually be easier for these teams to keep their stars. Stars in theory would be more spread thru out the league since each team would only have X amount to spend.
How can all the teams keep their good players and have the stars more spread out through the league? Which is it?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 02:43 PM
  #8
190Octane
Registered User
 
190Octane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fullerton, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
How can all the teams keep their good players and have the stars more spread out through the league? Which is it?

Tom
Which team has more stars, Calgary or NYR?

190Octane is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 02:45 PM
  #9
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vishinator05
Which team has more stars, Calgary or NYR?
Calgary. Why?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 02:49 PM
  #10
GabbyDugan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 507
vCash: 500
How are "stars" defined? Do you count future stars, current stars, and past stars?

I don't think there are ever enough of them to go around, and a salary cap isn't going to add any stars to the supply or alleviate the demand for them...

GabbyDugan is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 02:50 PM
  #11
oilers_guy_eddie
Registered User
 
oilers_guy_eddie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Intolerable climate
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 10,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MePutPuckInNet
Illustration:
Player A, (a sack of crap center who USED to be good in his first 2 seasons - but has steadily declined in his attitude, production and all around general skill level), signed a groovy contract his first year in the NHL for a salary of $4,500,000.00 per year for three years. Regardless of his usefullness to the team. The owners offered him the deal 2.5 years ago and he was thrilled to accept. Who wouldn't be?

Player B, (a hard working forward who's been a suitcase in the league now for about 8 years - a good team guy with a good attitude although his skills aren't spectacular - he's still managed to actually average more points per season than Player A), has a one year contract for $750,000.00.

Player C, (a Toddler at center in the league with loads of promise - knows things are changing in the NHL and there will be no $10 million dollar contracts in his future, for sure - but he wants to play and he's happy just being able to do that), just signed a contract over the summer for a whopping total of $375,000.00.
Hey, cool. A fictional hockey team. Your example reminds me of the Jon Stewart commentary on John Kerry's front-porch meeting that "took place on a street with a Hispanic family living next to a single mother next to a black couple next to a military veteran next to a laid-off worker. That porch, of course, is located on Demographic Street in Fakeytown."

Let's meet some more members of the Fakeytown Demographiques...



Player D might not play for the Demographiques this season, or even next season. But when he does, whether he's good bad or average, he'll be making more than 8-year veteran Player B. That's because Player D was a first round pick, and first round picks get a million dollars per season. That's the baseline for the rest of his career, unless he's so miserable that his team decides to NQ him.

Player E is a mediocre player in most peoples' estimation, but he's posted some pretty decent numbers. There are holes in his game that are big enough to drive a truck through, and he's been dealt a few times as a result. Player E just filed for arbitration, becase his agent says that the statistics will get him an award comparable to a couple of other guys with comparable statistics, and even though everybody in hockey feels the other guys are much more complete players, Player E's statistics will get him into the same pay class.

Player F carries the freight for the Demographiques. He's their go-to guy, their real leader, and he produces the offence that Player A was supposed to produce when Player A was brought in. Player F doesn't mind that Player A is making more money than him, because Player F is a character guy. Player F wants to win while he's in Fakeytown, and he can hardly wait to get back on the ice. Unfortunately, Player F is spending September at his parent's cottage at Fakey Lake, because he hasn't got a contract. Player F and his agent just want the market rate for a player of F's ability, and thanks to a couple of teams and a couple of arbitration awards, the market rate is more than the Demographiques can afford. They'll probably have to deal him, unless they can somehow get rid of Player A.

Player G, like Player F, can hardly wait to start the season. And unlike Player F, Player G has a contract. He accepted a 1-year qualifying offer. Next season, he's going to be a UFA, and he's going to cash in bigtime. This is his last season in Fakeytown, without a doubt. He'll miss his friends on the Demographiques, but business is business.

You can dream up imaginary hockey players or fictional teams to illustrate any point of view. Is it a worthwhile exercise? Probably not...

oilers_guy_eddie is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 02:56 PM
  #12
oilers_guy_eddie
Registered User
 
oilers_guy_eddie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Intolerable climate
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 10,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The other important element in the equation is the fact that the top half of the players - the guys who make all the money - are also the guys who a) lose the big bucks if the owners have their way, b) don't really care if some teams go out of business (they will be working) c) have lots of money to get through a year or two without hockey and d) can get a job in Europe if they want one.
Hey, didn't you tell me last week that the top players would likely see their salaries go UP under a cap situation? I thought you said the "middle class" guys were the ones taking the hit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
How can all the teams keep their good players and have the stars more spread out through the league? Which is it?

Tom
Perhaps a guy like, say, Petr Nedved, who has spent the past several seasons playing a lesser role, would be moved to some place where he can be a major contributor.

oilers_guy_eddie is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 03:23 PM
  #13
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilers_guy_eddie
Hey, didn't you tell me last week that the top players would likely see their salaries go UP under a cap situation? I thought you said the "middle class" guys were the ones taking the hit.
The top players are not getting the top salaries today. Under a capping system, Iginla will get more, Nedved will get less.

Quote:
Perhaps a guy like, say, Petr Nedved, who has spent the past several seasons playing a lesser role, would be moved to some place where he can be a major contributor.
Exactly. Calgary loses Iginla and replaces him with Nedved.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 03:46 PM
  #14
quat
intheDanRusseljungle
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 8,995
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The top players are not getting the top salaries today. Under a capping system, Iginla will get more, Nedved will get less.


Exactly. Calgary loses Iginla and replaces him with Nedved.

Tom
You have exactly no reason to suggest this would be the case. A team with more good players will be better than a team with one star and a bunch of plumbers. To suggest any owner would spend all their money on one guy (though possible), seems unlikely.

How does Calgary keep Iginla in your happy world? Calgary is limited by their lower revenue, while the bigger revenue teams are not. Calgary simply cannot afford to keep Iginla unless they do exactly what you suggest would happen under a cap, ie pay one player all the money and have none left over for anyone else.

I've noticed posters are getting pretty creative (as Oilers_guy_eddie has pointed out), with what will happen in the future. It certainly is good to throw around different senarios, but the attitude in this thread is pretty questionable.

quat is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 03:54 PM
  #15
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quat
How does Calgary keep Iginla in your happy world? Calgary is limited by their lower revenue, while the bigger revenue teams are not. Calgary simply cannot afford to keep Iginla unless they do exactly what you suggest would happen under a cap, ie pay one player all the money and have none left over for anyone else.
Until he hits age 31, he will be underpaid. They've afforded him so far and I expect they will continue afford him until he passes his prime. At that point if the team is winning, the Flames will have the money to keep him - just like Ottawa kept Alfredsson and colorado kept Sakic.

Quote:
I've noticed posters are getting pretty creative (as Oilers_guy_eddie has pointed out), with what will happen in the future. It certainly is good to throw around different senarios, but the attitude in this thread is pretty questionable.
I think the intelligence - not the attitude - of the typical hockey fan really comes into question with the entire issue. That said, this comment cuts both ways. At least those posters who talk about the implications of a cap system can point to the experiences in the NFL and NBA. There is much more player movement, not less.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 04:00 PM
  #16
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 Vishinator05
I don't think you get it.

If there is a cap, there will be lower salaries around the board. Tampa, Atlanta, Calgary and Pittsburgh have low salaries already. They'd be able to fit their stars under a cap.

The teams that would be in trouble are NYR, Detroit and any other team paying aging veterans a lot more than they're worth to do the same thing that a player making 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 to do.
I think you're the one who don't get it. Players who will be penalize by a cap is not the superstar player. NFL Cap & NBA cap even if they are very different prove that it's the DEPTH of the death that being sacrifice & not the UTOPIAN THOUGHTS that you seem to WISH more than anything.

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 04:30 PM
  #17
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vishinator05
I don't think you get it.

If there is a cap, there will be lower salaries around the board. Tampa, Atlanta, Calgary and Pittsburgh have low salaries already. They'd be able to fit their stars under a cap.

The teams that would be in trouble are NYR, Detroit and any other team paying aging veterans a lot more than they're worth to do the same thing that a player making 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 to do.
well, im not talking about whether CGY (for example) could afford Iginla, of course they could, as they can today. I am saying that the trade off for the cap will be lower free agency. Under today's CBA, Iginla can not leave CGY until he is 31, so CGY controls his rights. Under tommorow's Capped CBA, Iginla might be UFA at 26, right when he hits his prime.

CGY can not only afford Iginla today, they have no concerns about losing him. Be careful what you wish for.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 04:51 PM
  #18
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
well, im not talking about whether CGY (for example) could afford Iginla, of course they could, as they can today. I am saying that the trade off for the cap will be lower free agency. Under today's CBA, Iginla can not leave CGY until he is 31, so CGY controls his rights. Under tommorow's Capped CBA, Iginla might be UFA at 26, right when he hits his prime.

CGY can not only afford Iginla today, they have no concerns about losing him. Be careful what you wish for.

DR
Even with a lower UFA age, if Calgary play their cards right, they'll keep Iginla during his whole career with a cap. With a cap, every team's margins are the same, so Calgary has an equal opportunity to sign Iginla at any age.

With the current CBA though, Calgary's opportunity to sign Iginla is just as high as their budget. If Iginla wants more (UFA or not), then they will lose him, regardless of his age.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 04:52 PM
  #19
190Octane
Registered User
 
190Octane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fullerton, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
I think you're the one who don't get it. Players who will be penalize by a cap is not the superstar player. NFL Cap & NBA cap even if they are very different prove that it's the DEPTH of the death that being sacrifice & not the UTOPIAN THOUGHTS that you seem to WISH more than anything.
Please explain how the average player suffers so much from having a cap? His six figure salary goes from high six figures to mid six figures? Poor guy.

190Octane is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 04:55 PM
  #20
190Octane
Registered User
 
190Octane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fullerton, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
well, im not talking about whether CGY (for example) could afford Iginla, of course they could, as they can today. I am saying that the trade off for the cap will be lower free agency. Under today's CBA, Iginla can not leave CGY until he is 31, so CGY controls his rights. Under tommorow's Capped CBA, Iginla might be UFA at 26, right when he hits his prime.

CGY can not only afford Iginla today, they have no concerns about losing him. Be careful what you wish for.

DR
I disagree with this argument. You're assuming that Calgary can just pull money out of a hand to pay Iginla and it doesn't effect the rest of the team. I have news for you.. if they pay Iginla more, it means they have to pay someone else less. That means the overall quality of the team suffers which means that Calgary doesn't make as much revenue from outside sources (ticket sales, playoff money).

190Octane is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 05:17 PM
  #21
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smail
Even with a lower UFA age, if Calgary play their cards right, they'll keep Iginla during his whole career with a cap. With a cap, every team's margins are the same, so Calgary has an equal opportunity to sign Iginla at any age.
This isn't true. It always depends on cap space. If Calgary is a good team - and they hope to be good - they will have a poorer chance than teams that are not so good. The best players go to the team that can finagle the most cap space.

And that ignores factors besides the salary the hockey team pays. The bigger the market the better those outside opportunities. Plus, there aren't very many people who think Buffalo or Edmonton is a more desirable place to live than Vancouver or San Jose. Have you lived through a Calgary winter? Which hockey wife wouldn't rather live in Florida?

Quote:
With the current CBA though, Calgary's opportunity to sign Iginla is just as high as their budget. If Iginla wants more (UFA or not), then they will lose him, regardless of his age.
No. If Iginla wants more than Calgary is prepared to pay, he can sit. He will become the next player to lose a holdout in a long line of players to lose a holdout. The last player to win a holdout was Sergei Fedorov. Iginla will push it right to the wall, but he will sign this year with Calgary. The Calgary offer is too much money to sit out. At $100,000 a game he can very quickly lose way more money than he could ever hope to gain. Calgary has great leverage in this dispute. Iginla wants to play and Calgary is offering a boatload of cash.

They will get a deal done.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 05:47 PM
  #22
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smail
Even with a lower UFA age, if Calgary play their cards right, they'll keep Iginla during his whole career with a cap. With a cap, every team's margins are the same, so Calgary has an equal opportunity to sign Iginla at any age.
.
the NBA hasnt proven you right. young star players leave their teams all the time due to the low free agency. i dont follow bball superclose to list all the names, but its rampant, in comparison to what NHL fans are used to.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 05:48 PM
  #23
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vishinator05
I disagree with this argument. You're assuming that Calgary can just pull money out of a hand to pay Iginla and it doesn't effect the rest of the team. I have news for you.. if they pay Iginla more, it means they have to pay someone else less. That means the overall quality of the team suffers which means that Calgary doesn't make as much revenue from outside sources (ticket sales, playoff money).
well what you just described is true under a cap or not. so whats your point ?

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 05:52 PM
  #24
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
This isn't true. It always depends on cap space. If Calgary is a good team - and they hope to be good - they will have a poorer chance than teams that are not so good. The best players go to the team that can finagle the most cap space.

And that ignores factors besides the salary the hockey team pays. The bigger the market the better those outside opportunities. Plus, there aren't very many people who think Buffalo or Edmonton is a more desirable place to live than Vancouver or San Jose. Have you lived through a Calgary winter? Which hockey wife wouldn't rather live in Florida?

No. If Iginla wants more than Calgary is prepared to pay, he can sit. He will become the next player to lose a holdout in a long line of players to lose a holdout. The last player to win a holdout was Sergei Fedorov. Iginla will push it right to the wall, but he will sign this year with Calgary. The Calgary offer is too much money to sit out. At $100,000 a game he can very quickly lose way more money than he could ever hope to gain. Calgary has great leverage in this dispute. Iginla wants to play and Calgary is offering a boatload of cash.

They will get a deal done.

Tom
Not all players move based solely on salary. Also, I said "if calgary plays their cards right", they will be able to retain Iginla. They might not necessarily want to though. One way to keep him would be to time their big contracts to be off at the same time as Iginla, leaving them plenty of money to sign him vs the competitors. Equal opportunity means that it will cost the same for the Rags to make him an offer (vs the team cap) than for Calgary to make him an offer, something which is currently NOT equal.

As to market opportunities, well players now can slack off and ask for a trade if they really want to move, UFA or not. Also, while Florida looks like a nice place to some, others will prefer to stay in Calgary or Edmonton or Buffalo or another place. I could get a job in a bigger city, one where winters aren't as harsh as where I live, etc. I don't though, for several reasons outside of salary and weather...

Also, if Iginla feels he really needs more money than what Calgary has to offer, they will lose him. If he sits out, he's "lost" as in he's not playing for the team anyway and probably will never play with them again. I don't think it will happen as I'm sure Iginla is ready to play for less in Calgary, but in the event he was not, a cap would help Calgary sign him (in a situation where they could plan ahead).

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 05:56 PM
  #25
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
the NBA hasnt proven you right. young star players leave their teams all the time due to the low free agency. i dont follow bball superclose to list all the names, but its rampant, in comparison to what NHL fans are used to.

dr
Basketball is much different than hockey, you need like 3-4 elite players to win, even if the rest of your team is really average (to poor). However, if a team felt they could use player "x" for the rest of his career and would plan accordingly, they sure could keep him, since at equal opportunity they could plan to beat the others with their offer. However, often, the guy that goes may not be the guy you think will win you championships, and you might be looking at another guy.

At least in the other sports there aren't as many holdouts and salary creeps out there as in the NHL.

SuperUnknown 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 08:20 AM.

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.