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 am i against a cap ?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-31-2004, 12:36 PM
  #26
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
and it was BAD because of bad drafting and thats why you couldnt afford to keep Weight, Guerin, and Hamrlik.

so whats your point ?

dr
That would only be true if attendance suffered. In the years those players left, average attendance wasn't more than 1000 under capacity.

Seachd is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 12:43 PM
  #27
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
That would only be true if attendance suffered. In the years those players left, average attendance wasn't more than 1000 under capacity.
attendance isnt just how many, but how much per ticket... EDM could not command as much on their ticket because they were not a winner. if you charge $5.00 per ticket, you could probably get 100,000 in EDM to a game, but thats still not as much (less than half) as the teams that charge $75 per ticket and get 15,000.

dor example, CGY will charge more for their tickets this season than they have in the last season and will get more people, more TV money and more sponserships. this is because they had a good winning season and for no other reason.

thats how teams like COL have got to where they are, it didnt happen overnight.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 01:07 PM
  #28
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
dor example, CGY will charge more for their tickets this season than they have in the last season and will get more people, more TV money and more sponserships. this is because they had a good winning season and for no other reason.
And where have you heard the Flames raised their prices? Flames fans I've asked say they haven't heard of any increases.

Regardless, a team can do well without drafting well, obviously. There are other ways. But if salaries prevent those other options, it's not a good situation. If a team has to rely solely on drafting because salaries are too high, there's clearly something wrong.

Seachd is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 01:15 PM
  #29
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
And where have you heard the Flames raised their prices? Flames fans I've asked say they haven't heard of any increases.

Regardless, a team can do well without drafting well, obviously. There are other ways. But if salaries prevent those other options, it's not a good situation. If a team has to rely solely on drafting because salaries are too high, there's clearly something wrong.
1) if the Flames dont up their prices, they should be ashamed. whining about not having have enough revenue and then when they can raise revenue, they dont ? secondly, the flames have almost zero local tv coverage, they surely can get a local tv contract next season cant they ?

2) what other way is there to build a great team AND not lose a lot of money at the same time ? only drafting lets you do it economically. DET, COL and NJD all built dominating teams based on their drafting ability.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 01:21 PM
  #30
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
1) if the Flames dont up their prices, they should be ashamed. whining about not having have enough revenue and then when they can raise revenue, they dont ? secondly, the flames have almost zero local tv coverage, they surely can get a local tv contract next season cant they ?
You're acting like one trip to the finals solves all problems known to man. That's why we say something like this doesn't immediately turn a team into a constant contender, something that pro-NHLPA posters don't seem to understand.

Seachd is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 01:21 PM
  #31
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
here is why i am against a cap and why all you cappers are going to regret "winning" the cap battle.

first, i dont care how much or little the players make. 100k is an awesome salary for a year, never mind the double that or 10x that. thats not hte issue.

the issue is if the owners get their cap, its going to come at the cost of a 25 or 26 or at best a 27 year old UFA age. you think if the owners get their homerun (a cap) that the players wont demand a homerun for themselves too ?

so, prepare yourself for a new NHL where players can leave your team once they hit their prime and there is nothing you can do about it and you wont have ANYTHING to show for it. nothing, zero, zilch.

dr
I don't believe the owners will be able to score the cap. If they do, I don't believe they will have to lower the UFA age to 27, much less to 25. The longer this conflict lasts (and I still have my doubts on the seriousness of the owners) the better their chances are to get whatever they want, crush the players and improve this game.

It will be very difficult to make the players flinch but if they do, they will make them crawl all the way to their job, IMO. You just have to handle those negociations right and they will crawl.

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 01:25 PM
  #32
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
It will be very difficult to make the players flinch but if they do, they will make them crawl all the way to their job, IMO. You just have to handle those negociations right and they will crawl.
another reason i cant support the owners in this... why should we make the players crawl back to the table with their tail between their legs... why should we even think thats a realisitic bargaining position ?

so we should support a tactic that is focused on not winning some concessions to correct hte business but instead is focused on crushing the opposition into accepting whatever we make them accept ?

in a fair negotiation, the owners would get the cap and the players would get a young UFA.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 01:27 PM
  #33
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
You're acting like one trip to the finals solves all problems known to man. That's why we say something like this doesn't immediately turn a team into a constant contender, something that pro-NHLPA posters don't seem to understand.
of course it doesnt make them instant contenders, they need to continue winning to do that.

however, if its a real hockey market, a trip to game 7 of the finals MUST translate to more revenue. otherwise, its not a real hockey market. i happen to live in CGY and know this is as real as a hockey market can be AND has tremendous amount of "recreational" income to support an NHL hockey team, both from ticket sales and corporate support.

unlike non hockey markets like CRL and ANA. so whats BUF's excuse ?

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 01:28 PM
  #34
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
in a fair negotiation, the owners would get the cap and the players would get a young UFA.
But the players aren't willing to even negociate that.

Seachd is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 01:33 PM
  #35
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
But the players aren't willing to even negociate that.
thank god ...

a) it doesnt solve the problem of "revenue disparity"
b) i dont want them to get a younger UFA

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 01:35 PM
  #36
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
thank god ...

a) it doesnt solve the problem of "revenue disparity"
b) i dont want them to get a younger UFA
a) It would help solve the problem of high salaries (75% of revenue is too high. The other sports have it between 50-60%, why can't the NHL?)
b) The UFA age is likely to be lower with any new CBA.

Seachd is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 06:32 PM
  #37
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
You don't think they would have been able to get more playoff games if they had been able to keep (or get) a decent player or two?
Nope because one player doesn't make a huge difference in the NHL with the exception of an amazing goalie.


Quote:
Because the management is different, and much better now. Yet the situation still won't change, and the owners have said that many times. Good management, bad management; good drafting, bad drafting; high attendance, low attendance; none of it will matter because there won't be a team. No offense, but I'll take their word over yours.
Senators ownership said the same thing when they came looking for money. We need tax handouts or we'll have to sell off and we hear Portland's looking for a team. Well, the team sold and its still in Ottawa.

Vancouver cried poor when they had a bad team. They needed help or they might have to move. Then they became a good team and they're making money hand over fist.

For all the whining about Edmonton not being able to compete, how come Ottawa was the Cup favourite by the majority of experts last season?

Quote:
If you think salaries had nothing to do with it, you're only kidding yourself.
What kind of system would have made Edmonton successful in the 90's when they couldn't draft anyone?

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 06:58 PM
  #38
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
Regardless, a team can do well without drafting well, obviously. There are other ways. But if salaries prevent those other options, it's not a good situation. If a team has to rely solely on drafting because salaries are too high, there's clearly something wrong.
I think it has proven very difficult to do well without drafting well dont you think? In my mind, that is now conventional wisdom. And a great thing for fans. Drafting is very fair and equal.

To rely on other than drafting and trading, is then to rely on buying. I would understand being upset if you werent able to buy a cup and other teams were. But other teams arent, and it doesnt turn out to be an advantage if you try.

If a CBA is created where this is the case, then Edmonton just needs to wait until it draft and develops a good enough young team. Like anyone else wanting to win their first cup. At the very least, its no harder than trying to buy a cup. But you really have to think big picture to see it.

You dont want Edmonton to be able to buy a cup. You want them to be able to develop a champ in spite of the fact that big markets are attempting to buy one. And your chances of developing a team over 10 years is just as good as Tampa Bays 10 years ago of developing a champ ahead of St Louis, Wash, NYR, Tor, all who tried to buy it.

Now of course, the players are offering concessions that will make this a lot easier for Edmonton. But to say unless cap comes Edmonton cant compete just cant be right. If Edmonton is an NHL market, and they should be, they should be able to find their niche to succeed.

Its not easy to build a winner. It shouldnt be either.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 11:58 PM
  #39
FlyersFan10*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild

Drafting is very fair and equal.

To rely on other than drafting and trading, is then to rely on buying.

Its not easy to build a winner. It shouldnt be either.
Just three items I need to dispute.

First, drafting isn't fair. All what drafting ensures is that teams that suck crap intentionally get to stock up on top notch talent. There's really no incentive for teams to do better. Don't even get started on the draft lottery, because that's a farce. As far as I'm concerned, every team in the NHL should be able to get a shot at top notch talent. Even then, you get some teams that cut back on the scouting department, make bad decisions and they are always near the top in the draft order. I'm sorry, but drafting isn't fair. Once again, there's no incentive for the team to improve. Say what you want about drafting the best available player and talent, but when there isn't other talent around to make that talent better, you're still stuck with a pile of crap. Once again, the draft rewards teams in which their management has screwed things up.

With regards to drafting and trades, there are other ways to build teams. You mentioned buying talent. Not always the option. There are free agents. Undrafted junior, college, European, but there are always other options. You don't just have to draft, trade or buy to build a team. It takes a lot more than that.

As for building a winner, well, teams like Minnesota, Anaheim, Carolina, etc....all proved that as long as you suck, but you get everyone to buy into the "defensive trap" hockey, you're going to be successful. Fact of the matter is that the league started going downhill when Jacques Lemaire came back and brought the trap with him. The problem is that practically every team now employs some kind of trap and until the league deals with the issue seriously, it will continue to plague the sport. I've made a suggestion that you fine an organization $100,000 a game each time a trap is implemented, but some felt that was a little too harsh. Well, if you want to open up the game, drastic measures need to be taken. I bet that organizations would get sick of paying $100,000 fines each game that they used the trap.

Truth of the matter is that we're split with regards to caps and such. While there is some kind of restraint needed with regards to salaries, a cap just shouldn't be implemented. Once again, why should owners who intentionally do poorly and rip off their fan base be rewarded by making a profit. I know my older sister's husband agrees with me on that. He's a Bruins fan and feels that if a cap is in place, that's going to give owners like Jacobs, the Wurtz family, Disney, the LA Kings owner, and several other owners around the league an excuse to intentionally keep payroll low in order to maximize profits. That is something the league needs to address, but fails to do so. Why doesn't Buttman speak up about that?

FlyersFan10* is offline  
Old
11-01-2004, 01:59 AM
  #40
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 500
What the?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
see, this is what im going to hate if the owners win and why i dont want a cap. why shouldnt the Canucks be able to keep Matt Cooke until he is 31 ? as a fan, the cap is going to suck.

id rather a team can make its own decisions for its own reasons and not be bound by some artificial financial rule. especially when i also believe the CAP is doing nothing to solve the leagues finance troubles.

dr
You said in an earlier post that you think the UFA age would drop to 27 or so if a Cap is implemented, then spout off the Nucks being able to keep Cooke until 31 under a Cap? Which is it man?

Street Hawk is offline  
Old
11-01-2004, 02:45 AM
  #41
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan10
Just three items I need to dispute.

First, drafting isn't fair. All what drafting ensures is that teams that suck crap intentionally get to stock up on top notch talent. There's really no incentive for teams to do better. Don't even get started on the draft lottery, because that's a farce. As far as I'm concerned, every team in the NHL should be able to get a shot at top notch talent. Even then, you get some teams that cut back on the scouting department, make bad decisions and they are always near the top in the draft order. I'm sorry, but drafting isn't fair. Once again, there's no incentive for the team to improve. Say what you want about drafting the best available player and talent, but when there isn't other talent around to make that talent better, you're still stuck with a pile of crap. Once again, the draft rewards teams in which their management has screwed things up.

With regards to drafting and trades, there are other ways to build teams. You mentioned buying talent. Not always the option. There are free agents. Undrafted junior, college, European, but there are always other options. You don't just have to draft, trade or buy to build a team. It takes a lot more than that.

As for building a winner, well, teams like Minnesota, Anaheim, Carolina, etc....all proved that as long as you suck, but you get everyone to buy into the "defensive trap" hockey, you're going to be successful. Fact of the matter is that the league started going downhill when Jacques Lemaire came back and brought the trap with him. The problem is that practically every team now employs some kind of trap and until the league deals with the issue seriously, it will continue to plague the sport. I've made a suggestion that you fine an organization $100,000 a game each time a trap is implemented, but some felt that was a little too harsh. Well, if you want to open up the game, drastic measures need to be taken. I bet that organizations would get sick of paying $100,000 fines each game that they used the trap.

Truth of the matter is that we're split with regards to caps and such. While there is some kind of restraint needed with regards to salaries, a cap just shouldn't be implemented. Once again, why should owners who intentionally do poorly and rip off their fan base be rewarded by making a profit. I know my older sister's husband agrees with me on that. He's a Bruins fan and feels that if a cap is in place, that's going to give owners like Jacobs, the Wurtz family, Disney, the LA Kings owner, and several other owners around the league an excuse to intentionally keep payroll low in order to maximize profits. That is something the league needs to address, but fails to do so. Why doesn't Buttman speak up about that?
the trap isn't what makes winners and losers, it just gets old and slow really fast IMO. If you basically ban the trap, the coaches will just come out with something a little different and slap a different name on it and what then? For a few years while under bowman the wings used a left wing lock (basically a trap), but did so while continuing to shine with offensive numbers.

as to your point about certain owners intentionally keeping their payrolls low... that's why so many proposals, such as burke's have had a floor as well if certain owners want to keep it low, fine, but they don't get any kind of reward for doing it. I personally would go so far as to say if you can't show signs of trying to improve your team in two or three years then you get no help either.

agree completely with your points about the draft

garry1221 is offline  
Old
11-01-2004, 08:18 AM
  #42
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk
You said in an earlier post that you think the UFA age would drop to 27 or so if a Cap is implemented, then spout off the Nucks being able to keep Cooke until 31 under a Cap? Which is it man?
sorry if you didnt follow along ..

scenario 1
current CBA or something close to it ... Canucks keep Matt Cooke until 31

scenario 2
the owners get hte cap and the players get UFA at 25 or 26 and the Canucks no longer can keep Cooke until 31.

get it now ?

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
11-01-2004, 10:01 AM
  #43
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
You're acting like one trip to the finals solves all problems known to man. That's why we say something like this doesn't immediately turn a team into a constant contender, something that pro-NHLPA posters don't seem to understand.
It was okay when Edmonton was the constant contender - the constant winner - but when Detroit or Colorado or New Jersey does it, they are cheating because they spend the money they earned. Oh boo-hoo. Edmonton is supposed to be a constant contender even though their management has pretty much sucked for the last 10 years.

The Oilers have had what? Five Cups in 25 years and you have the gall to whine? It will be your turn again in about 200 years. What a bunch of hypocritical wimps. Alberta is supposed to be like Texas, the heart of Canadian individuality. No socialists there, no sir. Alberta is where men are men.

Yet as soon as they didn't have a winner, Edmonton fans started mewling like little girls. It started when the Oilers sold Esa Tikkanen and Kevin Lowe to get Doug Weight and Todd Marchant. It has continued non-stop through the sale of Weight and beyond. Will it ever stop?

"No fair! Change the system or we quit! We need hockey fans and players everywhere else to subsidize us so we get really low prices and another Stanley Cup winner. Never mind if we haven't produced any talent in a coon's age. We deserve a winner! We had to sell Doug Weight! Oh boohoo. We need a system that will immediately turn us into a constant contender!"

We should all feel sorry for the girlie-boys in Edmonton. Excuse me if I'd rather see them fold.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-01-2004, 10:34 AM
  #44
windowlicker
Registered User
 
windowlicker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Murky Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 2,181
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
It was okay when Edmonton was the constant contender - the constant winner - but when Detroit or Colorado or New Jersey does it, they are cheating because they spend the money they earned. Oh boo-hoo. Edmonton is supposed to be a constant contender even though their management has pretty much sucked for the last 10 years.

The Oilers have had what? Five Cups in 25 years and you have the gall to whine? It will be your turn again in about 200 years. What a bunch of hypocritical wimps. Alberta is supposed to be like Texas, the heart of Canadian individuality. No socialists there, no sir. Alberta is where men are men.

Yet as soon as they didn't have a winner, Edmonton fans started mewling like little girls. It started when the Oilers sold Esa Tikkanen and Kevin Lowe to get Doug Weight and Todd Marchant. It has continued non-stop through the sale of Weight and beyond. Will it ever stop?

"No fair! Change the system or we quit! We need hockey fans and players everywhere else to subsidize us so we get really low prices and another Stanley Cup winner. Never mind if we haven't produced any talent in a coon's age. We deserve a winner! We had to sell Doug Weight! Oh boohoo. We need a system that will immediately turn us into a constant contender!"

We should all feel sorry for the girlie-boys in Edmonton. Excuse me if I'd rather see them fold.

Tom
What a great argument. There should be a signup wavier that comes along with HFBoards registration stating "Must be at least 10 years of age in order to post opinion".

windowlicker is offline  
Old
11-01-2004, 12:16 PM
  #45
Cully9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
here is why i am against a cap and why all you cappers are going to regret "winning" the cap battle.

first, i dont care how much or little the players make. 100k is an awesome salary for a year, never mind the double that or 10x that. thats not hte issue.

the issue is if the owners get their cap, its going to come at the cost of a 25 or 26 or at best a 27 year old UFA age. you think if the owners get their homerun (a cap) that the players wont demand a homerun for themselves too ?

so, prepare yourself for a new NHL where players can leave your team once they hit their prime and there is nothing you can do about it and you wont have ANYTHING to show for it. nothing, zero, zilch.

dr
Except that then my team will have the same chances as anyone else to sign those free agents. Player movement happens all the time in the capped NBA and NFL, and those sports are hardly struggling because of it. Truth is, by and large, people cheer for the jersey. It's nice to identify somewhat with who is in the jersey, but you're still cheering for the jersey.

Cully9 is offline  
Old
11-01-2004, 12:41 PM
  #46
FlyersFan10*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,349
vCash: 500
The only positive of a cap is that your teams best players will be resigned to the big dollars that they deserve and that mediocre players aren't going to get big dollars as well. However, you can bet that if players are asked to re-negotiate their deals so that their team can fit in under the cap, you can bet there's gonna hell to pay.

FlyersFan10* is offline  
Old
11-01-2004, 02:26 PM
  #47
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan10
As for building a winner, well, teams like Minnesota, Anaheim, Carolina, etc....all proved that as long as you suck, but you get everyone to buy into the "defensive trap" hockey, you're going to be successful. Fact of the matter is that the league started going downhill when Jacques Lemaire came back and brought the trap with him. The problem is that practically every team now employs some kind of trap and until the league deals with the issue seriously, it will continue to plague the sport. I've made a suggestion that you fine an organization $100,000 a game each time a trap is implemented, but some felt that was a little too harsh. Well, if you want to open up the game, drastic measures need to be taken. I bet that organizations would get sick of paying $100,000 fines each game that they used the trap.
Or imagine if they made the refs call the game like the rulebook says, penalizing the trap teams who beat their opponents by dragging them down to their level rather than surpassing a team with skill. Not to say that there is more clutching and grabbing than 10 years ago, because that doesn't matter, there is more defensive hockey now which is impacted by the level of clutching and grabbing.

If you didn't allow players to physically trap other players, the Neutral Zone Trap could still be effective but it would produce a different produce. Not to mention the teams who clutch and grab would be penalized more often, leading to an increase in powerplay time which leads to an increase in offensive scoring chances.

Guest is offline  
Old
11-01-2004, 02:28 PM
  #48
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan10
Truth of the matter is that we're split with regards to caps and such. While there is some kind of restraint needed with regards to salaries, a cap just shouldn't be implemented. Once again, why should owners who intentionally do poorly and rip off their fan base be rewarded by making a profit. I know my older sister's husband agrees with me on that. He's a Bruins fan and feels that if a cap is in place, that's going to give owners like Jacobs, the Wurtz family, Disney, the LA Kings owner, and several other owners around the league an excuse to intentionally keep payroll low in order to maximize profits. That is something the league needs to address, but fails to do so. Why doesn't Buttman speak up about that?
That's why if there is a salary cap, there must be a salary floor as consolation to the players. In many cases it could lead teams with low payrolls to overpay their players just to meet the salary floor, but it would ensure that all teams are at least paying a competitive payroll, and it'd be up to management as to how much production they got from that payroll.

Guest is offline  
Old
11-01-2004, 02:35 PM
  #49
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
It was okay when Edmonton was the constant contender - the constant winner - but when Detroit or Colorado or New Jersey does it, they are cheating because they spend the money they earned. Oh boo-hoo. Edmonton is supposed to be a constant contender even though their management has pretty much sucked for the last 10 years.
Who the hell said cheating?

Where was that posted?

I know it's hard, but don't make stuff up so you can fit an argument around it. How was the Oilers team primarily built?

Through the draft. The team was able to build, and develop and stay together. Management wasn't the problem for the Oilers. Drafting and ownership was. It was a terrible owner that screwed things up for the Oilers originally, and while bad drafting hurt, they rebuilt a team from scratch in 4 years to become a playoff team.

Then league economics stepped in, and since then the Oilers have continually lost players that they have developed.

Quote:
The Oilers have had what? Five Cups in 25 years and you have the gall to whine? It will be your turn again in about 200 years. What a bunch of hypocritical wimps. Alberta is supposed to be like Texas, the heart of Canadian individuality. No socialists there, no sir. Alberta is where men are men.
Not every Oiler fan is from Alberta... and are we comparing the NHL to socialist behaviour now? Talk about reaching around in a dark room to find the needle in that haystack.

Holy crap, what a joke.

Quote:
Yet as soon as they didn't have a winner, Edmonton fans started mewling like little girls. It started when the Oilers sold Esa Tikkanen and Kevin Lowe to get Doug Weight and Todd Marchant. It has continued non-stop through the sale of Weight and beyond. Will it ever stop?
If you'd take your cranial cavity out of your anal one for 2 seconds and join us here in the real world, it would be mighty pleasant. Oiler fans weren't complaining about league economics when Tikkanen and Lowe were traded (by the way, at least get it right, Mac-T was traded for Marchant). Oiler fans were pissed at an owner that sold assets from his money making hockey team to fix his other business ventures that he screwed up in. But hey, don't let trivial things like actual events prevent you from continuing your wonderful POS story you have going on here.

It actually started with the loss of Cujo, Guerin and Weight. Teams were signing players for $10+mil, and the Oilers weren't able to pay that kind of money. What started out as poor ownership, was not a factor when these guys had to be dealt.

Quote:
"No fair! Change the system or we quit! We need hockey fans and players everywhere else to subsidize us so we get really low prices and another Stanley Cup winner. Never mind if we haven't produced any talent in a coon's age. We deserve a winner! We had to sell Doug Weight! Oh boohoo. We need a system that will immediately turn us into a constant contender!"
Any particular reason you are being a racist *****? You realize that the word coon in that phrase is a derogatory term for a black person correct (it was coined in the Southern States with that specific meaning).

Haven't produced any talent?

Cripes, you are just dumb as a rock aren't you?

Who developed Doug Weight? The magical hockey gnomes?

Guerin? No one knew much about him til he was an Oiler... it must have been stick elves.

Ryan Smyth? Ah, must have been those crazy puck leprechans.

Go on... alrighty...

Guys like Rem Murray, Tom Poti, Janne Niinimaa, Todd Marchant, Mike Comrie, Roman Hamrlik, just to name a few.

And no one is expecting an instant contender you nit-wit. What we want is to be able to see guys like Brewer, Hemsky, York, Torres, Scremp, Lynch, Woywitka, etc... be able to stay in Edmonton, and not be forced out of the city because other teams are paying contracts the Oilers can't afford.

Quote:
We should all feel sorry for the girlie-boys in Edmonton. Excuse me if I'd rather see them fold.

Tom
And if there is a deal signed that you hate so much that you refuse to watch NHL hockey again, I can't say I won't be too displeased either.

Another dumb, ignorant statement. Everyone wants what is best for their team... so yeah, Oiler fans want something to be done.

We aren't any more whiney than you.

__________________
TheSpecialist - MacT thinks he was that good of a hockey player when in actuality he was no better then a Louie Debrusk.
dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-01-2004, 02:38 PM
  #50
se7en*
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
It was okay when Edmonton was the constant contender - the constant winner - but when Detroit or Colorado or New Jersey does it, they are cheating because they spend the money they earned. Oh boo-hoo. Edmonton is supposed to be a constant contender even though their management has pretty much sucked for the last 10 years.

The Oilers have had what? Five Cups in 25 years and you have the gall to whine? It will be your turn again in about 200 years. What a bunch of hypocritical wimps. Alberta is supposed to be like Texas, the heart of Canadian individuality. No socialists there, no sir. Alberta is where men are men.

Yet as soon as they didn't have a winner, Edmonton fans started mewling like little girls. It started when the Oilers sold Esa Tikkanen and Kevin Lowe to get Doug Weight and Todd Marchant. It has continued non-stop through the sale of Weight and beyond. Will it ever stop?

"No fair! Change the system or we quit! We need hockey fans and players everywhere else to subsidize us so we get really low prices and another Stanley Cup winner. Never mind if we haven't produced any talent in a coon's age. We deserve a winner! We had to sell Doug Weight! Oh boohoo. We need a system that will immediately turn us into a constant contender!"

We should all feel sorry for the girlie-boys in Edmonton. Excuse me if I'd rather see them fold.

Tom
I just wasted precious minutes reading this utter garbage. Yet I'm sure he was crying wolf when the Canucks were cellar dwellers a couple years ago.

se7en* 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 08:28 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.