HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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
11-03-2004, 12:59 PM
  #101
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 BlackRedGold
Positive changes? Not much. But I don't think there's much wrong with the previous CBA for the fan.
Unless you are buying a ticket.

Quote:
I don't have a financial interest in the league so I don't really care about the owners' cries of poverty. There's nothing that suggests the league is really that bad off financially when there are plenty of people who still seem to want to buy into the league.
Nothing to to suggest? I guess that 75% of league revenues going to player salaries (and that's not including thier flights, hotels, pier diems, etc...) doesn't suggest there is a problem.

Quote:
I'm more worried about negative changes that can happen if the owners get what they want. I'm not so concerned about the players winning as I am concerned about the owners getting their way.
Negative changes like what?

Quote:
Right now the league is in a pretty good state because every team has a chance to win if they are well run. It might take several years of excellent management to get there but it can be done by every team in the league. The big markets cannot dominate the league by spending their way to a championship. Teams that do well are able to keep their core player together for a lengthy period of time and there isn't heavy player movement in the league.
LOL!!!!!!!

Holy crap, you are probably the most misguided person I have ever seen. No, not every team has a chance to win if they are well run, especially not with the way salaries are growing.

You seem to think that salaries aren't going any higher than they are now... well you are dead wrong. Salaries have shown no sign of even slowing, let alone peaking.

The big markets can dominate the league, because every year they set the new markets. Every year salaries go up a little more.

The big Markets can certainly buy a championship... not like in baseball, but that's because there is a bigger gap between the haves and have nots there, and fewer haves (less competition).

Let's look at Stanley Cup winners since 1994:

1994 - NYR - highest payroll in the NHL
1995 - NJD - top 10 payroll
1996 - COL - top 3 payroll
1997 - DET - top 3 payroll
1998 - DET - top 3 payroll
1999 - DAL - top 3 payroll
2000 - NJD - top 5 payroll
2001 - COL - top 5 payroll
2002 - DET - top 3 payroll
2003 - NJD - top 5 payroll
2004 - TAM - top 20 payroll

So in the past 11 years, 2 teams outside the top 5 in payroll have won... but you can't buy a championship. Look at Tampa Bay now... are they still going to have a payroll in the bottom half of the league in the next couple of years?

No.

This was a team who had to trade the #4 overall pick because they couldn't afford to pay a rookie the rookie max. The way salaries are escalating, the Lightning are going to have to have a payroll in the 50mil area to keep their team... which they can't do. Competition wise, the NHL is fairly close... but it's because of idiot owners in middle markets who over-spend... if they don't do that, the top teams just continue to add more talent, just like in baseball.

Quote:
But if the owners move away from the present system we could have a situation where certain markets, through no fault of their own, can't compete with other markets.
Uh... that is exactly what you see right now.

Or there could a situation where big markets dominate the smaller markets.[/quote]

Once again, it's exactly what you see right now.

Quote:
Or rosters could see over 50% turnover each year.
Won't happen.

Quote:
It just seems to me that the owners are selling false hope to a lot of fans. They want the fans to think that a new CBA will bring them lower ticket prices and a Stanley Cup for their team. But neither one of those things are going to change with a radically different CBA.
I don't know of a single fan who thinks the cup is guaranteed in their city in a new CBA. What I do know is I have more faith that a small market team will have as good a chance as the Red Wings of having a Dynasty, if their team is managed properly.

Kind of like when teams like the Canadiens, Islanders, Oilers and Penguins built their team through the draft, and smart trades, and not having payrolls higher than the revenues of certain teams.

__________________
TheSpecialist - MacT thinks he was that good of a hockey player when in actuality he was no better then a Louie Debrusk.

Last edited by dawgbone: 11-03-2004 at 01:12 PM.
dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 01:07 PM
  #102
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 BlackRedGold
Positive changes? Not much. But I don't think there's much wrong with the previous CBA for the fan.

I don't have a financial interest in the league so I don't really care about the owners' cries of poverty. There's nothing that suggests the league is really that bad off financially when there are plenty of people who still seem to want to buy into the league.

I'm more worried about negative changes that can happen if the owners get what they want. I'm not so concerned about the players winning as I am concerned about the owners getting their way.

Right now the league is in a pretty good state because every team has a chance to win if they are well run. It might take several years of excellent management to get there but it can be done by every team in the league. The big markets cannot dominate the league by spending their way to a championship. Teams that do well are able to keep their core player together for a lengthy period of time and there isn't heavy player movement in the league.

But if the owners move away from the present system we could have a situation where certain markets, through no fault of their own, can't compete with other markets. Or there could a situation where big markets dominate the smaller markets. Or rosters could see over 50% turnover each year.

It just seems to me that the owners are selling false hope to a lot of fans. They want the fans to think that a new CBA will bring them lower ticket prices and a Stanley Cup for their team. But neither one of those things are going to change with a radically different CBA.
So, according to you, the current state of the league is a healthy one? Which means, if left alone, things can only get better, or at least remain at status quo?

The current trend of spiralling salaries totally disproportional with the rate increase of inflation & the increasing cost of running a franchise is not offset by the higher ticket prices & merchandising sales. There is no TV deal. No one cares about hockey in the States (outside of strictly regional interests). There are no magic "revenue sources."

And, since you refer to looking at this situation purely through the eyes of the fan, as a fan, I can remember liking the game much more when the players were getting screwed and the fat-cat owners would laugh through the cigar smoke while watching the money roll in (although the money was never that good). Because back then, the emphasis was on hockey & hockey-playing, not ******* contract extensions, UFA status, trade demands, arbitration, NHLPA. I want the Union crushed because I have no sympathy for them. They are putting themselves ahead of the team, ahead of the game. I am a fan of my team, of The Game, not the individual.

Though I must say, Its refreshing to see someone trying to defend the players non-defendable position in this. I can't comment on HOW you have come to your conclusions, or what-in-this-world has made you take your position, but nonetheless it is remarkable watching your ilk grasping at straws and twisting facts.

windowlicker is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 01:13 PM
  #103
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Man you are ignorant. The handwriting is on the wall. The ticket prices are about as high as the market in Edmonton can handle, while current NHL salaries are showing no signs for reaching a peak.
Well, I guess this makes Edmonton an AHL market, doesn't it? On average Canuck fans spend about $15 US more a ticket than Edmonton fans. And you want the Canucks to share revenue? Why should they?

Pony up like everywhere else or go back to the WHA.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 01:41 PM
  #104
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
Well, I guess this makes Edmonton an AHL market, doesn't it? On average Canuck fans spend about $15 US more a ticket than Edmonton fans. And you want the Canucks to share revenue? Why should they?

Pony up like everywhere else or go back to the WHA.

Tom
:lol :lol

windowlicker is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 01:50 PM
  #105
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
Well, I guess this makes Edmonton an AHL market, doesn't it? On average Canuck fans spend about $15 US more a ticket than Edmonton fans. And you want the Canucks to share revenue? Why should they?

Pony up like everywhere else or go back to the WHA.

Tom
Just because you are jealous and bitter of the utter destruction the Canucks routinely faced at the hands of the Oilers doens't mean everyone else feels the same way.

Seriously man, I know the team you cheer for has a history for being a door mat, or an "almost" team, but don't hate on us for having a team who has done something.

Honestly... suck it up princess. This childish animosity is absolutely pathetic.

I mean, I get it now... being a Nuck fan must suck... I mean what have they ever done? A couple of flukey runs to the cup 12 years apart?

I can understand why you'd hate Oiler fans, I mean all the winning... not just in the NHL, but in the CFL too... yeesh. I could see why you'd develop such a complex over it. I mean, being inferior to a smaller city stuck in the middle of nowhere.

Did I say anything about the Canucks sharing their precious revenue with the Oilers?

Nope, I didn't. Cap their sorry ***** at $31mil, so they can go back to their rightful place as NHL doormats, just like they used to be, and just like they excel at.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 02:06 PM
  #106
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Well, I guess this makes Edmonton an AHL market, doesn't it? On average Canuck fans spend about $15 US more a ticket than Edmonton fans. And you want the Canucks to share revenue? Why should they?

Pony up like everywhere else or go back to the WHA.

Tom
If things continue as they are, don't be so smug that your beloved Nucks will be 'big market' or even residing within Vancouver within 10 years.

What makes you think ANY Canadian team outside Toronto's near-bottomless revenues will exist come 2014, or even earlier if the NHLPA wins this? Even Montreal's starting to feel the crunch.

MLB used to have 2 Canadian teams...one left, and the other's a pale shadow of its former glory.

Only one Canadian team in the NBA, and it's stability is questionable at best.

The NFL? They won't even START a franchise in here, no matter how much Toronto begs and pleads.

Let salaries continue to not be tied to revenue, and the dollar fall to the low 70's or mid 60's like it used to be at...then we'll see how many big market US franchises look down their nose in Vancouver's general direction.

No matter which US billionaire owns your team, a Canadian market is a Canadian market. I might hold off on the pompous arrogance if I were you.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 02:22 PM
  #107
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
If things continue as they are, don't be so smug that your beloved Nucks will be 'big market' or even residing within Vancouver within 10 years.
Ten years? Oooh, I'm scared. Your post is going to keep me awake nights worrying about whether one of the most profitable franchises in the NHL will survive.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 02:24 PM
  #108
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
On average Canuck fans spend about $15 US more a ticket than Edmonton fans.

Pony up like everywhere else or go back to the WHA.

Tom
How does this make any sense?

You point to Vancouver's ticket prices and call it "everywhere else".

By that logic, the NHL should only consist of 2 teams considering the Canucks are the second highest priced ticket in the league.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 02:26 PM
  #109
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
Ten years? Oooh, I'm scared. Your post is going to keep me awake nights worrying about whether one of the most profitable franchises in the NHL will survive.

Tom
While the Canucks are one of the most profitable now, don't forget, several years ago they were one of the most mismanaged franchises in the league and was a laughing stock.

Fans in Vancouver are fickle... what happens if the team tanks again (just like it always has throughout it's history after a good run)?

Are they going to be able to have one of the most expensive ticket prices in the NHL?

Vancouver fans won't support a loser... they never have.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 02:34 PM
  #110
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Ten years? Oooh, I'm scared. Your post is going to keep me awake nights worrying about whether one of the most profitable franchises in the NHL will survive.

Tom
Whatever... :lol

Digger12 is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 02:43 PM
  #111
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by windowlicker
The current trend of spiralling salaries totally disproportional with the rate increase of inflation & the increasing cost of running a franchise is not offset by the higher ticket prices & merchandising sales.
Since you seem to have all the answers, how much have salaries increased each season for the past five seasons? And how does that compare to the rate of inflation?

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 02:44 PM
  #112
se7en*
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Ten years? Oooh, I'm scared. Your post is going to keep me awake nights worrying about whether one of the most profitable franchises in the NHL will survive.

Tom
Wow, great post. When's recess over?

se7en* is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 03:08 PM
  #113
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Unless you are buying a ticket.
I've bought plenty of tickets.

Besides the CBA doesn't dictate the price of tickets.


Quote:
Nothing to to suggest? I guess that 75% of league revenues going to player salaries (and that's not including thier flights, hotels, pier diems, etc...) doesn't suggest there is a problem.
No it doesn't since I don't trust the owners. What would indicate a problem would be a franchise folding. That hasn't happened in over 25 years.



Quote:
Holy crap, you are probably the most misguided person I have ever seen. No, not every team has a chance to win if they are well run, especially not with the way salaries are growing.
OK. What team doesn't have a chance to win? And how are salaries going?

Quote:
You seem to think that salaries aren't going any higher than they are now... well you are dead wrong. Salaries have shown no sign of even slowing, let alone peaking.
Then how fast are they growing? You keep bringing up salaries increasing but if you knew how much they were increasing you would specify how fast their are growing. Are they going up 100% per season? 50%? 10%? 5%?

Quote:
The big markets can dominate the league, because every year they set the new markets. Every year salaries go up a little more.
Well, the Rangers, Maple Leafs, Blackhawks, Kings and Capitals have sure been dominating the league during the previous CBA!

You said every year salaries go up a little more? I thought that salaries were spiralling out of control? Which is it? Are they going up a little bit or are they spiralling?

Quote:
The big Markets can certainly buy a championship... not like in baseball, but that's because there is a bigger gap between the haves and have nots there, and fewer haves (less competition).
Name the teams that have bought Stanley Cup championships. All the recent winners have been teams that have drafted and developed players really well.

Quote:
Let's look at Stanley Cup winners since 1994:

1994 - NYR - highest payroll in the NHL
Happened under the CBA prior to the previous one.

Quote:
1995 - NJD - top 10 payroll
Small market. Plays in the smallest NHL city with an outdated rink.

Quote:
1996 - COL - top 3 payroll
Medium sized market that couldn't even keep its NHL team in the 70's.

Quote:
1997 - DET - top 3 payroll
1998 - DET - top 3 payroll
Built off the tremendous draft they had in, I believe, 1989. Possibly the best draft year for a team ever.

And Detroit is a medium to large market.

Quote:
1999 - DAL - top 3 payroll
Medium sized southern market. I thought hockey didn't work in the South?
Quote:

2000 - NJD - top 5 payroll
Again. It was once called a Mickey Mouse organization by Gretzky.

Quote:
2001 - COL - top 5 payroll
Still using the great core of players that were the result of drafting when they were the Nordiques.

Quote:
2002 - DET - top 3 payroll
2003 - NJD - top 5 payroll
2004 - TAM - top 20 payroll
Small market team that used a great core of drafted players.

But I don't know why you keep mentioning payroll. High payroll != big market. If a team has more talent then the other teams shouldn't it pay more money for that talent?

Quote:
So in the past 11 years, 2 teams outside the top 5 in payroll have won... but you can't buy a championship. Look at Tampa Bay now... are they still going to have a payroll in the bottom half of the league in the next couple of years?
No they won't because they'll be able to pay for their talented group of players with the revenues from the playoffs.

Quote:
This was a team who had to trade the #4 overall pick because they couldn't afford to pay a rookie the rookie max. The way salaries are escalating, the Lightning are going to have to have a payroll in the 50mil area to keep their team... which they can't do. Competition wise, the NHL is fairly close... but it's because of idiot owners in middle markets who over-spend... if they don't do that, the top teams just continue to add more talent, just like in baseball.
Who says the Lightning can't have a $50M payroll if they continue to win? They've got one of the biggest rinks in the NHL and the place is packed with a winning team.

How do they top teams add more talent when the only players free to sign with top teams are ones in decline? You don't become a restricted free agent in the NHL until 31.

Quote:
I don't know of a single fan who thinks the cup is guaranteed in their city in a new CBA. What I do know is I have more faith that a small market team will have as good a chance as the Red Wings of having a Dynasty, if their team is managed properly.
You mean like New Jersey or Colorado did? Or an Ottawa Senators team could have if only they could face the Leafs when they didn't have a horseshoe shoved up their collective backsides?

Quote:
Kind of like when teams like the Canadiens, Islanders, Oilers and Penguins built their team through the draft, and smart trades, and not having payrolls higher than the revenues of certain teams.
Where did those teams rank in terms of payroll?

Did the Devils, Red Wings and Avalanche not build their teams through the draft and smart trades?

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 03:37 PM
  #114
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Then how fast are they growing? You keep bringing up salaries increasing but if you knew how much they were increasing you would specify how fast their are growing. Are they going up 100% per season? 50%? 10%? 5%?
Between '01 and '04 salaries have risen on average 12%, 10% and 6% ('05 salaries are obviously incomplete).

For perspective, what's the average rate of inflation? 3%?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Small market. Plays in the smallest NHL city with an outdated rink.

Medium sized market that couldn't even keep its NHL team in the 70's.

Built off the tremendous draft they had in, I believe, 1989. Possibly the best draft year for a team ever.

And Detroit is a medium to large market.

Medium sized southern market. I thought hockey didn't work in the South?

Again. It was once called a Mickey Mouse organization by Gretzky.

Still using the great core of players that were the result of drafting when they were the Nordiques.
What does any of this have to do with money spent?

Everyone recognizes that the owners have mismanaged their payrolls. Market size is part of the problem BUT owners willing to take a loss is another part.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Who says the Lightning can't have a $50M payroll if they continue to win? They've got one of the biggest rinks in the NHL and the place is packed with a winning team.
Will they be able to support a 68 million dollar payroll? How about 70 mill?

You hold Detroit up as a model for success and that is what it is taking them...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
You mean like New Jersey or Colorado did?

Did the Devils, Red Wings and Avalanche not build their teams through the draft and smart trades?
If you actually compared the teams of today that sustained success (such as Detroit, Colorado and Jersey) to teams like the Canadiens, Islanders, Oilers and Penguins you would find that there is actually very little that they have in common.

Instead, I would suggest that a comparison of the two groups may actually result in proving just how silly the league and building a team in it has actually become.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 04:37 PM
  #115
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 BlackRedGold
I've bought plenty of tickets.

Besides the CBA doesn't dictate the price of tickets.
If you've bought plenty of tickets, you'd realize that after a summer of signing deals, the average ticket price for the Senators goes up...

Incredible!

Quote:
No it doesn't since I don't trust the owners. What would indicate a problem would be a franchise folding. That hasn't happened in over 25 years.
Ah okay... I get it... so the village isn't in trouble until after it starts flooding... gotcha. Taking preventive measures before that happens isn't a good idea.

Should it really take the folding of a franchise for people to take it seriously? Shouldn't you start putting the sandbags up before the water is 4 feet deep?

As for not trusting the owners... that is up to you... I'm not sure why, I mean you are willing to spend your money on tickets, yet you don't trust them... that baffles me. I would think that if you didn't trust the owner, you wouldn't blindly hand your money over to him.

It's funny, the NHLPA doesn't trust the owners, but they'll come collect a paycheque from them... hypocricy at it's finest. They don't trust the owners, but they won't do anything to prove them wrong... there must be a reason for the distrust. There must be something fueling it. They'd be farther ahead if they proved the owners were lying.

But they have ZERO intent on trying to do that.

Quote:
OK. What team doesn't have a chance to win? And how are salaries going?
What team doesn't have a chance to win? Any team with several good young players on it who's salaries are rising faster than the team can afford, despite whatever playoff success they might be having.

Quote:
Then how fast are they growing? You keep bringing up salaries increasing but if you knew how much they were increasing you would specify how fast their are growing. Are they going up 100% per season? 50%? 10%? 5%?
It's common knowledge! Average Salary in 1994 was about $530k, 1998 $1mil, 2001 $1.4 mil, 2004 $1.85mil.

Quote:
Well, the Rangers, Maple Leafs, Blackhawks, Kings and Capitals have sure been dominating the league during the previous CBA!
The Leafs have been a 100+ point team for several years, and have managed to go farther in the playoffs (on average) than the Sens.

Alrighty, let's go for some of the other big Markets.

Colorado, New Jersey, Philly, Detroit, Dallas, all who have one cups.

Quote:
You said every year salaries go up a little more? I thought that salaries were spiralling out of control? Which is it? Are they going up a little bit or are they spiralling?
I'd say tripling over 10 years is spiralling, with it every year getting higher and higher....

Why are you grasping for things now?

Quote:
Name the teams that have bought Stanley Cup championships. All the recent winners have been teams that have drafted and developed players really well.
They were also able to keep the players they have developed, even when they weren't having playoff success.

Also, define buying? Picking up a big salary from a team who can't afford it in a trade constitutes as buying. For instance the Wings essentially bought Hasek from Buffalo... they signed Hull as a UFA. Both moves not many teams can Make. Colorado had virtually no playoff success when they got Roy.

Buying your championship involves being able to keep your own players, while at the same time gobbling up better players from other teams because you have the financial ability to do so.

Quote:
Happened under the CBA prior to the previous one.
True, but that's where it started.

Quote:
Small market. Plays in the smallest NHL city with an outdated rink.
That's a joke. New Jersey is within a reasonable driving distance of nearly 20 million people.

Quote:
Medium sized market that couldn't even keep its NHL team in the 70's.
Market involves several things there sunshine... population, disposable income, etc... Denver is an extremely wealthy area.

Quote:
Built off the tremendous draft they had in, I believe, 1989. Possibly the best draft year for a team ever.
And Detroit is a medium to large market.

Medium sized southern market. I thought hockey didn't work in the South?

Again. It was once called a Mickey Mouse organization by Gretzky.

Still using the great core of players that were the result of drafting when they were the Nordiques.

Small market team that used a great core of drafted players.[/quote]

Evidently I said somewhere that all these players were bought... wait, no I didn't. Yes it takes great drafting, and solid trading, but the salaries these and other teams have paid out have gone a long way to hurt many teams abilities to build their own team. You shouldn't have to win the Stanley Cup in order to keep your team together, which is what you are saying.

And thanks for bringing up Dallas... I've never said hockey didn't work in the South, and if you think Dallas is a medium market, you really should consider thinking a little harder.

But I don't know why you keep mentioning payroll. High payroll != big market. If a team has more talent then the other teams shouldn't it pay more money for that talent?[/quote]

The fact of the matter is you can't support a large payroll that most of these teams used to win in markets that aren't big. Like I said, big is a combination of things. Amount of disposable income is just as important as population, if not more so.

Quote:
No they won't because they'll be able to pay for their talented group of players with the revenues from the playoffs.
Really... that's funny. Their revenues aren't much higher than they were several years ago when they traded away a draft pick that would have netted them Joni Pitkannen because they couldn't afford an entry leve contract.

How on earth are they going to be able to keep Richards, Lecavalier, St Louis and Khabibulin... without suffering financial losses (which they did btw, despite winning the cup).

Quote:
Who says the Lightning can't have a $50M payroll if they continue to win? They've got one of the biggest rinks in the NHL and the place is packed with a winning team.
Packed? What playoffs were you watching? They certtainly weren't packed in the first 3 rounds. I'm saying they can't afford a $50million payroll because they can't.

Quote:
How do they top teams add more talent when the only players free to sign with top teams are ones in decline? You don't become a restricted free agent in the NHL until 31.
Decline? Not sure what NHL you watch, but if 31 is when players are in decline, that's news to me.

BTW, there is more than just UFA signings to consider when talking about adding more talent. Trading for other teams top players come to mind. Ever seem to notice it's only a handful of teams who always make the big splash at the deadline?

Quote:
You mean like New Jersey or Colorado did? Or an Ottawa Senators team could have if only they could face the Leafs when they didn't have a horseshoe shoved up their collective backsides?
New Jersey I will give you... Colorado has had very important peices of their team traded to them, or were signed by them.

And like I said, if you consider living within a reasonable driving distance of 20million people a small market, that is up to you.

And could have? I was under the impression those don't count.

Quote:
Where did those teams rank in terms of payroll?
We will never know. Salaries and that weren't released as common knowledge back then. All I know is the Oilers never once pulled a trade where they got another teams best player for futures.

Quote:
Did the Devils, Red Wings and Avalanche not build their teams through the draft and smart trades?
Yeah, smart trades that involved trading parts for key players... players the other teams couldn't afford.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 04:48 PM
  #116
EJsens1
HFBoards Sponsor
 
EJsens1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
If you've bought plenty of tickets, you'd realize that after a summer of signing deals, the average ticket price for the Senators goes up...

Incredible!
I tend to agree with everything you post, but I think you are wrong here. My mom has season tickets and she get's her ticket prices for renewal of the following season before the playoffs start. I was also under the impression that ticket prices are set for the following season before the off-season starts. My point being if that is the case, a free agent signing wouldn't increase the ticket prices as the budget and prices for tickets are already known.

EJsens1 is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 05:09 PM
  #117
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 Craven Morehead
I tend to agree with everything you post, but I think you are wrong here. My mom has season tickets and she get's her ticket prices for renewal of the following season before the playoffs start. I was also under the impression that ticket prices are set for the following season before the off-season starts. My point being if that is the case, a free agent signing wouldn't increase the ticket prices as the budget and prices for tickets are already known.
season tickets, obviously bought in bulk and usually sold at a descount to the buyers are usually not the ones that are affected. It's the individual tickets that are sold that would be affected by FA signings.

garry1221 is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 05:48 PM
  #118
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garry1221
season tickets, obviously bought in bulk and usually sold at a descount to the buyers are usually not the ones that are affected. It's the individual tickets that are sold that would be affected by FA signings.
Individual game prices are set at the point in time as season tickets. Otherwise the season ticket holder could be paying more then the single game purchaser.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 05:58 PM
  #119
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,794
vCash: 500
Wow, this thread has gone down hill fast. From "ohhh I'm scared" to "The CBA works because NJ won some cups and Gretzky called them Mickey Mouse 15 years ago". Hockey talk has been replaced by insults and illogical banter, but I guess thats where frustration leads to.

Mabye we should direct our frustration towards the people who derserve it, and not towards the fans of other teams. Its making some people on here look really immature.

Cawz is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 08:33 PM
  #120
the doctor
Registered User
 
the doctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
"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.Tom
I've pretty much been an observer here, but I really, really enjoy coming here to get a pulse on how other fans see the situation.

I know you said this tongue-in-cheek, but I'm having a hard time disagreeing. Holy smokes, I think there's a paper here; "How to poorly run an organization, yet still have the local media and fans blame others....by Kevin Lowe". How big of a circle can the wagons go?

the doctor is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 10:11 PM
  #121
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
If you've bought plenty of tickets, you'd realize that after a summer of signing deals, the average ticket price for the Senators goes up...
The Senators payroll went up by ~$10M last year. My season tickets didn't go up a bit.

Quote:
Ah okay... I get it... so the village isn't in trouble until after it starts flooding... gotcha. Taking preventive measures before that happens isn't a good idea.

Should it really take the folding of a franchise for people to take it seriously? Shouldn't you start putting the sandbags up before the water is 4 feet deep?
Want to use a better example. To paraphrase something by another poster, if someone cries wolf enough times I want to see teeth before I believe them.

Quote:
As for not trusting the owners... that is up to you... I'm not sure why, I mean you are willing to spend your money on tickets, yet you don't trust them... that baffles me. I would think that if you didn't trust the owner, you wouldn't blindly hand your money over to him.
I don't blindly hand my money over to them. I make a calculated decision on whether or not I hand over my money. If they decided to raise the price of my tickets to $300 a game, I'd tell them to go screw themselves.

And I'm getting closer and closer to saying the hell with the NHL. I'll keep my money and you can do whatever the hell you want. I'll spend my money elsewhere.

Quote:
It's funny, the NHLPA doesn't trust the owners, but they'll come collect a paycheque from them... hypocricy at it's finest. They don't trust the owners, but they won't do anything to prove them wrong... there must be a reason for the distrust. There must be something fueling it. They'd be farther ahead if they proved the owners were lying.
What would proving the owners were liars accomplish? It would turn the fans against the owners, lowering revenues and the players would see their collective salaries drop as a result.

Why don't the players bring up Allen Eagleson and his actions with the owners? Because its in their best interests not to turn fans away from the game.

Quote:
What team doesn't have a chance to win? Any team with several good young players on it who's salaries are rising faster than the team can afford, despite whatever playoff success they might be having.
Name these teams. Lets figure out which teams that we're missing hockey to save. Name the young players that they've had to trade off. Lets get into specifics here.

Quote:
It's common knowledge! Average Salary in 1994 was about $530k, 1998 $1mil, 2001 $1.4 mil, 2004 $1.85mil.
Lets list off all the negotiated average salaries since 98 then.

Quote:
The Leafs have been a 100+ point team for several years, and have managed to go farther in the playoffs (on average) than the Sens.
The Leafs haven't won a President's Trophy have they? They've accomplished nothing more then the Sens have but at a budget close to double what the Sens have had. How has their money proven to be an advantage to them?

Alrighty, let's go for some of the other big Markets.

Colorado, New Jersey, Philly, Detroit, Dallas, all who have one cups.
[/quote]

How is Colorado a big market when Denver is the 25th biggest metro market in the US according to this list ?



Quote:
They were also able to keep the players they have developed, even when they weren't having playoff success.
Like who? Brendan Shanahan for New Jersey? Or how about Martin Lapointe for Detroit?

Quote:
Colorado had virtually no playoff success when they got Roy.
There had also never been a playoff game in Denver until the Avalanche won the Cup.

Quote:
Buying your championship involves being able to keep your own players, while at the same time gobbling up better players from other teams because you have the financial ability to do so.
You mean like how the Rangers and Capitals have tried to build their teams?


Quote:
That's a joke. New Jersey is within a reasonable driving distance of nearly 20 million people.
Have you ever been to New Jersey? There might be 20 million people in the general area but they sure aren't within a reasonable driving distance of the Meadowlands. Do you know what New York rush hour is like? Or just New York traffic in general?

They're also competing with three other more established NHL teams in their area.


Quote:
Market involves several things there sunshine... population, disposable income, etc... Denver is an extremely wealthy area.
So is Ottawa, what's your point?


Quote:
Evidently I said somewhere that all these players were bought... wait, no I didn't. Yes it takes great drafting, and solid trading, but the salaries these and other teams have paid out have gone a long way to hurt many teams abilities to build their own team. You shouldn't have to win the Stanley Cup in order to keep your team together, which is what you are saying.
If you can't win with your team, why would you keep it together. Either the team accomplishes its goal - winning the Cup - or a you try to find one that can.

Quote:
The fact of the matter is you can't support a large payroll that most of these teams used to win in markets that aren't big. Like I said, big is a combination of things. Amount of disposable income is just as important as population, if not more so.
And Ottawa, Edmonton and Calgary are all pretty affluent places.

Quote:
Really... that's funny. Their revenues aren't much higher than they were several years ago when they traded away a draft pick that would have netted them Joni Pitkannen because they couldn't afford an entry leve contract.
Who said they couldn't afford Pitkanen? That's an assinine notion.

Quote:
How on earth are they going to be able to keep Richards, Lecavalier, St Louis and Khabibulin... without suffering financial losses (which they did btw, despite winning the cup).

Packed? What playoffs were you watching? They certtainly weren't packed in the first 3 rounds. I'm saying they can't afford a $50million payroll because they can't.
Well, the smallest crowd they had during the playoff was 18,536. That's more then most of the rinks in the NHL can hold. During the finals they had 22,426 in their building. Has any other NHL team every sold that many tickets for a playoff game?

Now that they've won the Cup, their attendance will only get higher. And they'll sell out every playoff game.

If Colorado can afford a $50M payroll, why can't Tampa? Especially since they've got a bigger rink.

Quote:
Decline? Not sure what NHL you watch, but if 31 is when players are in decline, that's news to me.
It is according to several studies I've seen. As well, Pierre Gauthier has gone on record saying that UFA's are "deteriorating assets". Do you think you know more about when NHL players peak and decline then a former NHL GM?


Quote:
We will never know. Salaries and that weren't released as common knowledge back then. All I know is the Oilers never once pulled a trade where they got another teams best player for futures.
Who did Edmonton give up to get Kent Nilsson? Or Geoff Courtnall?

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 10:37 PM
  #122
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
He's a Nucks fan... have you ever met one that didn't have a hard-on hatred for the Oilers?
You have now, I loved the Oilers when I was a kid, and Edmonton is one of teams I always make sure I attend the games for.

vanlady is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 10:42 PM
  #123
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
I have no idea why people think the NFL and NBA salaries are controlled that is a myth. Let’s compare the percentage increase in salaries since the 1997/1998 season and today,

NBA – 57%
NFL – 48%
MLB – 44%
NHL – 35%

In the 2002 season the NFL had 71.1 million cap, 7 teams exceeded the cap, and the NY Jets were over the cap by 16 million. In 2003 the league voted to increase the cap to 74 million but according to the USA Today salary database only 7 teams were below the cap. In 2004 the league again raised the cap, not to the 77 million it was set to go up too, but to 80.5 million. Why would the NFL do this? To accommodate the 13 teams that still would have been over the 77 million dollar cap. So are NFL salaries really controlled or do they only appear to be controlled?

So do salary caps really control salaries? Or do aggressive marketing and business strategies work to increase revenue and allow steady payroll growth? So what makes the NFL successful, a strong business and marketing plan, something the NHL with a few exceptions, have been an abysmal failure at. In the last year several excellent articles have been written by the two top sports economists, Dr. Patrick Rishe and Professor Andrew Zimablist, on this very subject and they both agree that revenue sharing and huge TV deals are the successes of the NFL and revenue sharing not a salary cap is the beginning of the salvation for the NHL.

So let’s see who gets the best player value, the NFL, NBA, MLB or the NHL. Take each of the top paid players from each of the four top pro sports and divide it by the number of regular season games. You decide who provides the best entertainment for the dollar.

NFL Brian Urlacher $940,975 per game
NBA Kevin Garnett $341,463 per game
MLB Manny Ramirez $148,026 per game
NHL Jarmir Jagr $134,136 per game

vanlady is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 10:58 PM
  #124
Jag68Sid87
Registered User
 
Jag68Sid87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 28,041
vCash: 500
I believe Courtnall was a throw in in the 1988 mega deal that saw Andy Moog go to Boston and Bill Ranford head to Edmonton.

I think Nilsson was acquired the year before from Minnesota for a draft pick. Nilsson's best days were behind him at the time he landed in Edmonton.

Jag68Sid87 is offline  
Old
11-03-2004, 11:21 PM
  #125
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag68Vlady27
I believe Courtnall was a throw in in the 1988 mega deal that saw Andy Moog go to Boston and Bill Ranford head to Edmonton.
That's right.

Quote:
I think Nilsson was acquired the year before from Minnesota for a draft pick. Nilsson's best days were behind him at the time he landed in Edmonton.
He was 30 years old when he was traded and he was still a point a game player while playing on a pretty bad North Stars team.

YellHockey* 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 02:16 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.