The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
That is not the way it worked though. Many players moved well before 31 because of salary issues. It was just by trade rather than through FA.
I think this is the crux of it. The smaller revenue teams had a constant stream of draft picks. They were development specialists. One of the benefits of this was that they could be fairly deep and had players mainly through their primes. Think of the three contract NHL vs the two contract NHL.
I understand that one of the downsides was that they couldn't keep their top star(s), but they were repaid with assets. Today, the window is much shorter, to the point where they may not even be sure what they have yet. Furthermore, with an UFA age of 27, you're not really as likely to get much in trade assets. One of the side effects of the cap is the dearth of player movement as compared to the earlier system where trades could happen all the time.
Quote:
Let's just pull a number out of the air and say that a team had a star whose contract was up and some other team offered him say $17M as an RFA. Of course the original team could match, if they were a big money team. But what happens to a small market team?
They could always take the draft choices which means perpetually starting over. Or what they could do is to anticipate such a possibility and counter it by dealing any star for say 60 cents on the dollar, before it ever got to that point.
In 97/98 Philly gave Luke Richardson $2.5M, or 4 times his previous salary. He was coming off a year where he had 1 goal and 12 points in 81 games. This is essentially the equivalent of offering someone like Kronwall $11M for his last deal.
And this does not even touch on the fact that players with valid contracts would just hold out if they thought they were not being paid enough.
I think we are going to have to agre to disagree on this. I don't se anyway you can convince me that the old CBA was better for small market teams retianing their stars.
I think there were inflationary aspects to the last system just as there are under the current one. A cap wasn't the only way to address things like offer sheets and holdouts, for example. Arbitration was tweaked.
What I believe that you're neglecting though is how much more expensive it is for smaller revenue teams to operate under the current CBA. We've discussed this before, but having the cap range set by everyone's HRR and averaging makes it very difficult for lower revenue teams to keep up. We're at a point today where the cap floor is approaching the total HRR level (before rev transfer) of the weakest teams. As we've discussed, the way revenue transfer works, you have a small window to try to keep up, but if you fail, you quickly start losing the full share. What does a weaker team do at that point? I tend to conclude that one reason franchise values have fallen off for many teams is a reflection of this very dynamic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield
And that protection completely and utterly failed time and time again. Just because a player was not eligible for UFA years, it did not mean they could not ever get their payday. They simply held out until the team either caved or gave them the trade they wanted(Yashin, Nabokov, Gaborik, Khabibulin). Or what about NYR driving the price of RFA salaries with the offer sheets (see Sakic, Joe). This protection was a myth. Teams like Edmonton/Winnipeg/Pittsburgh/Ottawa/etc were forced to sell their assets well before UFA since they could not afford them. I understand that some of that had to do with the weak canadian dollar, but change those names to Columbus/Phoenix/Nashville/Florida/New York I nowadays would have to sell their assets well before a 31 year old UFA age if there was no cap. Do you think that the NYR would hesitate one second to throw 20-25 million dollars a year at Crosby when he hits RFA at age 25?
There's one Crosby, and even under the old CBA very few teams could realistically collect all the big stars they wanted. Most that tried to buy their way to respectability via UFA signings tended to fail. A team like Detroit was built through primarily their own draft and development--- then and now. That was always the foundation of great teams.
Where I can agree is that weaker teams aren't in as great of risk of losing players through offer sheets and hold outs, but they face a different pressure and inflation now. That's the shortened window after drafting a player to UFA status (and the loss of the 'third' contract), while not being able to even get as many assets when they lose some players (all the big signings have been with big HRR teams except Pittsburgh and Washington). In the meantime, their franchise values have started to decline and it gets harder and harder to keep up with growth driven by Canadian and big market teams.
Realistically, I can only think of Tampa as mid-revenue team that has a couple bigger contracts with their top stars. They traded away two other core pieces along the way (Richards, Boyle).
Both sides have reasons to want a deal rather than a lockout, more so the owners IMO.
They desperately want their new years week festival in Detroit, if a lockout were to cancel it, I suspect they'd prevent NHL players from taking part in the Olympics.
I also doubt the Salary cap is going anywhere, it may be tweaked to allow a bigger gap between floor and ceiling, but why get rid of something you gave up a season to establish? I doubt its even high on the players list of changes.
Both sides have reasons to want a deal rather than a lockout, more so the owners IMO.
They desperately want their new years week festival in Detroit, if a lockout were to cancel it, I suspect they'd prevent NHL players from taking part in the Olympics.
I also doubt the Salary cap is going anywhere, it may be tweaked to allow a bigger gap between floor and ceiling, but why get rid of something you gave up a season to establish? I doubt its even high on the players list of changes.
If the owners lock the players out, they may not be able to prevent the players from doing so.
If the owners lock the players out, they may not be able to prevent the players from doing so.
Yup. Under US (and presumably Canadian) labo(u)r law, a locked out employee is permitted to seek employment elsewhere. That is why players inder contract were free to sign overseas during the last lockout. Note, that is not true in the case of a strike - players under contract could be prevented from playing elsewhere.
@acor - I think the current soccer model of business is preferable to what we have now. The old CBA was fair, all teams had a pretty much equal shot of winning. It came down to good management and player development. The current MLB CBA is fair as well. Both big and smaller market/revenue teams can compete for championships and players get a fair marketplace for themselves.
2 problems
"all markets" would mean 10 to 15 teams under that system. That would put over half of today's players on the unemployment rolls
no caps would be similar to Hollywood and network TV, where Sienfeld-type stars get a million dollars plus per episode, and the bit-players get paid almost nothing, and have to drive taxis or flip burgers to make ends meet
[*]no caps would be similar to Hollywood and network TV, where Sienfeld-type stars get a million dollars plus per episode, and the bit-players get paid almost nothing, and have to drive taxis or flip burgers to make ends meet[/LIST]
The market can also be realized if you kept athletes under house lock, tagged, fed only what their nutritionists approve, with schedules completely controlled by trainers. Not unlike race horses. Oh wait. Drug testing happens there too.
Sorry, but I can't accept any argument that proposes we dehumanize people in the name of an entertainment industry [especially].
Speaking of dehumanization, I for one do not want to see an NHL full of pharmaceutical freaks. Steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs do have side-effects. But they do temporarily enhance performance. If some athletes take steroids/etc, then all athletes will have to, merely to be able to compete. If Fehr wilfully ignores this, he loses my respect.
"all markets" would mean 10 to 15 teams under that system. That would put over half of today's players on the unemployment rolls
no caps would be similar to Hollywood and network TV, where Sienfeld-type stars get a million dollars plus per episode, and the bit-players get paid almost nothing, and have to drive taxis or flip burgers to make ends meet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado
I don't see anything wrong with that.
I don't either. That how it was before and the average salary was higher.
Might as well fold up ten of the smaller market teams with no cap.
You'll just have teams like TOR and NYR throwing millions that those teams can't afford at RFA's.
Prior to the lockout the NHL had only one repeat champion in 6 years. 6 years after the lockout we have not had a repeat champion.
Its not like before the lockout we had a Yankees/Red Sox situation where the same teams were winning year after year.
In a lot of ways its better for the league to give the Toronto's and New York's of the world a better chance at being steady playoff teams because they generate higher TV ratings and things.
I think this is the crux of it. The smaller revenue teams had a constant stream of draft picks. They were development specialists. One of the benefits of this was that they could be fairly deep and had players mainly through their primes. Think of the three contract NHL vs the two contract NHL.
...
I understand that one of the downsides was that they couldn't keep their top star(s), but they were repaid with assets. Today, the window is much shorter, to the point where they may not even be sure what they have yet. Furthermore, with an UFA age of 27, you're not really as likely to get much in trade assets. One of the side effects of the cap is the dearth of player movement as compared to the earlier system where trades could happen all the time.
That's not really what happened though.
I can't speak for all small market teams but I can say for sure that a team like the Oilers did not benefit from a constant stream of draft picks. They had a few but the draft was far less of a focus back then than it is today. The Oilers in particular had two first round picks through the whole 90's who played more than two seasons with them. One was Ryan Smyth, the other was Jason Arnott who left Edmonton when he was 23.
Here are most of the key assets the Oilers got from their trades from Gretzky on and the number of years they played in Edmonton.
1) Jimmy Carson (1)
2) Martin Gelinas (3.5)
3) Adam Graves (2)
2) Vincent Damphousse (1)
3) Joe Murphy (3)
4) Peter Klima (4)
5) Bernie Nichols (1.5)
6) Doug Weight (9)
7) Shane Corson (2.5)
8) Bill Geurin (2.75)
Really only Weight played a good part of his prime years in Edmonton.
I think it is fair to say that the Flames experience pretty much the same sort of thing even though they had much better ownership than the Oilers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu
What I believe that you're neglecting though is how much more expensive it is for smaller revenue teams to operate under the current CBA. We've discussed this before, but having the cap range set by everyone's HRR and averaging makes it very difficult for lower revenue teams to keep up. We're at a point today where the cap floor is approaching the total HRR level (before rev transfer) of the weakest teams. As we've discussed, the way revenue transfer works, you have a small window to try to keep up, but if you fail, you quickly start losing the full share. What does a weaker team do at that point? I tend to conclude that one reason franchise values have fallen off for many teams is a reflection of this very dynamic.
I think you know that most of this I agree with. My previous comments were about retaining star players. While this impacts the bottom line, and could theoretically hinder them from retaining stars, I don't think we have seen this nearly to the same degree as it happened in the 90's.
Speaking of dehumanization, I for one do not want to see an NHL full of pharmaceutical freaks. Steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs do have side-effects. But they do temporarily enhance performance. If some athletes take steroids/etc, then all athletes will have to, merely to be able to compete. If Fehr wilfully ignores this, he loses my respect.
Fehr has acknowledged that what happened in baseball was bad/unfortunate, but one cannot compromise on one's beliefs and principles because people are willing to break the law.
It is up to our society to decide what is illegal and where to draw the line. The last time I checked, steroids are not legally available without prescriptions. These are regulated substances. It is up to society to implement how this is to be policed. You should not be forced to give evidence against yourself unless you're endangering the public. It's not illegal to drink, but it is illegal to drink enough to be drunk and then to drive.
If society doesn't not want pharmaceutical freaks in sports, stop supporting those sports. Clearly someone is breaking the law to get access to chemicals that enhance performance. Not a single drug used for this purpose was designed specifically for this cause, but in fact to treat diseases and conditions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick
Prior to the lockout the NHL had only one repeat champion in 6 years. 6 years after the lockout we have not had a repeat champion.
Don't speak too soon. Who was your repeat champion in the six years before the lockout?
Who went back to back in 2008 and 2009, only to lose in game seven (while many felt they were the better team regardless)?
Which team has a great chance to repeat this year now that their top star is back (hint: they won in 2009)?
I can't speak for all small market teams but I can say for sure that a team like the Oilers did not benefit from a constant stream of draft picks. They had a few but the draft was far less of a focus back then than it is today. The Oilers in particular had two first round picks through the whole 90's who played more than two seasons with them. One was Ryan Smyth, the other was Jason Arnott who left Edmonton when he was 23.
Here are most of the key assets the Oilers got from their trades from Gretzky on and the number of years they played in Edmonton.
1) Jimmy Carson (10
2) Martin Gelinas (3.5)
3) Adam Graves (2)
2) Vincent Damphousse (1)
3) Joe Murphy (3)
4) Peter Klima (4)
5) Bernie Nichols (1.5)
6) Doug Weight (9)
7) Shane Corson (2.5)
8) Bill Geurin (2.75)
Really only Weight played a good part of his prime years in Edmonton.
I think it is fair to say that the Flames experience pretty much the same sort of thing even though they had much better ownership than the Oilers.
I think you know that most of this I agree with. My previous comments were about retaining star players. While this impacts the bottom line, and could theoretically hinder them from retaining stars, I don't think we have seen this nearly to the same degree as it happened in the 90's.
Was the CAD a factor back when this was happening? In other words, were the Oilers unable to pay some of these players due to the exchange rate of the time?
If not, what's really changed? They're spending nearly double the level of the pre-lockout days but with no revenue transfer from the NHL. More TV money? More sponsorship $$??
It'll be a sad day if we return to being TOR and NY's farm team. They'll love it though. Let the small markets develop players, then make offers those teams can't match. Might as well fold if that comes to fruition.
It'll be a sad day if we return to being TOR and NY's farm team. They'll love it though. Let the small markets develop players, then make offers those teams can't match. Might as well fold if that comes to fruition.
With lowered UFA that is actually happening now. The caveat being that the big market teams get those good players in their primes for discounted rates because of Bettman's cap instead of paying market rates like they should be.
Not since the early '90's was the league truly dominated by the big market teams that you describe. I quite enjoyed the league back then and the calibre of hockey on the ice before Bettman Inc. ruined it. If throwing the current system overboard gets us back to that then Go Fehr Go!
With lowered UFA that is actually happening now. The caveat being that the big market teams get those good players in their primes for discounted rates because of Bettman's cap instead of paying market rates like they should be.
Not since the early '90's was the league truly dominated by the big market teams that you describe. I quite enjoyed the league back then and the calibre of hockey on the ice before Bettman Inc. ruined it. If throwing the current system overboard gets us back to that then Go Fehr Go!
Fehr has acknowledged that what happened in baseball was bad/unfortunate, but one cannot compromise on one's beliefs and principles because people are willing to break the law.
It is up to our society to decide what is illegal and where to draw the line. The last time I checked, steroids are not legally available without prescriptions. These are regulated substances. It is up to society to implement how this is to be policed. You should not be forced to give evidence against yourself unless you're endangering the public. It's not illegal to drink, but it is illegal to drink enough to be drunk and then to drive.
If society doesn't not want pharmaceutical freaks in sports, stop supporting those sports. Clearly someone is breaking the law to get access to chemicals that enhance performance. Not a single drug used for this purpose was designed specifically for this cause, but in fact to treat diseases and conditions.
Don't speak too soon. Who was your repeat champion in the six years before the lockout?
Who went back to back in 2008 and 2009, only to lose in game seven (while many felt they were the better team regardless)?
Which team has a great chance to repeat this year now that their top star is back (hint: they won in 2009)?
The Devils were the repeat team.
You should do some research before trying a snappy comeback.
And even if the Red Wings were the team, that just shows they are a well oiled machine regardless of the cap situation. Which again, disproves the idea that changing the cap would result in one or two dominant teams.
You should do some research before trying a snappy comeback.
And even if the Red Wings were the team, that just shows they are a well oiled machine regardless of the cap situation. Which again, disproves the idea that changing the cap would result in one or two dominant teams.
You should do some research before trying a snappy comeback.
And even if the Red Wings were the team, that just shows they are a well oiled machine regardless of the cap situation. Which again, disproves the idea that changing the cap would result in one or two dominant teams.
I was off by one year. Shoot me.
(and no research required, I know how many they won and when, but someone should check my math)
My point was that six years is hardly enough time to really prove anything, but also noting that some teams got to go to the dance a lot more than others. (Wings and Pitt post-lockout.) NJD and DRW each won three times during the last CBA.
I leave the snappy comebacks to Killion, ftr.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado
I think you two might be misinterpreting each other's posts, and actually saying the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch
You are both arguing the same point.
Here's what he said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick Prior to the lockout the NHL had only one repeat champion in 6 years. 6 years after the lockout we have not had a repeat champion.
The entire premise changes if you say 7, 8 or 9yrs pre-lockout.
Fehr has acknowledged that what happened in baseball was bad/unfortunate, but one cannot compromise on one's beliefs and principles because people are willing to break the law.
It is up to our society to decide what is illegal and where to draw the line. The last time I checked, steroids are not legally available without prescriptions. These are regulated substances. It is up to society to implement how this is to be policed. You should not be forced to give evidence against yourself unless you're endangering the public. It's not illegal to drink, but it is illegal to drink enough to be drunk and then to drive.
If society doesn't not want pharmaceutical freaks in sports, stop supporting those sports. Clearly someone is breaking the law to get access to chemicals that enhance performance. Not a single drug used for this purpose was designed specifically for this cause, but in fact to treat diseases and conditions.
The problem is that performance-enhancing drugs can affect the outcome of games/seasons/StanleyCups. If it affects the integrity of the game, that makes it the NHL's business. Cheating the game with performance-enhancing drugs is just as wrong as cheating the game with an illegally curved stick, and should be subject to checking for.
Fehr has acknowledged that what happened in baseball was bad/unfortunate, but one cannot compromise on one's beliefs and principles because people are willing to break the law.
It is up to our society to decide what is illegal and where to draw the line. The last time I checked, steroids are not legally available without prescriptions. These are regulated substances. It is up to society to implement how this is to be policed. You should not be forced to give evidence against yourself unless you're endangering the public. It's not illegal to drink, but it is illegal to drink enough to be drunk and then to drive.
If society doesn't not want pharmaceutical freaks in sports, stop supporting those sports. Clearly someone is breaking the law to get access to chemicals that enhance performance. Not a single drug used for this purpose was designed specifically for this cause, but in fact to treat diseases and conditions.
I should stop watching hockey since I would rather the players do not have to destroy their bodies to play the game to keep up with other players? What? You are reaching at very best with this one Fugu. I think speaking out against Steroids and other things is a much better solution.
I work construction in the summer. For that I am required to do a drug test. It's a price I am willing to pay for the good paying job, and it gives me a sense of security that the person handling the dangerous equipment right next to me is not a danger to me/himself. It's not perfect, but if I didn't want to do the drug test, I simply choose another career. It was my choice. If the players want to do play in the NHL, they should be required to be tested for performance enhancing drugs. If they don't like it, find another career. Rather have some discomfort for the players, than have them destroy themselves in an attempt to keep up to a few who willing do that.
Clearly it's all about the line. Drug testing is in the best interests of the players, the fans and the owners. It's a win-win (except for the small percentage of players who gain that advantage illegally). I get that you are preaching about freedom and avoiding the police state, but IMo this is not the point where the line is drawn. Not even close.
__________________
2012 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS LA KINGS!!! GO JETS GO!
What Fehr Wants?
1. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and lots of it
2. Power even more of it
3. Death of at least 10 small market teams (Careful what you wish for Canadians it won't be just the sunbelt ones going bye bye)
4. That his name will be remembered as the man that killed 2 sports.
Read the comments under the story Fehr is the most hated man in pro sports for a reason
Killed two sports? I'm sorry but baseball is thriving with more parity than any of the other 4 professional leagues even without a salary cap. Take a look at tv deals reached by the Dodgers and Rangers. The only thing hurting MLB teams is rotten ownership in some cases, not salaries or the players at all.
One can only pray that Mr. Fehr bring the same type of prosperity to the NHL that he brought to baseball. He is great as his job and I can't wait to watch him in action.
Was the CAD a factor back when this was happening? In other words, were the Oilers unable to pay some of these players due to the exchange rate of the time?
If not, what's really changed? They're spending nearly double the level of the pre-lockout days but with no revenue transfer from the NHL. More TV money? More sponsorship $$??
No question the $CDN was a factor for the Canadian teams for many years. But, given the fact that this was before the days where NHL owners were typically billionaires or close to it, I doubt that a dollar near par would have made much difference as far as retaining players was concerned. The big money teams simply overwhelmed the market.
In 1992 Detroit's payroll was $3M more than the Oilers, the Rangers was $6M more. By 2000 the gap was about $29M and $30M respectively. By 2003 we were at $47M more for both teams.
The Oilers were not isolated in this respect. There were 14 teams whose payroll was $40M or more behind that of the Wings and Rangers. There were 5 teams spending less than the Oilers and all of those teams were US based.
