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.

Take me out and shoot me if I'm wrong, but...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-16-2004, 12:19 PM
  #26
Evil Chris
Registered User
 
Evil Chris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane
Simple answer: With a salary cap, there will be very few, if any salaries over five million. Player values will drop significantly. Most teams would likely be at our near the cap, so if a primadonna superstar wants five million, and every team is at their limit, he's going to have to drop his asking price or go find a league that will pay him.
Well put.

Take the PGA as an example. Tiger Woods can't negotiate what the prize money in a tournament is going to be. He takes what he wins, based purely on his performance.

Where he makes his real money is in endorsements.

Evil Chris is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 12:49 PM
  #27
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
Didn't the Chicago Bulls win six championships in eight years under a capped system? Or does that not count as a dynasty?
Granted, that was under a soft cap, but I suspect the owners would accept such a system with a few added restrictions (elimination of sign-and-trades, for starters).
Well, actually the NBA did not have a cap until the season after the Bulls last title.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 12:50 PM
  #28
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Chris
Well put.

Take the PGA as an example. Tiger Woods can't negotiate what the prize money in a tournament is going to be. He takes what he wins, based purely on his performance.

Where he makes his real money is in endorsements.
Thats a bs comparison. There is no golfers union.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 03:18 PM
  #29
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
I'm a Sens fan and 2 things need to be kept firmly in mind.

1) The Sens would be forced to move talent under either system. I'd like to see the same pressure apply to all teams.
I wish all the cap-bashers that are out of touch with reality would read this statement prior to posting from now on.

Cawz is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 03:35 PM
  #30
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 34,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HckyFght
This is why it's imperative that ownership doesn't cave in on free agency, the higher the age of unrestricted free agency, the better. Teams need to be rewarded for developing players, and fans deserve to see their favorite players stay with the team.
-HckyFght!
The owners will have to cave in on free agency if they expect to see a salary cap. You make it sound like the owners will be allowed to write up their CBA and the players will be forced to sign while kissing Bettman's arse as they do.

It's possible that the best move the NHLPA could make would be to table a proposal that gives the league the "cost certainty" they want, but is really skewed towards players rights on every other issue. If the NHL rejects it, they will come off looking really bad.

Epsilon is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 03:54 PM
  #31
quat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 8,775
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Wow..cocky of your team arent you? Just because they have been successful in the past doesnt mean that they are certain to be successful in the future.
This is sooo classic !! The Rangers guy complaining about the Sens guy being over confident his team can thrive under Bettmans proposed CBA. lol.

If I was a Rangers fan, I might be worried as well. Buddy, you are hair-larry-ious. Thanks for making my day better

quat is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 03:58 PM
  #32
quat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 8,775
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
Didn't the Chicago Bulls win six championships in eight years under a capped system? Or does that not count as a dynasty?
Granted, that was under a soft cap, but I suspect the owners would accept such a system with a few added restrictions (elimination of sign-and-trades, for starters).

NO. That doesn't count... well... just because.

quat is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 04:06 PM
  #33
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 34,839
vCash: 500
It doesn't count because that "cap" was as soft as possible while still being called a cap. At that time, the Larry Bird Exception did not have any maximum numbers, and so you saw Michael Jordan's salary baloon to 36 million per season. Kevin Garnett got a 26 million per year deal. NBA salaries increased to 66% of league revenues, according to NBA personnel at least. It wasn't really any better than the last NHL CBA in terms of salary control.

Epsilon is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 04:46 PM
  #34
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz
I wish all the cap-bashers that are out of touch with reality would read this statement prior to posting from now on.
Thats all well and good for Ottawa, but what about the teams that don't struggle to keep the players they draft under the current system?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 04:57 PM
  #35
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Interesting article about the history of the NBA's union.

http://members.aol.com/apbrhoops/labor.html

Of particular note near the end:
"Mutual good will continued under the cap until 1991, at which point the NBPA discovered that the league had underreported their income by excluding revenues from luxury suite rentals, playoff ticket sales and arena signage. After a legal dispute in which the league argued that the income fell outside of the defined revenues of the salary cap, and an increase of a total of $92.7 in player salaries and pension funding due to a ruling in favor of the union, the players would no longer look at their agreement with ownership as the "partnership" Stern had frequently proclaimed it."

Sound familiar?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 05:02 PM
  #36
ArtG
Registered User
 
ArtG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,656
vCash: 500
I can't believe you guys are actually complaining about DYNASTIES!!! of all things related to a cap you're talking about dynasties??

When was the last time the NHL had a true dynasty? the 80s oilers? that's 20 years ago. How did it end? they traded Gretzky cuz they couldn't afford him! There was no cap, there was no linkage, no restrictions -- nothing. Over the last 20 years there has been no cap and there have been 0 dynasties.

Worst argument ever.

ArtG is online now  
Old
12-16-2004, 05:07 PM
  #37
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon
The owners will have to cave in on free agency if they expect to see a salary cap. You make it sound like the owners will be allowed to write up their CBA and the players will be forced to sign while kissing Bettman's arse as they do.

It's possible that the best move the NHLPA could make would be to table a proposal that gives the league the "cost certainty" they want, but is really skewed towards players rights on every other issue. If the NHL rejects it, they will come off looking really bad.
I would agree, for the NHLPA it might be their best end gambit if their members simply won't accept losing the season. But after all the manic denials that they will NEVER accept a cap, it would be tough for them to back off that stance now.

The next 2 weeks will tell all.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 05:25 PM
  #38
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Thats all well and good for Ottawa, but what about the teams that don't struggle to keep the players they draft under the current system?
His point was that people always say good teams cant stay together under a cap, but under the current system, the same problems would affect, what, half the league?

It just shows how people will twist facts in an attempt to prove a point. It was nice to read a Sens fans opinion that actually sees things rationally.

Cawz is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 05:34 PM
  #39
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz
His point was that people always say good teams cant stay together under a cap, but under the current system, the same problems would affect, what, half the league?

It just shows how people will twist facts in an attempt to prove a point. It was nice to read a Sens fans opinion that actually sees things rationally.
But what of the half it doesn't affect. They don't count?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 06:05 PM
  #40
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
But what of the half it doesn't affect. They don't count?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
I'm a Sens fan and 2 things need to be kept firmly in mind.

1) The Sens would be forced to move talent under either system. I'd like to see the same pressure apply to all teams.
Same pressure - all teams.

And the half it doesn't affect (which is probably less than half, lets say a quarter), how many are running at deficits? How many teams drafted well, are run well, can afford to keep their players, turn a profit and stay competitive for a sustained period?

Cawz is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 06:33 PM
  #41
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz
Same pressure - all teams.

And the half it doesn't affect (which is probably less than half, lets say a quarter), how many are running at deficits? How many teams drafted well, are run well, can afford to keep their players, turn a profit and stay competitive for a sustained period?
you're missing my question.

Under the current system, there were teams that drafted well and generated enough revenue to keep their players. What about them?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 06:49 PM
  #42
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 34,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
you're missing my question.

Under the current system, there were teams that drafted well and generated enough revenue to keep their players. What about them?
They don't count. The success of this CBA will depend on whether or not it can produce three consecutive Ottawa vs. Edmonton finals matchups.

Epsilon is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 07:15 PM
  #43
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 26,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekrul
Right now the New England has a pretty good run in the NFL, Brady+Bilichek=4 rings easy there is your Dynasty...
Except that you have given the Patriots two more championships than they have won.

"4 rings easy"????

Why are so many people here so eager to throw out the "D" word, when it is not warranted?

Trottier is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 07:25 PM
  #44
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masao
Let's say you have a team with a lot of money.

That team has really good management and scouting staff and is always the best at the draft and they always developp their prospects really well.

Soon, they turn into one of the top teams in the league. No free agents - all home-grown talent.

Then, eventually, as the players get better and their contracts expire, they have to sign all of them again, many of them to salaries over 5 millions.

But... because of a salary cap, they're going to have to trade away half of their stars, even if they have the money to pay them?

In a situation like this, how could we ever hope to see teams like the 80's Oilers or the 70's Habs ever again?
Dynasties will be a thing of the past, for sure.
However, it's not as bad as you say. Because all teams will have to live with a salary cap. So salaries as a whole will come down. So while you won't be able to keep great teams together for very long, you won't have to completely dismantle them either.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 07:37 PM
  #45
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
you're missing my question.

Under the current system, there were teams that drafted well and generated enough revenue to keep their players. What about them?
Youre missing my question. Which teams, out of the 30?

Cawz is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 07:42 PM
  #46
Hockey_Nut99
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
you're missing my question.

Under the current system, there were teams that drafted well and generated enough revenue to keep their players. What about them?
Please. Detroit has had good drafting but they are also one of the teams that is ruining the competitive balance in hockey. That is if your nickname implies you are a Detroit fan. Otherwise I wasted time typing. Teams like Detroit have a right to spend what they can but that is what's killing the nature of the game. Lidstrom makes 10 million a year!

 
Old
12-16-2004, 08:10 PM
  #47
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 16,655
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masao
In a situation like this, how could we ever hope to see teams like the 80's Oilers or the 70's Habs ever again?
What chance the Oilers build a dynasty like that with old CBA? They've got more hope with a cap than old CBA.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 09:46 PM
  #48
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Thats all well and good for Ottawa, but what about the teams that don't struggle to keep the players they draft under the current system?

Nice of you to come forward and admit your interest is in keeping the advantage your team's big money brings. It's not about the ability of ALL teams to build a dynasty, just yours.

I'll be sure to shed a tear when your team loses their edge.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 10:49 PM
  #49
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Well, actually the NBA did not have a cap until the season after the Bulls last title.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but the NBA salary cap -- according to the NBA Players Association - was enacted under the league's 1983 CBA. That happens to be the year Michael Jordan was drafted.

http://www.nbpa.com/aboutus/history.html

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 10:51 PM
  #50
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,237
vCash: 500
The Oilers would have probablt easily afforded their dynast unde the expired CBA as it would have been all players playing for about what Hossa gets.

Detroit and Colorado were in my mind modern day, 30 team league dynasties. They werent forced to lose their players after they won the cup. Detroit almost traded us Yzerman for Yashin because they didnt think he coould lead them to a Cup. That he didnt have what it takes to win. Imagine that. And if they didnt win, they woould of lost him to free agency.

Its not preserving dynasties, but preserving the ability of great teams in their prime to stay on the team as they start getting more expensive IF they win. There's no point in whining about losing players who are 31 if you arent winning with them.

thinkwild 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 05:00 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.