Broadly speaking it's called co-operation, not communism. It's one of the first things learned in kindergarten.
Also known as "today you, tomorrow me". I've mentioned the NFL and George Halas already. There was a time when Halas' Chicago Bears were in danger of collapsing during the Great Depression, and the Green Bay Packers (who were flush with money at the time) loaned Halas the money to keep their greatest rival going. Getting rid of the Bears would have not only eliminated a rival, but it would have given Green Bay the entire western part of the Midwest to themselves.
When the roles were reversed and the Packers were having trouble while the Bears were flourishing, Halas was the one to pitch revenue sharing, and also got Tim Mara of the Giants on board. Halas had saved the Giants from collapsing years before by signing Red Grange (the biggest star in football) and having him play against the Giants as part of the famous barnstorming tour. This solidified the Giants as New York's team, and also allowed them to turn a profit for the first time.
With the amount of money that certain teams have at their disposal compared to others we'd see our standings looking like the NBA's or MLB's, where we'd have a few dominant teams and the rest not standing a chance. The NHL would also lose 8-10 teams in the next few years because they wouldn't be able to compete.
Leave the system the way it is. The NHL needs some socialism in order for the league to be competitive and I'm fine with that. Even though my team would actually make the playoffs without the cap, it's what's best for the league as a whole.
See, it's one thing to talk about the cap creating an artificial parity and killing competition, but then you make posts like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LOFIN
However, local revenues and marketing is only the business of that particular team and if some teams do it better and earn money, well that's good for them. You earn your position among the top tier. If your team or city isn't good/interresting enough, tough luck son. If your team isn't playing in the top tier, you have to accept it and hope you and your team can maybe play there in the future.
This isn't about what teams can do business "better" or what cities are more "interesting enough", it's about what teams are capable of doing at all given how large their market is and how rich their owner happens to be. The fact that a team in New York could spend more than a team in Minnesota has nothing to do with who's doing better or how good the city is. New York can simply afford more because they've got solid financial support.
Affording large-market teams the opportunity to compete over small market teams isn't boosting competitiveness, in fact you're reducing competition overall by having a small group of teams capable of dominating over the rest of the league while competing among themselves. The parity created by the salary cap and revenue sharing may be "artificial" or "commie", but it allows for a majority of the teams in the league to be competitive among the league as a whole and allows for a majority of the teams to be financially healthy. Clearly the owners agree as they're the ones who fought to put these features in place. Clearly they've been good for league revenue as the salary cap, which is tied to league revenue, has been steadily increasing since its induction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989
This thread makes my head hurt. OMG, Communism, Socialism, kill it with a fire!
Seriously, I couldn't believe someone had actually argued that we should get rid of the cap because it is "commie"
You start a business, it does great, you sale a franchise to an owner in another part of town, it struggles at first, do you let it fold or do you help out to get it going well to grow your business?
If you answer let if fold, let me ask you, do you expect your business to grow?
If you're against hockey played as a form of entertainment for spectators, do you watch it, and if not, why are you on this forum?
When I look at random game of soccer or hockey then yes, it's entertainment for me. When I go see my local club play soccer or hockey, it's not entertainment. My local club is as big of a part in my life as my job, family, friends, girlfriend etc. I don't go to see my club play to be entertained, I go to see them because I'm a part of that club.
My point with it being sad that the league and the teams are mainly for entertainment purposes is that they don't aim at being the best of the bunch, they care about making money, and have rules over this so that one team can't really have an advantage over another team.
See, it's one thing to talk about the cap creating an artificial parity and killing competition, but then you make posts like this:
This isn't about what teams can do business "better" or what cities are more "interesting enough", it's about what teams are capable of doing at all given how large their market is and how rich their owner happens to be. The fact that a team in New York could spend more than a team in Minnesota has nothing to do with who's doing better or how good the city is. New York can simply afford more because they've got solid financial support.
Affording large-market teams the opportunity to compete over small market teams isn't boosting competitiveness, in fact you're reducing competition overall by having a small group of teams capable of dominating over the rest of the league while competing among themselves. The parity created by the salary cap and revenue sharing may be "artificial" or "commie", but it allows for a majority of the teams in the league to be competitive among the league as a whole and allows for a majority of the teams to be financially healthy. Clearly the owners agree as they're the ones who fought to put these features in place. Clearly they've been good for league revenue as the salary cap, which is tied to league revenue, has been steadily increasing since its induction.
Seriously, I couldn't believe someone had actually argued that we should get rid of the cap because it is "commie"
It has everything to do with that. Why would you take more money to play in a crappy city?
If we eliminated the salary cap teams like the Rangers could just throw as much money as they want at free agents. yeah. that worked out so well for them.
I might if you paid me to. Otherwise, I like evening out the playing field a bit. Look at soccer as an example. Can you honestly say you enjoy watching the same 4 teams win the EPL every year? I can't and I'm a fan of one of those teams. Personally, I love seeing small market teams make a run. I love that a team can have a few bad years but then turn it around. You can't do that if the biggest and richest teams can buy all of the talent.
When I look at random game of soccer or hockey then yes, it's entertainment for me. When I go see my local club play soccer or hockey, it's not entertainment. My local club is as big of a part in my life as my job, family, friends, girlfriend etc. I don't go to see my club play to be entertained, I go to see them because I'm a part of that club.
My point with it being sad that the league and the teams are mainly for entertainment purposes is that they don't aim at being the best of the bunch, they care about making money, and have rules over this so that one team can't really have an advantage over another team.
Well, ownership and fans have two very different outlooks as to the success of their teams. All owners want their team to be the most successful, sure, but they'll also look out for whatever can make them the most money. One team making a huge revenue is great, but without revenue sharing the league tends to be unstable as the small markets struggle to survive. The NHL owners used to operate on the belief that revenue sharing wasn't necessary and they took the big payday any day of the week, but they've since moved away from that as they've realized that revenue sharing and the cap allows for a healthier, stabler league where more teams will finish in the green, boosting league revenue overall.
I remember reading Gil Stein's book "Power Play" and how it looked at how ownership in the NHL operated. They were all about doing whatever would make them the most money, that's where expansion came from. $50 million per franchise in the '90s that would be split among the teams as an entry fee would provide solid financial windfall.
I remember one point in the novel where the BoG voted not to expand unless all franchises were healthy, and then immediately voted to expand even though George Gund had pointed out that the small markets weren't healthy and would never be able to compete with the large market teams. Back then, they took the immediate expansion payday and basically told Gund that he was free to move the North Stars as long as it wasn't into a major Southern market that they were targeting for expansion (San Jose). That type of thinking lead to the small market ownership groups failing pretty quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch
It has everything to do with that. Why would you take more money to play in a crappy city?
Because I'd be making more money, millions more.
But to say that one city is "good" or "better" than another is such a subjective and blanketing term. I could say Saint Paul is a "better" city than New York, but the ownership in Saint Paul may not be capable of offering me the same amount as a team in New York.
City may play a role in dictating where a free agent will go, but I would say money plays a much larger role and when we're talking about what markets tend to be able to spend more on free agents, how nice the city is really doesn't come into play.
See, it's one thing to talk about the cap creating an artificial parity and killing competition, but then you make posts like this:
This isn't about what teams can do business "better" or what cities are more "interesting enough", it's about what teams are capable of doing at all given how large their market is and how rich their owner happens to be. The fact that a team in New York could spend more than a team in Minnesota has nothing to do with who's doing better or how good the city is. New York can simply afford more because they've got solid financial support.
Affording large-market teams the opportunity to compete over small market teams isn't boosting competitiveness, in fact you're reducing competition overall by having a small group of teams capable of dominating over the rest of the league while competing among themselves. The parity created by the salary cap and revenue sharing may be "artificial" or "commie", but it allows for a majority of the teams in the league to be competitive among the league as a whole and allows for a majority of the teams to be financially healthy. Clearly the owners agree as they're the ones who fought to put these features in place. Clearly they've been good for league revenue as the salary cap, which is tied to league revenue, has been steadily increasing since its induction.
Seriously, I couldn't believe someone had actually argued that we should get rid of the cap because it is "commie"
Great post. One more point I would add on is that the notion of protected markets is partly what creates a need for revenue sharing. In a truly "capitalist" model, Toronto wouldn't be the "property" of one team and there would be enough teams there to dilute the competitive advantage the Maple Leafs would have without revenue sharing. Same goes for New York and (probably) Montreal.
Consider the English Premiership. In the top league of 20 teams, 6 of them are based in London.
So it's a little rich for these large market teams to complain about revenue-sharing when they have a built-in revenue advantage.
Great post. One more point I would add on is that the notion of protected markets is partly what creates a need for revenue sharing. In a truly "capitalist" model, Toronto wouldn't be the "property" of one team and there would be enough teams there to dilute the competitive advantage the Maple Leafs would have without revenue sharing. Same goes for New York and (probably) Montreal.
Consider the English Premiership. In the top league of 20 teams, 6 of them are based in London.
So it's a little rich for these large market teams to complain about revenue-sharing when they have a built-in revenue advantage.
If we eliminated the salary cap teams like the Rangers could just throw as much money as they want at free agents. yeah. that worked out so well for them.
Since the salary cap started they have still given a lot of money in UFA contracts to Brad Richards, Scott Gomez, Marian Gaborik, Chris Drury and Wade Reden. So how are things any different with them compared to the pre salary cap era?
I agree with many of the posts here. It does create a more competitive league. It does create a more fair chance for smaller markets to succeed. On the other hand though I think that the free market should dictate the game as well.
I consider fairness to be an important element in a sport.
Since the salary cap started they have still given a lot of money in UFA contracts to Brad Richards, Scott Gomez, Marian Gaborik, Chris Drury and Wade Reden. So how are things any different with them compared to the pre salary cap era?
Because now they're actually handcuffed to the contracts. You can still sign big name free agents to big name deals, but you can't toss around the contracts like they're candy to anybody you want.
Besides, it's not like the Rangers had all those contracts at once. Richards was only acquired this past year, Drury had retired the previous year, Gaborik was signed the year after Gomez was traded, etc.
All we need to do now if combat teams who frontload the contracts to lower the cap hit.
As a fan of one of the better off teams I think the elimination of the cap would be the death of the league. I like having a 30 (plus) team league as opposed to a 21 team league (with like 3-4 awesome teams and 10 teams that would have to embrace the reality that they'll suck forever). I like parity as opposed to a handful of teams passing the cup back and forth. I like a system that rewards drafting/player developement and careful management as opposed to annually out bidding everyone else on any interesting player that hits the market. I like having teams in Florida because everyone has the right to enjoy hockey and it also means maybe one day there may be a team in Saskatoon or the Maritimes.
The only thing that parity makes less unlikely is the fabled 'dynasty'. Maybe a redefinition of the term is at hand. Because even if a team like the Patriots don't win every year they seem to fit the bill even if they haven't won since 05. (three wins in the past decade, made it to the show 5 times). I can easily picture a scenerio in the NHL where a young talented team can make a run like that (Pitts, LA, Bos etc) even if I think winning the Cup is statisically harder than winning the SB.
Well, ownership and fans have two very different outlooks as to the success of their teams. All owners want their team to be the most successful, sure, but they'll also look out for whatever can make them the most money. One team making a huge revenue is great, but without revenue sharing the league tends to be unstable as the small markets struggle to survive. The NHL owners used to operate on the belief that revenue sharing wasn't necessary and they took the big payday any day of the week, but they've since moved away from that as they've realized that revenue sharing and the cap allows for a healthier, stabler league where more teams will finish in the green, boosting league revenue overall.
I remember reading Gil Stein's book "Power Play" and how it looked at how ownership in the NHL operated. They were all about doing whatever would make them the most money, that's where expansion came from. $50 million per franchise in the '90s that would be split among the teams as an entry fee would provide solid financial windfall.
I remember one point in the novel where the BoG voted not to expand unless all franchises were healthy, and then immediately voted to expand even though George Gund had pointed out that the small markets weren't healthy and would never be able to compete with the large market teams. Back then, they took the immediate expansion payday and basically told Gund that he was free to move the North Stars as long as it wasn't into a major Southern market that they were targeting for expansion (San Jose). That type of thinking lead to the small market ownership groups failing pretty quickly.
Because I'd be making more money, millions more.
But to say that one city is "good" or "better" than another is such a subjective and blanketing term. I could say Saint Paul is a "better" city than New York, but the ownership in Saint Paul may not be capable of offering me the same amount as a team in New York.
City may play a role in dictating where a free agent will go, but I would say money plays a much larger role and when we're talking about what markets tend to be able to spend more on free agents, how nice the city is really doesn't come into play.
Money will not make a crap city better. I am not going to chose Memphis over NYC when Memphis is offering more. Parise could have gone to the Rangers but chose the wild when they were offering less because he wanted to go home.
If you look at the MLB, NBA, and NHL prior to the mid 1990's salary escalation, no one was banging the doors down to go to KC, Cleveland or Cincinnati.
If we eliminated the salary cap teams like the Rangers could just throw as much money as they want at free agents. yeah. that worked out so well for them.
This isn't about the Rangers or a handful of teams like the Rangers - it's about the other 20 - 25 teams.
If the NYR throw boatloads of $$ at UFAs, the OTHER teams will have to match that salary scale for their UFAs (& keeping home-grown talent in place).
In a nutshelll, that (lack of a) system caused the lockout.
I'd be in favor of some modification to the salary cap, such as giving certain percentage discounts off the cap hits for teams that resign players that they drafted and developed, but no... I would not be in favor of eliminating the salary cap. Even though the Hawks would be one of the haves franchises in the NHL without a salary cap, I don't want to see the league devolve into an unbalanced mess like Major League Baseball with big chunks of the league stuck in the have-nots.
As for revenue sharing.... don't know enough about it to really say what should or shouldn't be changed, but overall I think it's worthwhile to keep as well.
