HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

NHL plans to disperse talent

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-22-2005, 01:46 PM
  #51
Classic Devil
Spirit of 1988
 
Classic Devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 35,274
vCash: 500
Awards:
This is a joke, I hope.

Think about this from NJs perspective. We've drafted most of our players, and those we haven't (ie. Stevens) have been with us for more than a decade. Our payroll is as high as it is because we've been retaining our own players - what free agents to we have? Rasmussen? Brown? C'mon.

So all of our hard work to build our team through drafting, all our work to make our team a powerhouse and remain atop the league despite our previous successes, will result in the dispersal of those players we worked so hard to draft and to keep? How is this fair? We started out in the early 90s with nothing, the "Mickey Mouse Club," the laughingstock of hockey. We've spend the last 2 decades, since 1989, building our team. Are you seriously telling me that players like Elias, Niedermayer, Gomez, Rafalski, Madden, Brodeur... are forfeit because we've paid them what they deserve?

This isn't parity. This is thievery.


Last edited by Classic Devil: 01-22-2005 at 02:21 PM.
Classic Devil is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:04 PM
  #52
robcav
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 34
vCash: 500
Bettman's other plan that was reported months ago by Brooks was to only be allowed to dress players that fit under the cap. For example, the Rangers can dress Jagr at 11mil and Holik at 6mil and 18 other players adding up to the cap. The Devils could choose between dressing Brodeur or Stevens or both with 18 scrubs. Another reason why the man running this league continually shows he is an idiot.

robcav is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 03:02 PM
  #53
fcbarcelona
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kruezer
Yeah, I really don't buy the arguement that parity means things are boring, do people enjoy blowouts?
how many blowouts were there already? not many. the average score per game was 3:2.

a dispersal draft is grim news for contenders (especially those who worked hard to retain their own players). i doubt any team will become an instant contender with such a draft. however, all previous contenders will immediately become mediocre. this mediocrity would be short-lived until player salaries adjust to the new market. but without significant revenue sharing, small market clubs will still have their share of difficulties.

it'll be interesting to see if any core players are moved as a result of a dispersal draft. i imagine there would be many angry fans (count me in). it also provides further evidence this lockout isn't in the fans' best interest (especially since the league is not content with real revenue sharing as the article states).

also, what happens to the small market teams that'll be forced to dish out more cash to meet the minimum payroll threshold? without the appropriate revenue sharing, how will the cap system allow these teams to be as well off (or even break even) like the large market teams.

as an aside, i think its an even bigger mistake (from the small market POV) that bettman has introduced the idea of individual team salary caps. no doubt the PA will want the cap higher for the larger market clubs because any agreed upon percent linkage would mean these teams have far more gross revenue to play with.

fcbarcelona is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 03:07 PM
  #54
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flame_Star_Devil
This is a joke, I hope.

Think about this from NJs perspective. We've drafted most of our players, and those we haven't (ie. Stevens) have been with us for more than a decade. Our payroll is as high as it is because we've been retaining our own players - what free agents to we have? Rasmussen? Brown? C'mon.

So all of our hard work to build our team through drafting, all our work to make our team a powerhouse and remain atop the league despite our previous successes, will result in the dispersal of those players we worked so hard to draft and to keep? How is this fair? We started out in the early 90s with nothing, the "Mickey Mouse Club," the laughingstock of hockey. We've spend the last 2 decades, since 1989, building our team. Are you seriously telling me that players like Elias, Niedermayer, Gomez, Rafalski, Madden, Brodeur... are forfeit because we've paid them what they deserve?

This isn't parity. This is thievery.
it's not a joke - you could see it in linden's face - 12 year's of bettman and he's almost there - screwing the hole thing up - for good

mr gib is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 03:46 PM
  #55
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sotnos
I think this sounds like NHLPA scare-mongering BS, anyone else?

I don't see how this would even be possible. Do you people seriously believe that this is an idea the owners would come up with? On what planet would the owners agree that they should be forced to move valuable assets? Come on

It might have been discussed (for what purpose I can't imagine), but I find it hard to believe that this was a serious proposal.
Not according to the Hockey Central panel last night on Rogers SportsNet.

Both John Davidson and Nick Kypreos pointed out that this would lead to the dismantling of anumber of teams.

John Davidson stated that it appeared that the NHL has become so obsessed with the hardest of hard caps to be implemented immediately that they have completely failed to think through the implementation mechanisms.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 03:49 PM
  #56
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepNCheese
http://sports.sympatico.msn.ca/Home/...temid=17328017

So we're not really talking about a "rumour" now, are we?

Direct quote there.

Daly seems to be saying the rich teams will be busted up, and my team is one of them.
It appears more than a rumour.

The NHL is attempting to force through a hard cap that is way more draconian than the NFL has without significant revenue sharing. People are finally waking up to the fact this can result in the dismantling of current teams and it is not going to help small market teams such as Nashville and Carolina. If they cannot make a profit now, how is adding a floor $10 million higher going to help make them more profitable?

Quote:
Linden also didn't get into the specifics of the meetings, but a source said yesterday that talks went south on Thursday when the league was asked to explain how a salary cap of $36-million (all U.S. figures) and a floor of $32-million would benefit a large-revenue club such as the Toronto Maple Leafs or a small-revenue club such as the Nashville Predators.

The response, Linden said, was: " 'Don't tell us how we'll run our business. We'll decide.'

"It became clear from that point on that all they want to do is break the union, install a [National Football League]-like cap system, but without the revenue sharing," the source said.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...rts/TopStories

Have a look at the panic on some of the Leafs boards as the fans realize their team may be dismantled under the Bettman solution. The Canucks could end up the same way although certainly not to the same extent of the Leafs, Wings, etc.

Quote:
Another player said the league, which was represented by senior vice-president and chief legal officer Bill Daly and outside counsel Bob Batterman, got rather dictatorial on the second day. One report indicated that the players were compared to auto workers.

"They just came in there the second day with the same old (expletive)," a player said. "They start talking about how they're going to get teams under the cap and you'd figure they'd grandfather it. But they just said they'd have a dispersal draft and send guys to Pittsburgh and Buffalo to fill out their payroll. That's their plan, seriously."
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...d=970599119419

The Hockey Central panel on Sportsnet has pointed out that it appears the NHL has not really thought through the implications and what will happen to teams who must dismantle to get under the hard cap. As John Davidson said can you see the Leafs being happy at sending Alexander Mogilny to the Hawks and paying a good portion of the salary as well as writng a revenue share cheque?

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 04:22 PM
  #57
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jericholic19
how many blowouts were there already? not many. the average score per game was 3:2.

a dispersal draft is grim news for contenders (especially those who worked hard to retain their own players). i doubt any team will become an instant contender with such a draft. however, all previous contenders will immediately become mediocre. this mediocrity would be short-lived until player salaries adjust to the new market. but without significant revenue sharing, small market clubs will still have their share of difficulties.

it'll be interesting to see if any core players are moved as a result of a dispersal draft. i imagine there would be many angry fans (count me in). it also provides further evidence this lockout isn't in the fans' best interest (especially since the league is not content with real revenue sharing as the article states).

also, what happens to the small market teams that'll be forced to dish out more cash to meet the minimum payroll threshold? without the appropriate revenue sharing, how will the cap system allow these teams to be as well off (or even break even) like the large market teams.

as an aside, i think its an even bigger mistake (from the small market POV) that bettman has introduced the idea of individual team salary caps. no doubt the PA will want the cap higher for the larger market clubs because any agreed upon percent linkage would mean these teams have far more gross revenue to play with.
How often they occur is beside the point, the point is, are the 5:1 games better to watch? I don't think so.

kruezer is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 05:34 PM
  #58
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster
The Hockey Central panel on Sportsnet has pointed out that it appears the NHL has not really thought through the implications and what will happen to teams who must dismantle to get under the hard cap. As John Davidson said can you see the Leafs being happy at sending Alexander Mogilny to the Hawks and paying a good portion of the salary as well as writng a revenue share cheque?
I think this analysis is all wrong, but I also think it is great that - finally - the actual implications of the Gary Bettman vision is beginning to sink in. We'll really be able to go to town on the owner offer when it comes out.

Suppose the NHL figured the players cave this year. They would make the cap effective next year anyway. Maybe the owners figured the players would not cave this year and excpected to blow it off. Either way, the issue is not payroll this year. It is payroll next year. For old teams like the Leafs, Stars, Wings and the Avalanche their payrolls can look very different next year.

Teams that get crushed are teams who today are near or above the cap maximums with players who are mostly RFAs. Vancouver. San Jose. Ottawa. Tampa. Teams who a) have payrolls near maximums, and b) have players whose salaries that have to rise in the future.

The Canucks can get under the Bettman cap next year if the players take a 24% pay cut, if Linden retires and if Naslund stays in Sweden. Or they could let Morrison and Cloutier go. They still have many players who rightfully expect raises over the next few years - Cooke, Chubarov, the Sedins, Kesler - and every raise means turfing somebody like Salo or Malik. It kind of puts a bite to the "Is Ohlund better than Jovanovski" argument because the Canucks probably won't be able to keep both. Who will be able to afford two number one defensemen? Vancouver has too much talent for the Gary Bettman vision of the league.

Or consider Ottawa. There is no way that team can be held together for $38 million. They'll be feeding talent to the NHL for years as they have to make one difficult choice after another. The Smolinski and Alfredsson contracts look ridiculous in the new age NHL. Maybe they can be unloaded on Pittsburgh or Nashville.

The successful big market teams have yesterday's stars. A cap next year? The Leafs make choices. Most of the players making most of their payroll have their contracts expiring. They have five unrestricted free agents they can just not re-sign. They only have 8 players under contract for 2005-06.

The big losers under the Bettman plan are the teams with today's and tomorrow's stars. Teams that consistently produce talent are going to have to spread that talent around.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 05:40 PM
  #59
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The big losers under the Bettman plan are the teams with today's and tomorrow's stars. Teams that consistently produce talent are going to have to spread that talent around.
There's an argument on the Oilers board that "producing" talent isn't all it's cracked up to be, and it's actually a function of having high draft positions, and then getting lucky after that. I don't want this debate here, but assuming this is true, is there any argument that teams like Vancouver should be able to benefit for 13 years if they luck out with the 20th pick of the draft?

mudcrutch79 is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 05:45 PM
  #60
Jacob
Registered User
 
Jacob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 33,481
vCash: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
And 10-12 years ago Pittsburgh was dominating the league, while the Flyers were in the midst of 5 consecutive years missing the playoffs.

Things change.
Thanks for missing my point completely.

Jacob is online now  
Old
01-22-2005, 07:11 PM
  #61
Hab-a-maniac
Registered User
 
Hab-a-maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto via Calgary!
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,822
vCash: 500
I was already not a big fan of the cap idea, but to spread talent around when the NHL returns? God, these owners of the pro-cap stance are so dictatorial they think that this will help the league. I would say, if my own Habs were forced to give up guys like Zednik, Souray, Theodore, etc. for cap reasons and have to send them to a conf. rival because that team can fit it within their cap? 38 mil is a bit too small as well. They need rules on franchise player tags as well.

Would this happen every year? A cup winning team has to spread the talent around. Ridiculous. A team could go from cup winner to bottom of the league in a few shortt years and not because of their own mismanagement. This promotes lazy management and punishes good management. It's just completely outlandish. It does even out the teams if it gets underway when NHL hockey returns. Again, the weaker links in the league get to cherry pick some great players. Salaries will go down, players will be moved frequently and general confusion will settle in for fans.

I'd like to see the anti-union, pro-Bettman people applaud the move then! Sports is not meant to give each team equal talent and see who wins. At least drafting becomes important but what's it all mean in a league where losers like the Hurricanes and Blackhawks get the tools for success handed to them on a silver platter. Hopefully, the owners who don't want this will speak up and threaten to get out of the NHL if Bettman does this. If Gary insists, kick him out!!! Not that I want the NHL to revert back to what it was, but can't you do a hybrid system or at least grandfather a cap or something!

Hab-a-maniac is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 07:21 PM
  #62
fcbarcelona
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kruezer
How often they occur is beside the point, the point is, are the 5:1 games better to watch? I don't think so.
then what's the big deal about the current competitiveness of the NHL? are you expecting all games to be one goalers under a new system?

fcbarcelona is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 07:23 PM
  #63
fcbarcelona
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hab-a-maniac
Would this happen every year? A cup winning team has to spread the talent around. Ridiculous. A team could go from cup winner to bottom of the league in a few shortt years and not because of their own mismanagement. This promotes lazy management and punishes good management. It's just completely outlandish. It does even out the teams if it gets underway when NHL hockey returns. Again, the weaker links in the league get to cherry pick some great players. Salaries will go down, players will be moved frequently and general confusion will settle in for fans.

I echo the same sentiments. However, I truly believe that under the owner's CBA, only the richest half of teams will be able to have a stable roster. I don't think much will change from the previous CBA except for the fact there may be a dispersal draft.

fcbarcelona is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 07:50 PM
  #64
Hasbro
Can He Skate?!
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 35,820
vCash: 500
This is just scare mongering. Same as the unfounded canard about non-garuanteed contracts.

Linden is spinning a position to reiterate the PA caring about the fans BS.

Honestly would any conting owner back this? colorado, Tampa, Philly, Detroit, Dallas, San Jose, St.Louis, New Jersey, Toronto. That's Nine and enought to scuttle the vote there.

Hasbro is online now  
Old
01-22-2005, 07:55 PM
  #65
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 16,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
This is just scare mongering. Same as the unfounded canard about non-garuanteed contracts.

Linden is spinning a position to reiterate the PA caring about the fans BS.

Honestly would any conting owner back this? colorado, Tampa, Philly, Detroit, Dallas, San Jose, St.Louis, New Jersey, Toronto. That's Nine and enought to scuttle the vote there.
You've got it backwards. Bettman only needs eight owners to scuttle any deal that the other 24 owners might be willing to agree to.

OlTimeHockey is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 07:57 PM
  #66
Hasbro
Can He Skate?!
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 35,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlTimeHockey
You've got it backwards. Bettman only needs eight owners to scuttle any deal that the other 24 owners might be willing to agree to.
So who would vote for it?

Hasbro is online now  
Old
01-22-2005, 08:02 PM
  #67
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlTimeHockey
You've got it backwards. Bettman only needs eight owners to scuttle any deal that the other 24 owners might be willing to agree to.
But it only takes 16 owners to fire Bettman and then you only need a majority to bring in a new CBA.

vanlady is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 08:03 PM
  #68
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudcrutch79
There's an argument on the Oilers board that "producing" talent isn't all it's cracked up to be, and it's actually a function of having high draft positions, and then getting lucky after that. I don't want this debate here, but assuming this is true, is there any argument that teams like Vancouver should be able to benefit for 13 years if they luck out with the 20th pick of the draft?
I don't have that much difficulty with parts of the premise, but on balance it is wrong in my view. Ron Delorme once told me the draft was a crapshoot after the second round. I laughed and told him it was a crapshoot after the first 15 picks. He said, "Shhh!"

But Delorme will also tell you that producing talent is not the same as drafting it. It is the player development system that produces talent and what happens after the draft is more important than the draft itself. I do not believe it is a fluke that some teams do well and others do not, but it is a complicated process. I think the most important thing is the opportunities the team plans for the player between draft day and his first NHL games.

But okay, let's assume for the moment that the entire premise is correct. The reason Vancouver has produced players while New York and Edmonton have not is that Vancouver has been lucky and the Rangers and Oilers have not. Why should Vancouver be allowed to enjoy that good fortune for a decade or even more?

First, even if the production of the player is the result of luck, the team must invest significant resources in him between draft day and the time the player peaks. I'm not just talking money, I'm talking games. Bertuzzi was not a net positive for the Islanders. He wasn't even a very good player when the Canucks got him. Vancouver fans wanted to trade Markus Naslund for years before he finally exploded as a player. These guys did not help Vancouver win. They helped them lose until they took leaps forward as players and dragged the team forward with them.

There are roughly three phases to every players career - the developmental phase, the prime years and the decline phase. The old CBA allowed teams to keep the player through the best part of his career. I think that is very good for the small markets (in terms of their ability to compete) and it is also very good for the league because it provides an incentive for teams to invest ice time in young players. I wonder which teams in the Gary Bettman universe will make those investments if the fruits are enjoyed by another team.

Second, one player a year is par, two is excellent work. If a good team needs to find half the core in the draft, that's five players to be found in a relatively short period. By tying the player to a team for a decade or so, teams get a decade to accumulate enough good players. If you go from an entry level system directly into free agency, the window is much smaller.

Third, more parity is not a good thing. Earlier free agency would mean a more equal distribution of talent throughout the league, but that will also encourage an even more defensive outlook. It isn't like the Canucks did not try to trap the old Oilers. They did, but it did not work because the talent gap was too large. Parity made the strategy effective. (Another example was watching teams try to trap Canada during the WJC. It didn't work. Canada had too much.) Today there are way too many ties, and frankly, too many close games if we want to see the return of firewagon hockey.

Fourth, even great young teams often take quite a while to win. The Senators have been a legitimate threat for several years without doing it. The Red Wings were favoured every year from about 1994 on, but waited to 1998 to win.

Fifth, even if we assume that luck builds an elite team, what is a good solution? Eliminate elite teams? If the Gary Bettman vision becomes reality everyone starts out the season as an average minus to an average plus team. Luck will play a much larger role than it does today. Things that are important factors today will become paramount. Injuries, suspensions, schedule, referees, and hot goalies make a big difference today. In Gary's NHL, they become even more important.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 08:09 PM
  #69
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 16,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
So who would vote for it?
Honestly? I can't see any sane person voting "yea" on a dispersal type draft.

It's probably the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard.

And if this really IS the plan which the NHL is interested in implementing, then Gary Bettman should be taken out behind the shed and beaten to a bloody pulp.

Can you imagine being Martin Brodeur, getting a call at home and learning that because the Devils are over the cap limit, Bettman has decided that you'll now be tending goal for the Chicago Blackhawks?

Or being Niklas Lidstrom, and getting a similar call, with the League deciding that you'll be on the next plane to Nashville, TN?

Insanity. Pure and simple.

OlTimeHockey is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 08:12 PM
  #70
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlTimeHockey
Honestly? I can't see any sane person voting "yea" on a dispersal type draft.

It's probably the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard.

And if this really IS the plan which the NHL is interested in implementing, then Gary Bettman should be taken out behind the shed and beaten to a bloody pulp.

Can you imagine being Martin Brodeur, getting a call at home and learning that because the Devils are over the cap limit, Bettman has decided that you'll now be tending goal for the Chicago Blackhawks?

Or being Niklas Lidstrom, and getting a similar call, with the League deciding that you'll be on the next plane to Nashville, TN?

Insanity. Pure and simple.
Now you can see why Linden has been stating that the NHL hard cap is anti-player and anti-fan.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 08:19 PM
  #71
Hasbro
Can He Skate?!
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 35,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlTimeHockey
Honestly? I can't see any sane person voting "yea" on a dispersal type draft.
Well maybe Wirtz.

Quote:
It's probably the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard.

And if this really IS the plan which the NHL is interested in implementing, then Gary Bettman should be taken out behind the shed and beaten to a bloody pulp.
that's the case regardless.

Hasbro is online now  
Old
01-22-2005, 08:31 PM
  #72
shveik
Registered User
 
shveik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flame_Star_Devil
So all of our hard work to build our team through drafting, all our work to make our team a powerhouse and remain atop the league despite our previous successes, will result in the dispersal of those players we worked so hard to draft and to keep? How is this fair? We started out in the early 90s with nothing, the "Mickey Mouse Club," the laughingstock of hockey. We've spend the last 2 decades, since 1989, building our team. Are you seriously telling me that players like Elias, Niedermayer, Gomez, Rafalski, Madden, Brodeur... are forfeit because we've paid them what they deserve?
Well, welcome to the world of parity. The only thing that the proposed dispersal draft does is that it introduces the parity at the very start of the new rules. In the long run the cap will have the exact same effect, the teams will never be able to build, there simply won't be enough time. As soon as you start accumulating talent, you will not be able to afford it and you will have to ship some off to the "less fortunate".

I remember one of the posters has a quote in his sig. How the capitalism is cursed by the uneven distribution of the blessings, and the socialism is blessed with equal distribution of the misery.

Quote:
This isn't parity. This is thievery.
Duh.

shveik is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 09:02 PM
  #73
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jericholic19
then what's the big deal about the current competitiveness of the NHL? are you expecting all games to be one goalers under a new system?
No, what I was saying originally was that parity doesn't mean boring. I really don't believe the score of the games dictates how good a game is to watch.

kruezer is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 09:31 PM
  #74
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepNCheese
Are you sure?
Yes, I'm sure. Read the part right above what you highlighted in your first post:

"Daly sees a different outcome, saying under the old collective bargaining agreement even rebuilding teams lost players before they were ready to compete because they could no longer afford them."

The only folks I've seen talking about a dispersal is THN, citing a "Linden was supposedly told" source. I'll need a hell of a lot better source than that before I believe this rumour. Sounds like typical fear tactics by the union.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
I might be the only one who wants a cap because its good for the league. I think having a cap would allow the league to sell hope. Every fan could, in theory, could have a chance to win in any given year.
No, you're not the only one, I feel the same way. I don't think about how my Canucks would be affected at all when discussing this stuff, and we're usually one of the prime targets of "Oooh, think what a cap would do to teams like the Canucks!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by OlTimeHockey
You've got it backwards. Bettman only needs eight owners to scuttle any deal that the other 24 owners might be willing to agree to.
You're both saying the same thing. For a proposal to pass, 3/4ths of the owners must support it. Thus the magic 8 number, as 22/30 is below the 75% threshold.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 04:26 AM
  #75
me2
Team Ben Anti-Tank 0
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Team Tank 1
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 27,897
vCash: 93
It wouldn't surprise me at all if its just decoy junk the the NHL can "cave in" on and give the players a win. If not this is the type of crap that Linden should be fighting against (and winning): "if you want your cap then we grandfather........".

me2 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 11:03 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.