HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

What is Toronto to the League ...?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-02-2012, 11:07 PM
  #1
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,578
vCash: 500
What is Toronto to the League ...?

The Leafs earn more than everyone else.
The Leafs give up more to the league than everyone else.
The Leafs aren't "free" to spend our money.

The Leafs earn the biggest slice of NHL profits and yet they have to sit by as the league changes the rules to make it even harder for the Leafs enjoy their advantages.

Take off the reins and let the Leafs be the Yankees of NHL.

Let us pay outrageous luxury taxes.

Let us vastly overpay free agents to fill our ranks.

Toronto is the biggest fish in this pond and as much as I believe in finding some common ground, I think it is time to make some waves.

Any ideas on how to rock the boat?

charliolemieux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 11:26 PM
  #2
Leafs For Life*
Nothing
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,636
vCash: 500
They (NHL) want parity, but sometimes it's fun to watch the top teams dominate. I really don't see why we don't spend millions on scouting/development/coaching/etc.. when we have the money to. Funny how the NHL complains about losing 100M b/c of preseason cancelled, when it was them who cancelled them.

Leafs For Life* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 11:33 PM
  #3
Urban Explorer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: West T.dot
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,456
vCash: 500
I couldn't agree more. If a team has a huge fan base that SHOULD be an advantage to the team. Parity just waters down the game in my opinion. It becomes more a game of lottery hockey than who actually put together the better team. Who wants to have to suck for years to hope to get a good draft pic that pans out? That is pretty much the only way to compete in the Cap world, that and hope you get lucky in the playoffs. Seriously an 8th seed winning the cup? It's literally luck 90% luck based now, teams are so evenly matched, games are pretty much decided on who gets the better bounces. Seriously who didnt like the dynasty's of the oilers and islanders or even the red wings of the 90s? Maybe you didn't like them but it was sure fun to beat them! Parity is for the birds.

TBH if the leafs win the cup in this era obviously I'll be ecstatic but I'll always have it in the back of my head that it was probably more luck than anything with this parity BS. Yes I'd rather over pay free agents and pay luxury taxes and DOMINATE to a Cup win then winning lucky hockey bingo styles like LA.


Last edited by Urban Explorer*: 10-02-2012 at 11:38 PM.
Urban Explorer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 11:36 PM
  #4
Duke Silver
Truce?
 
Duke Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,585
vCash: 500
It just gets boring seeing the same teams sign all the marquee players and buy competitive teams year after year after year like in baseball.

I feel it would be that much more satisfying if we rose to competitiveness by beating teams on a fair and even playing field.

A soft cap with a luxury tax may not be bad for the Leafs, but is bad for the NHL overall. It reduces competitive parity, creates a wider gap between the high-end and low-end financial teams and worst-of-all gives us a carte blanche to make more senseless, backfiring decisions in the UFA market instead of playing things smartly.

Duke Silver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 11:37 PM
  #5
Grant
LL Genius
 
Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,334
vCash: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaffan16 View Post
They (NHL) want parity, but sometimes it's fun to watch the top teams dominate. I really don't see why we don't spend millions on scouting/development/coaching/etc.. when we have the money to. Funny how the NHL complains about losing 100M b/c of preseason cancelled, when it was them who cancelled them.
I wish we did but unfortunately to most owners owning a sports team is a business and making money first, winning second.

Grant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 11:38 PM
  #6
Predaleafs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,069
vCash: 500
The Leafs are the Batman of the NHL. Without them the league would have folded 10 teams easy

Predaleafs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 11:43 PM
  #7
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 34,348
vCash: 500
Parity is for bed wetters.

Legendary franchises in sports like the Canadiens, Original Six Leafs, Manchester United, Celtics, Yankees, whomever built programs of excellence and redefined greatness in the talent they could assemble and mold into winners. That really embodies excellence in sports in a way that an "anybody can win if things go well" system of parity does not.

Stephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 11:45 PM
  #8
dougieg93
flip for filip
 
dougieg93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,087
vCash: 500
My first thought was Sugar Daddy

dougieg93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 11:45 PM
  #9
Urban Explorer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: West T.dot
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Silver View Post
It just gets boring seeing the same teams sign all the marquee players and buy competitive teams year after year after year like in baseball.

I feel it would be that much more satisfying if we rose to competitiveness by beating teams on a fair and even playing field.

A soft cap with a luxury tax may not be bad for the Leafs, but is bad for the NHL overall. It reduces competitive parity, creates a wider gap between the high-end and low-end financial teams and worst-of-all gives us a carte blanche to make more senseless, backfiring decisions in the UFA market instead of playing things smartly.
How do you figure it would be bad for small teams? The luxury tax would be going directly to these small market teams. The model works fine in baseball and let's be honest the payrolls and salarys of the NHL are never going to reach MLB levels, not in a million years.

Urban Explorer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 11:46 PM
  #10
Urban Explorer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: West T.dot
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
Parity is for bed wetters.

Legendary franchises in sports like the Canadiens, Original Six Leafs, Manchester United, Celtics, Yankees, whomever built programs of excellence and redefined greatness in the talent they could assemble and mold into winners. That really embodies excellence in sports in a way that an "anybody can win if things go well" system of parity does not.
Completely agree. Who wants to watch a game where the teams are so evenly matched that it comes down to refs and lucky bounces. There needs to be juggernauts in the league. It just kills the epicness of the sport to have this kind of parity.

Urban Explorer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 11:51 PM
  #11
Kyle Doobas*
#groovystats
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,689
vCash: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
Parity is for bed wetters.

Legendary franchises in sports like the Canadiens, Original Six Leafs, Manchester United, Celtics, Yankees, whomever built programs of excellence and redefined greatness in the talent they could assemble and mold into winners. That really embodies excellence in sports in a way that an "anybody can win if things go well" system of parity does not.
Yep. Parity is turning NHL hockey into a dice roll.

Kyle Doobas* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 11:56 PM
  #12
Duke Silver
Truce?
 
Duke Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,585
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Explorer View Post
How do you figure it would be bad for small teams? The luxury tax would be going directly to these small market teams. The model works fine in baseball and let's be honest the payrolls and salarys of the NHL are never going to reach MLB levels, not in a million years.
Well first of all it gives these mid-to-lower tier teams almost no chance to sign marquee players, since the richest teams will be building superteams all the time.

Even if these teams wanted to get in on the free agent frenzy, UFA salaries would spike so highly because these upper echelon teams with bottomless pockets would spend like drunken sailors to outbid one another, without having to worry about fitting the player under their team's cap ceiling. You think teams overpay for UFAs now? Just wait until you take the chains off their pocketbooks.

Plus, it still likely creates a wider gap. If the Leafs start spending $80-90M/year in a $55M cap world (estimation) with a $40M cap floor (estimation), that's a much wider gap than the $16M gap ($64.3M-$48.3M) between the cap/floor from the 2011-12 season.

Lastly, considering our lacklustre record with UFAs in recent years, we need to be saved from ourselves.

Duke Silver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 12:09 AM
  #13
Hurt
Moderator
 
Hurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Mojo Declinin View Post
Yep. Parity is turning NHL hockey into a dice roll.
This has led to the decrease in the 'dynasties' as well. 9 separate winners in the past 9 years in the NHL. In the NBA, it's something like 9 teams winning in the last 36 years.

__________________
Shoot me a PM with your concerns. Also, come visit us in the Science Forum!
Hurt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 12:09 AM
  #14
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 34,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Silver View Post
Well first of all it gives these mid-to-lower tier teams almost no chance to sign marquee players, since the richest teams will be building superteams all the time.

...

Lastly, considering our lacklustre record with UFAs in recent years, we need to be saved from ourselves.
I say good. It seems so natural that the New York Yankees, Real Madrid, Barcelona FC, Los Angeles Lakers, Manchester United etc. are the richest and most powerful flagship teams in their respective sports. Their fans pay top dollar and they are rewarded with a bevy of superstars every year. Why are we so hyper-sensitive to the needs of crap markets? Why shouldn't the Leafs be stacked with Stamkos, Toews, Tavares, and dominate the league every season?

I'd love it if the Leafs were a power house in a luxury tax league. Sure we pay room and board for those pauper teams if the league insists on their continued existence, but the market that's paying the bills should have the best product, or at least the economic powers to make Ed Snider in Philadelphia look like a conservative cheapskate.

It's not PC to say, but who cares about an even playing field? How many people stay up at night worrying whether Nashville will ever get their cup? I don't care. I want a cup for Toronto. I want many cups for Toronto in fact. And a great team every year. And a modern day Conn Smythe to ensure the fanbase is well taken care of. I don't care about the economics that keep Phoenix on life support.

Stephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 12:12 AM
  #15
Hurt
Moderator
 
Hurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
I say good. It seems so natural that the New York Yankees, Real Madrid, Barcelona FC, Los Angeles Lakers, Manchester United etc. are the richest and most powerful flagship teams in their respective sports. Their fans pay top dollar and they are rewarded with a bevy of superstars every year. Why are we so hyper-sensitive to the needs of crap markets? Why shouldn't the Leafs be stacked with Stamkos, Toews, Tavares, and dominate the league every season?

I'd love it if the Leafs were a power house in a luxury tax league. Sure we pay room and board for those pauper teams if the league insists on their continued existence, but the market that's paying the bills should have the best product, or at least the economic powers to make Ed Snider in Philadelphia look conservative.

It's not PC to say, but who cares about an even playing field? How many people stay up at night worrying whether Nashville will ever get their cup? I don't care.
I also think that's something holding the NHL back. Those teams are famous WORLDWIDE because of their success and wealth. The Leafs may be the richest team but due to the restrictions of the NHL and no team being able to build a dynasty in many years, the notoriety and infamy is just not there.

Hurt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 12:13 AM
  #16
Urban Explorer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: West T.dot
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Silver View Post
Well first of all it gives these mid-to-lower tier teams almost no chance to sign marquee players, since the richest teams will be building superteams all the time.

Even if these teams wanted to get in on the free agent frenzy, UFA salaries would spike so highly because these upper echelon teams with bottomless pockets would spend like drunken sailors to outbid one another, without having to worry about fitting the player under their team's cap ceiling. You think teams overpay for UFAs now? Just wait until you take the chains off their pocketbooks.

Plus, it still likely creates a wider gap. If the Leafs start spending $80-90M/year in a $55M cap world (estimation) with a $40M cap floor (estimation), that's a much wider gap than the $16M gap ($64.3M-$48.3M) between the cap/floor from the 2011-12 season.

Lastly, considering our lacklustre record with UFAs in recent years, we need to be saved from ourselves.
You wouldnt widen the gap by much because most of these small market teams dont even spend to the cap. Atleast with some extra free revenue they might be able to sign some marquee players, add in a max salary and term to go along with a luxury tax rule and small market teams might have a better chance of landing big names then under this current CBA. Just allow teams with big money to go over the cap with a luxury tax on all dollars spent over the cap that go directly to small market teams. Hell a luxury tax might help struggling teams just get to the cap floor!

Urban Explorer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 12:20 AM
  #17
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,578
vCash: 500
2 Quick Yankee facts


Made the post season 17 of 18 years.

Only won 1 World series in 12 years.

Doesn't sound as bad as the Red Wings.

charliolemieux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 12:20 AM
  #18
Urban Explorer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: West T.dot
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,456
vCash: 500
Honestly I could care less about these struggling teams, if you cant support your team too bad, move it somewhere that will, or better yet fold em. The league is so water downed diluted in talent now compared to the 80s and 90s the game is no where near as exciting as it was before. I bet dollars to donuts the game would be much easier to market to the americans in this day in age if the hockey was the same level of excitement it was in the 80s with the smaller talent pool. But bettman is too proud to admit the NHL has failed in some markets and will continue to ruin the game by keeping these markets on life support.

Urban Explorer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 12:29 AM
  #19
Urban Explorer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: West T.dot
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliolemieux View Post
2 Quick Yankee facts


Made the post season 17 of 18 years.

Only won 1 World series in 12 years.


Doesn't sound as bad as the Red Wings.
That's pretty impressive to make the playoffs 17 of 18 years when only 8 out of 30 teams make the playoffs. They may have been eliminated most years but it wasn't 8th place seeds eliminating them, it was other TOP TIER teams.

Urban Explorer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 12:46 AM
  #20
Kyle Doobas*
#groovystats
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,689
vCash: 159
Something that troubled me a little in the NHL's "Message to our fans" from Sept. 16th:

Quote:
Despite the expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the National Hockey League has been, and remains, committed to negotiating around the clock to reach a new CBA that is fair to the Players and to the 30 NHL teams.

Thanks to the conditions fostered by seven seasons under the previous CBA, competitive balance has created arguably the most meaningful regular season in pro sports; a different team has won the Stanley Cup every year; fans and sponsors have agreed the game is at its best, and the League has generated remarkable growth and momentum.
I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing.... but why is that a goal?

Kyle Doobas* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 12:47 AM
  #21
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Explorer View Post
Honestly I could care less about these struggling teams, if you cant support your team too bad, move it somewhere that will, or better yet fold em. The league is so water downed diluted in talent now compared to the 80s and 90s the game is no where near as exciting as it was before. I bet dollars to donuts the game would be much easier to market to the americans in this day in age if the hockey was the same level of excitement it was in the 80s with the smaller talent pool. But bettman is too proud to admit the NHL has failed in some markets and will continue to ruin the game by keeping these markets on life support.
While there is an verifiable argument that expansion would increase scoring like it was in the 80's there is no data for contraction after the European expansion.

Would the added concentration of talent lead to more 5-6 games or more 2-1 games.

I think data available would suggest something closer to 2-1.

I do think the hockey would become more exciting as you have more Mario Lemieux beating Ray Bourque 1-on-1. OR more crazy CuJo saves on Gilmour.

charliolemieux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 12:56 AM
  #22
Urban Explorer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: West T.dot
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliolemieux View Post
While there is an verifiable argument that expansion would increase scoring like it was in the 80's there is no data for contraction after the European expansion.

Would the added concentration of talent lead to more 5-6 games or more 2-1 games.

I think data available would suggest something closer to 2-1.

I do think the hockey would become more exciting as you have more Mario Lemieux beating Ray Bourque 1-on-1. OR more crazy CuJo saves on Gilmour.
I think it would be more to the 5-6 games. You would have less clutchers and grabbers in the league and more skilled players. It would be like the all-star game effect on scores, obviously not to that degree but I think if you only had skilled shooters on the ice goals would go up. I think defensive specialist 3rd and 4th liners would be not drafted in support of players with more offensive upside. If you had a team of 12 phil kessels vs 12 phil kessels and elite dmen on each team do you think the score would be 2-1? If you got rid of 6 teams and 150 of the worst players in the league, how could the game not be more exciting? You wouldn't have as many players lying on the ice to block shots with their faces(because that's all they're good for). What's your argument for games being less scoring with more talented players? Maybe I'm wrong, enlighten me.


Last edited by Urban Explorer*: 10-03-2012 at 01:02 AM.
Urban Explorer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 12:57 AM
  #23
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Mojo Declinin View Post
Something that troubled me a little in the NHL's "Message to our fans" from Sept. 16th:


I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing.... but why is that a goal?
Fair opportunity. For fans of big market teams it means very little but for the fans joining us this helps knowing your local team has as good a chance as anyone. Granted, leafs, habs and others can still spend more than small market teams, but the deviation is less and it gets some fair chances to the others.

Whether it's anyone's cup of tea or not in Toronto, Montreal or New York is essentially besides the point really. We have an advance over others just the same as they have internal budgets, we just don't have an unlimited advantage.

Btw, not asking you but in general, does TO bring it most profit? It's not a shot at the leafs when I say this but playoffs are big profit makers as players don't get paid. Obviously, my habs didn't get any playoff time either last year so this isn't a shot at the leafs, it's a serious question. I wouldn't be surprised if leafs made most profit/revenue anyway, but figure a team like NYR can compete with the extra playoff revenues.

LyricalLyricist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 12:59 AM
  #24
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Explorer View Post
That's pretty impressive to make the playoffs 17 of 18 years when only 8 out of 30 teams make the playoffs. They may have been eliminated most years but it wasn't 8th place seeds eliminating them, it was other TOP TIER teams.
Ya.

So.

They spent and didn't always win.

Just look at all the teams, lower budget teams, that have been in the mix.

Spend and win. If you can't afford to spend and win, then use Money ball.

Why the hell should we be penalized if we want to spend 6M on Shane Doan and then sit him in the press box? It's my $95 for a mid-level ticket, and then $10 a beer to watch this bloody gong show. I need a top cable package to see these guy lose to a team that can't put 5000 ***** in the seats. Why the hell can't my favorite team use that money but Tampa and Florida can?

Atleast with a luxury tax some of my money would go to improving MY team.

charliolemieux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 01:04 AM
  #25
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Explorer View Post
Honestly I could care less about these struggling teams, if you cant support your team too bad, move it somewhere that will, or better yet fold em. The league is so water downed diluted in talent now compared to the 80s and 90s the game is no where near as exciting as it was before. I bet dollars to donuts the game would be much easier to market to the americans in this day in age if the hockey was the same level of excitement it was in the 80s with the smaller talent pool. But bettman is too proud to admit the NHL has failed in some markets and will continue to ruin the game by keeping these markets on life support.
Which market do you suggest? Another canadian one? Most would love that, until the dollar goes down. Then we're pretty screwed.

There's the option of just removing the teams entirely but dropping 6/30(aka 20%) won't sit well with anyone. The fans of those teams, the players of those teams and the owners of those teams.

There will always be small markets, no one will be like the original 6 franchises. Even if nashville does better and better and continues to improve, they will never catch us. If you want to remove small market teams, teams like edmonton almost come into the mix. Ottawa was doing bad, hell buffalo uses video scouting to save money.

It's not to say a stronger league is a bad thing. It obviously is, just saying, in regards to the big markets there will ALWAYS be guys who can't keep up.

LyricalLyricist is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 01:20 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.