HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

A quick CBA thought....

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-28-2003, 07:31 PM
  #1
TehDoak
Goin Streakin
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 19,325
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to TehDoak
A quick CBA thought....

Just curious to peoples response...
Why not make a HARD cap of lets say 45 million. However, the catch that CAP SPACE IS A TRADABLE ASSET. I.e. If small market team has a high priced player they want to get rid of, they can get a better return if they package the player with 1/2 of his cap space. Or a small market team can make out like bandits on deadline day just dealin out their unused cap space for draft picks/young player/cash. Another big advantage is that this would put a virtual cap on players salaries (i.e. since there is only 1.35 billion for ALL the players, demanding more salary for one player is taking away that available salary from another player)

TehDoak is offline  
Old
10-29-2003, 09:31 AM
  #2
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,321
vCash: 500
I like the idea and was in a fantasy hockey league that used a similar rule.

I just think you'd have to set terms to the length of time the cap was traded for.

For example,

The Penguins trade $10 million of cap for 2 seasons to the Rangers for an skate sharpener.

Guest is offline  
Old
10-30-2003, 03:31 PM
  #3
Emule Richard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdoak
Just curious to peoples response...
Why not make a HARD cap of lets say 45 million. However, the catch that CAP SPACE IS A TRADABLE ASSET. I.e. If small market team has a high priced player they want to get rid of, they can get a better return if they package the player with 1/2 of his cap space. Or a small market team can make out like bandits on deadline day just dealin out their unused cap space for draft picks/young player/cash. Another big advantage is that this would put a virtual cap on players salaries (i.e. since there is only 1.35 billion for ALL the players, demanding more salary for one player is taking away that available salary from another player)
Most definitely a very interesting idea...one I think we should pick apart until we find something that covers a few more bases. Here are some of my criticisms:

1. Teams are already over that 45 mil cap, so there will obviously have to be some time period before it's in effect.

2. "Compensation" to the player would have to be even more strictly defined than it already is. A loophole of any sort would completely destroy the system.

3. The hard cap would have to increase on a yearly basis in order to account for natural salary inflation; therefore, league-wide salary income would increase yearly as well.

4. There would have to be some sort of controls to protect against small market teams profiting purely as a result of selling cap room (and putting a poor product on the ice). For example, you don't want the Pittsburgh Penguins putting out a team of ECHL'ers playing for $5 million and then selling their remaining $40 million in cap room to the New York Rangers for $10 million each season. That's 5 million profit right there, as as long as Pittsburgh can just meet all of their other costs; they're making about 5% on their investment(very rough estimate that the team is worth $100 mil), or more if their other revenue exceeds their other costs, which it probably will.

5. NHLPA would strictly oppose this because it clearly limits the maximum amount paid to its members. What if hockey explodes and starts bringing in huge amounts of revenue? The players are still stuck at this salary cap that would have been set before the explosion in revenue, so they would clearly be missing out on 'their share' of the profits.

6. A hard cap creates no incentive for the players to make hockey more entertaining for the fans.

7. A 1-year maximum on tradeable cap space must be in place. At this point, there is nothing stopping Edmonton from trading 15 million in cap room over the next 10 years to the Rangers. The Rangers then have 60 million in cap room for the next 10 years, and Edmonton has $30 million in cap room, and nothing has changed whatsoever, except maybe a draft pick for Edmonton or something.

8. What incentive is there for the NHLPA in doing this? They're diminishing their members' bargaining power if they sign this.

9. What I do like though is that players who sign earlier will likely have more leverage in negotiations than players who sign later. It may result in earlier signings by players and thus less hold-outs...it could however go the other way, and if teams overspend, you could end up with a collective (around the league) cap room of $10 million remaining at the start of the season, yet have Gaborik, Havlat, Bertuzzi, Jagr, and Forsberg all still looking for contracts; only 1 guy is going to be able to sign, and the rest will be forced to play elsewhere.

Emule Richard is offline  
Old
11-03-2003, 08:18 AM
  #4
West
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
6. A hard cap creates no incentive for the players to make hockey more entertaining for the fans.
Just out of curiosity what do you think would be an incentive for the players to make the game more interesting for the fans? Is this something that the players can really affect any more?

I'm asking because I'd say that putting out a more entertaining product (increasing ratings) is just as important as getting the new CBA signed. I mean everyone here seems to assume that the leagues profits are fixed or will keep increasing. When in reality there are some good reasons to believe that they have peaked (TV rating, long term affects of a strike in nontraditional markets, announced attendence compared to how many people are really in the buildings).

West is offline  
Old
11-03-2003, 08:48 AM
  #5
WhoIsJimBob
#TankEnvy
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 17,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
6. A hard cap creates no incentive for the players to make hockey more entertaining for the fans.
That certainly isn't the case if the hard cap number is tied directly to the league's total revenues like the NFL's hard cap currently is.

If they lock in the percentage of league revenues that go to player salaries, then that is a great incentive to create more entertaining hockey and to expand revenues.

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
11-03-2003, 05:15 PM
  #6
Emule Richard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob
That certainly isn't the case if the hard cap number is tied directly to the league's total revenues like the NFL's hard cap currently is.

If they lock in the percentage of league revenues that go to player salaries, then that is a great incentive to create more entertaining hockey and to expand revenues.
Solid point; I was going under the assumption that the cap would not be based on revenues. If the cap is based on revenues, which it probably will be if one is implemented, that brings up a whole slew of other issues, like revenue recognition etc..

Emule Richard is offline  
Old
11-04-2003, 09:31 AM
  #7
WhoIsJimBob
#TankEnvy
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 17,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
Solid point; I was going under the assumption that the cap would not be based on revenues. If the cap is based on revenues, which it probably will be if one is implemented, that brings up a whole slew of other issues, like revenue recognition etc..
If the NFL could come to an agreement with their PA about how to do it, I think it's certainly possible that it could happen in the NHL.

I wonder how much the trust factor will be broken down with some former players now on the management side of things with Gretz and Mario being owners and guys like Clarke, Lowe, and Gainey being GMs, and then you have a guy like Dryden being a club president.

Also, I believe that the owners opened up the books of a few teams (I'm pretty sure LA and Buffalo were two of them) to the NHLPA's accountants. I wonder how far that will go to proving that there are serious issues that need to be addressed and soon.

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
11-04-2003, 09:53 AM
  #8
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob
Also, I believe that the owners opened up the books of a few teams (I'm pretty sure LA and Buffalo were two of them) to the NHLPA's accountants. I wonder how far that will go to proving that there are serious issues that need to be addressed and soon.
It won't go very far. Apparently the financials provided were pretty laughable. According to Larry Brooks, the NHL is trying to claim that the biggest money loser over the past three seasons was...

(drumroll...)

The New York Rangers!

I find it amazing that any sentient being could possibly swallow the line being put out by the NHL these days. I mean really. The Rangers! There is a sucker born every minute.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-04-2003, 10:51 AM
  #9
discostu
Registered User
 
discostu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nomadville
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
It won't go very far. Apparently the financials provided were pretty laughable.
Reports are that the players initial offer was a CBA that involved a 5% pay cut, which was rejected by the owners.

If that is the case, then the owners have managed to convince the players that some level of pay reduction is in order. Personally, that has been the biggest shock of the limited amount of negotiations so far. The NHLPA still maintains that they do not believe the owner's and the estimated losses, but their initial offer seems to indicate they think that there may be some truth behind it.

discostu is offline  
Old
11-04-2003, 01:16 PM
  #10
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,318
vCash: 500
Thats a good point Stu. The effect of owner posturing for a salary cap has been to bring the players to the table with an initial offer of a pay cut. Not bad. And Bettman gets to say, nope thats not good enough, it must be a cap. What leverage.

When I really listen to Bettman and Goodenow, they never mention a payroll cap. Its hard to beleive its a serious demand by the owners because they must understand how quickly it would ruin the league. Most GMs all say this. But fans eat it up, so i guess its useful propoganda. Threatening it, is sure bringing the players to the table with the attitude of how little must we give up, rather than how much can we get.

And the players as you say, must be implicitly acknowledging that there are issues warranting them to take a pay cut. Even if it is more a symbolic than actual gesture at the moment. Unless they mean withholding 5% of all future unsigned contracts too. But it does show the players are sympathetic and aware of league problems with salaries too high. And offerring concrete concessions to help. Id have to think owners would be have to be pretty obtuse not to be able to negotiate a solution with such a willing partner. A lockout seems much less likely to me today.

So now what does cost certainty mean? Guaranteeing salaries will be a fixed percentage of some revenue figure feels too artificial to actually work without gross side effects. Devising a market where equilibrium will find its way to that point would seem to be the best solution. That would be a good trick

thinkwild is offline  
Old
11-05-2003, 04:44 AM
  #11
WhoIsJimBob
#TankEnvy
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 17,444
vCash: 500
Why would a hard salary cap ruin the NHL?

A hard salary cap in the NFL that creates parity and teams all having legit hopes of being able to compete at a high level within the next 3 years has done nothing but help strengthen the league's support.

With the NFL model the only limiting factor to whether you have a successful team is how well you manage your assets and the stars are spread out rather evenly throughout the league.

If the NHL has a hard cap I think it will help the league as a whole. But I do believe that fans of the current high revenue/high payroll teams won't be too happy.

But you didn't see teams like the 49ers and the Cowboys lose their fans in droves after the NFL went to a hard cap. I doubt that will happen with the NHL either. Especially if the cap is set low enough that teams are able to lower ticket prices should demand wane a bit because a team goes through a dry spell winning wise and fans don't flock to see their team like they have in the past.

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
11-05-2003, 07:52 AM
  #12
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob
Why would a hard salary cap ruin the NHL?
Good question. It will create far more player movement. I think fans like continuity. I certainly do. I like dynasties. I like great teams.

I don't mind if my team does not keep an expensive player because he is not worth the money, but I will mind when they lose them to get under a salary cap. There is no revenue sharing in the NHL, so it is my money that is directly going to pay the salaries of the Vancouver Canucks.

We - the fans - in Vancouver are paying as much as anyone to watch. Why shouldn't the team be able to run any payroll they want with our money? Why should we pay to watch our players play for someone else?

Quote:
A hard salary cap in the NFL that creates parity and teams all having legit hopes of being able to compete at a high level within the next 3 years has done nothing but help strengthen the league's support.
Within three years? Which team does not have a legitimate chance three years down the road? Three years ago Vancouver was not very good.

The NFL system goes much further. Teams are supposed to have a legitimate chance every year. It is easy to create parity by eliminating excellence. This is good for the sport? Why not just have a lottery? Make the GMs draft a team every year just like the fantasy leagues.

Would that be good?

Or is it better to reward teams that scout, draft and develop players? That is what is rewarded in the NHL today.

Quote:
Especially if the cap is set low enough that teams are able to lower ticket prices should demand wane a bit because a team goes through a dry spell winning wise and fans don't flock to see their team like they have in the past.
Teams do lower ticket prices when demand wanes.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-05-2003, 11:45 AM
  #13
shveik
Registered User
 
shveik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,844
vCash: 500
I think this is a great idea. Basically it is your hard cap+ revenue sharing, except the market determines the revenue sharing. If all of the teams are under the cap, then there is no revenue sharing. If there are just a few teams over the cap, they will be able to purchase the cap space fairly cheaply, since there will be more supply than demand for it. Overall it is more in line with free self-regulating market idea, than with socialistic "spread the wealth around".

The lenght of the cap dealing should be quite simple: you are limited in your control of the team if you do not own the full cap (i.e. you cannot move it, sell it or something like that).

shveik is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 05:19 AM
  #14
WhoIsJimBob
#TankEnvy
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 17,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Good question. It will create far more player movement. I think fans like continuity. I certainly do. I like dynasties. I like great teams.
That is what you like. But that isn't to say that the majority of fans like that.

Which league is viewed to be in better shape right now, MLB which has as big market pseudo-dynasty in the Yankees, or the NFL that has a hard salary cap, huge amounts of FA roster turnover.

I know tons of people think that MLB needs a hard cap to reign in the Yankees.

Quote:
I don't mind if my team does not keep an expensive player because he is not worth the money, but I will mind when they lose them to get under a salary cap. There is no revenue sharing in the NHL, so it is my money that is directly going to pay the salaries of the Vancouver Canucks.
I think any hard cap system would have to include some form of revenue sharing ala the NFL.

And while some fans won't like a salary capped system, I think the number of fans that will be given hope with a salary capped NHL will out number the fans that don't like the system.

Plus, I think it will help generate excitement in more non-traditional markets like the Nashville's and Phoenix's of the world.

Fan's buy tickets for many reasons. But the #1 reason is the hope that their team will win. In a hard capped world more fans will have hope than in the current system where many small market fans feel like they have no realisitic shot at winning any time soon because of the way the league is structured.

Quote:
We - the fans - in Vancouver are paying as much as anyone to watch. Why shouldn't the team be able to run any payroll they want with our money? Why should we pay to watch our players play for someone else?
The current system doesn't work for the cast majority of teams in the NHL. You can argue all you want about who is to blame for the current system not working, but the fact still remains that it doesn't work.

And sticking with the status quo is unlikely to make it work anytime soon.

A hard cap is the only way to guarantee that some idiot owners don't overspend and cause a ripple effect throughout the league.

Quote:
Within three years? Which team does not have a legitimate chance three years down the road? Three years ago Vancouver was not very good.
Ask Penguin fans if they think they will have a really good team in the next 3 years.

Or Predators fans.

Or Coyotes fans.

Or even Sabres fans.

Or ask Oiler fans how they feel about constantly having to lose players like Weight and Marchant once they get near UFA age because they know they can afford them anymore.

Quote:
The NFL system goes much further. Teams are supposed to have a legitimate chance every year. It is easy to create parity by eliminating excellence. This is good for the sport? Why not just have a lottery? Make the GMs draft a team every year just like the fantasy leagues.

Would that be good?

Or is it better to reward teams that scout, draft and develop players? That is what is rewarded in the NHL today.
The NFL rewards teams that scout, draft, and develop players as well. That wouldn't change in a hard capped NHL.

In the NFL you have to have a balance between good amateur scouting and good pro scouting. And you need to have a front office that is good at assessing values so that you don't overpay for the wrong guy and get messed up because of it.

But that's not all that different from other leagues.

The major difference in the NFL is that you don't see the Packers having to lose Brett Favre as soon as he becomes really good because they are a small market and can't afford to offer him as much as the Giants or Jets can because they are in a bigger market and have much larger revenues.

Quote:
Teams do lower ticket prices when demand wanes.
But most can't afford to lower them to a level that would cause sell outs every night.

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 05:57 AM
  #15
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,957
vCash: 2662
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdoak
Just curious to peoples response...
Why not make a HARD cap of lets say 45 million. However, the catch that CAP SPACE IS A TRADABLE ASSET. I.e. If small market team has a high priced player they want to get rid of, they can get a better return if they package the player with 1/2 of his cap space. Or a small market team can make out like bandits on deadline day just dealin out their unused cap space for draft picks/young player/cash. Another big advantage is that this would put a virtual cap on players salaries (i.e. since there is only 1.35 billion for ALL the players, demanding more salary for one player is taking away that available salary from another player)
This strikes me as the same misguided scheme being used to control air pollution. Pollution Credit Trading is intended to allow a polluter to emit one ton of pollution in one location in exchange for paying for a one ton reduction of pollution somewhere else. It creates an overall cap on pollution in large geographic areas but does nothing to alleviate problems in local areas that are severely affected. What you end up having under this scenario is small market teams trading away so much of their cap space that they can't field a competive team. If the team isn't competitive, the fans won't buy tickets.

We essentially have a cap space trading system now. Teams have their internal salary caps and make trades accordingly. The Pens have made out like bandits under this scheme If cap space trading is allowed, the big market teams will continue to be able to overpay players and drive up the salary structure for all teams. The only real solution is a hard cap based on revenue sharing.

Buffaloed is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 09:53 AM
  #16
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob
Which league is viewed to be in better shape right now, MLB which has as big market pseudo-dynasty in the Yankees, or the NFL that has a hard salary cap, huge amounts of FA roster turnover.
Which is viewed to be in better shape? Football. Like I care. This is mostly because baseball - like hockey - has spent the last 10 years marketing competitive imbalance. Basketball - the sport with the least balance - pretends to have a fair league. Everybody applauds. Baseball and hockey owners have an agenda. Nobody questions it.

Let's have an NFL style lottery league in hockey too! That way owners can all make a ton of money and we can all applaud their business acumen! If they really work at it, maybe they can arrange for the home team to win every game and the visitor lose every game. Now that would be parity, eh? At the end of the year we can flip a coin and the winner gets the Cup! Wouldn't that be great?

Everybody can hope to be a winner and everybody is a winner and everybody sells lots of tickets to mediocrity! It will be great!

Quote:
I think any hard cap system would have to include some form of revenue sharing ala the NFL.
It ain't gonna happen. Try to tell Canuck fans they have to pay more next year so the owner can get his expanded profits and so the team can ship out millions in revenue to other teams. Vancouver fans have to give their money to Disney or William Wirtz or Ted Leonsis? Why? So that Disney and Wirtz and Leonsis can afford to hire Vancouver Canucks turfed to get under a salary cap?

That's a good deal for Vancouver fans, eh?

Quote:
The current system doesn't work for the cast majority of teams in the NHL. You can argue all you want about who is to blame for the current system not working, but the fact still remains that it doesn't work.
Why? Define the problem. It is all perception. Is the league fair? Can anyone become a big revenue team by becoming great? If Ottawa and Vancouver can do it, why can't Buffalo, Edmonton and Minnesota? If the NHL fails in Nashville, it fails. So what?

The NHL has been running an advertising campaign ever since the last agreement was signed. They've managed to convince a whole bunch of gullible people that a booming business sucks and that we should care about the league finances.

I don't mean to offend but every time I read a post that trots out the NHL line, my reaction is always, "Man, what a chump! I can't believe people swallow this stuff." And I'm a big hockey fan! People who aren't fans think we are all a bunch of stupid sheeple for buying the line put out by NHL owners. They laugh at us. They think it hilarious - and it makes them angry - that we support government subsidies for NHL teams. That we could possibly believe the things we believe is a source of great amusement to my friends and colleagues who do not read the sports pages.

Doesn't that bother you? It bothers me. I don't like to be taken for a fool. The general public - non-hockey fans - are laughing at us. We are laughable if we buy this garbage.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 10:35 AM
  #17
Dr Love
Registered User
 
Dr Love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Location, Location!
Posts: 20,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob
Which league is viewed to be in better shape right now, MLB which has as big market pseudo-dynasty in the Yankees, or the NFL that has a hard salary cap, huge amounts of FA roster turnover.
There are more reasons than just a hard cap as to why there is a significant amount of roster turnover in the NFL. The hard cap is a reason, but not the whole picture.

- Non-guaranteed contracts. You don't play well, someone else will take your spot very easily. And then you sign somewhere else, and they cut someone. And that guy signs elsewhere, and they cut someone. I can't imagine that the NHL would have both a hard cap and non-guaranteed contracts. The NFLPA and NFL have a great relationship, the NHLPA and NHL do not, and I can't see the union agreeing to both those terms. They have a hard enough time agreeing to just one of them.

-More turnover of coaches. How many new coaches are there this year? I count 3. In the NFL: 5. And I'm very sure that if you look at the last 5 years or so there would be more new coaches in the NFL than the NHL. New coaches means significant roster changes in the first and second years, and a decent amount in the third year as well, as the team's roster adjusts to fit the teams new style of play, which leads to my next point...

-Styles of play. In the NHL, NBA, and MLB, the styles of play from team to team are relatively similar compared to the various styles of play in the NFL. In hockey everyone plays a form of a trap, some more than others, but everyone plays it. Okay, except for the Rangers. But in football there are base 3-4 defenses, base 4-3 defenses, base Cover 2 defenses, and within those there are variations. In hockey some teams play more of a dump and chase/hit and grind, and some play more of a finesse offense. But which ever style they play, they play a little bit of the other. In the NFL, you've got teams that play one style and nothing else, and for some, no one else plays that style. There isn't nearly as much cross breeding of styles. That only adds to the roster turnover when a coach comes in. Coach Joe Blow comes in and he's got a whole new style of play for Team Schmuck, and that means everyone who doesn't fit into the system is outta here.

-Bigger roster. Over twice the NHL roster dress for an NFL game. More people means more roster turnover.

EDIT: -No minor leauge. In the NHL, if two (young) guys are fighting for a roster spot, the guy that loses out goes to the minors and can be recalled easily. In the NFL, the guy that loses out gets cut. There is a practice squad, but it's limited to 5 players and A) the player has to agree to sign to it and B) they have to clear waivers. So, if a player is just not good enough for your team, another team can get him for nothing. The NHL waiver draft is an "answer" to that, but not fully. There are age and games played minimums, whereas that is not a consideration in the NFL. Look at say, the Flyers (I pick them because we can all agree that they're a very deep team in terms of having legit NHL players and because I know them best). Denis Seidenberg didn't make the team this year, but he played in 58 games in the NHL last year. If the NHL system was like the NFL, he'd have been cut and placed on waivers with hopes of signing him to the practice squad. But someone, let's say Pittsburgh, would probably pick him up. And then they'd have to cut someone. And on it goes. Another reason for major roster turnover.

Again, like the financial model, the NFL is a terrible model for any sport.

Dr Love is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 06:19 PM
  #18
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Love
Again, like the financial model, the NFL is a terrible model for any sport.
It can't be the model for anything. I don't see why it is put out there as something great anyway. It is way more boring than the worst hockey game. It is not about the game or the players who play the game. It is not about sport. It is about television, point spreads and profits. If Vegas disappeared, the NFL would disappear too.

The reason the players are so cheap is that there are tons of them available. Most are anonymous guys in helmets. There was a strike. The NFL hired replacement players and nobody cared. They kept on watching and betting. The players caved. The owners dictated a CBA designed to behave like any good game of chance - produce a random result.

Nobody bets on hockey games, nobody would watch replacement players and the NHL owners can't dictate a CBA. We are crazy if we want a system that produces a new team every year and a near random result. The game still matters because nobody cares about point spreads.

Revenues in this league depend on putting a quality product on the ice. That's great for the game. Players don't become free agents until age 31. That's great for the game and the fan. The teams that decide to go out and blow the wad on free agents end up regretting it. That's great for the game and the fan. You win by producing players in the NHL. That's great for the game and the fan.

The owners want radical change? They like the NFL model? That's lousy for the game and the fan.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 06:36 PM
  #19
Mystery
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41
vCash: 500
NFL style player movement would kill the game and would lead to a lack of interest from many devote fans. The average hockey fan likes to get to know their players and see them develop in the colours of their team. To adopt an NFL style system where players are signed to short term deals and the majority of players appear on the market would spell the death nell of hockey in Canada, and most likely several devote American States.

Mystery is offline  
Old
11-07-2003, 06:37 AM
  #20
Dr Love
Registered User
 
Dr Love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Location, Location!
Posts: 20,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The owners want radical change? They like the NFL model? That's lousy for the game and the fan.

Tom
The owners haven't show a desire to follow the NFL model. But there have been posts time and time again here that the NHL should try to follow the NFL financial model, that is what I am addressing.

Dr Love is offline  
Old
11-07-2003, 06:51 AM
  #21
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Love
The owners haven't show a desire to follow the NFL model. But there have been posts time and time again here that the NHL should try to follow the NFL financial model, that is what I am addressing.
What do you think the NFL model entails? I am using the phrase to imply a system that involves a hard cap, earlier free agency and enough player movement that every team can go to training camp and sell the idea that they have a winner.

You can't have payroll parity and a salary cap without a lot of player movement. If the problem is that the fans in Florida won't watch the game because there team can't win, Florida has to be able to get more good players from somewhere.

The idea is to spread out the talent even more than it is spread out today, is it not? Isn't that what the owners mean by "competitive balabnce"? How do you see that happening without a lot more player movement?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-07-2003, 08:01 AM
  #22
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,089
vCash: 500
The owners want radical change? They like the NFL model? That's lousy for the game and the fan.
Tom


Those were very good points Tom Benjamin.

Seems discostu and yourself at least agree on this point about not using the NFL as a model (..."no league should use this as the model", by discostu from the thread "Arguments for both sides on the CBA and overall viability of an NHL franchise"). I disagree with disco on the cap but I find him a very good poster despite our difference of opinion, too bad both of you didn't 'bond' better earlier...

I hope I'm not a chump though by believing that there are financial problems in the NHL. I probably sit somewhere in between the 'Benjamin view' and the 'NHL owners' view on this subject. Although I'm not on-side with you on this, it is interesting to have an advocate and skilled wordsmith for the 'defense' because there are more posters here on the 'prosecution' side of the spectrum.

Nonetheless, Mr Benjamin, I will be looking forward to your views on Bruce Dowbiggin's new book Money Players after you've read it. That one seems to be right up your alley.

Puck is offline  
Old
11-07-2003, 09:06 AM
  #23
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck
I hope I'm not a chump though by believing that there are financial problems in the NHL. I probably sit somewhere in between the 'Benjamin view' and the 'NHL owners' view on this subject.
Does anyone know what the NHL owner's view of the subject is, aside from the claim they lost $300 million last year? Sometimes they argue that the problem is competitive balance. Sometimes they argue that teams in the south are going to go out of business. Sometimes they argue that hockey in Canada is doomed. Sometimes they even claim to be concerned about ticket prices.

What do they want? What is their vision of the league and how will it actually work? What problem are they trying to solve? Trying to pin that down is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

If salaries are too high for the long term health of the game, they will come down. (They are probably coming down and I don't just mean this year. Even the average league salary is a bogus number.) There are lots of ways to tweak the CBA to hold down salary levels without changing the basic structure of the league.

I don't think a non-hockey fan would call you a chump for believing the NHL has financial problems. I do think they would call you a chump if you think the fan, the players or the taxpayer should do anything about it. If there are financial problems, they are the responsibility of ownership.

I haven't read the Dowbiggin book, but I'll be surprised if he isn't fairly cynical about the claims of the owners. He was all over the Eagleson story. He knows the owners have lied to the players and the fans since the league was set up. Hockey has been a terrible business with Armageddon around the corner for nearly 90 years.

This time they are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, yes sir.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-07-2003, 09:19 AM
  #24
Dr Love
Registered User
 
Dr Love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Location, Location!
Posts: 20,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
What do you think the NFL model entails? I am using the phrase to imply a system that involves a hard cap, earlier free agency and enough player movement that every team can go to training camp and sell the idea that they have a winner.
Hard cap. Non-guaranteed contracts. Near total unrestricted free agency.

Quote:
You can't have payroll parity and a salary cap without a lot of player movement. If the problem is that the fans in Florida won't watch the game because there team can't win, Florida has to be able to get more good players from somewhere.

The idea is to spread out the talent even more than it is spread out today, is it not? Isn't that what the owners mean by "competitive balabnce"? How do you see that happening without a lot more player movement?

Tom
I didn't say anything about trying to limit player movement. I merely responded to a statement about NFL player movement compared to NHL player movement, and pointed out that they are, like all other things NFL, apples and oranges.

Dr Love is offline  
Old
11-07-2003, 12:41 PM
  #25
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Love
I didn't say anything about trying to limit player movement. I merely responded to a statement about NFL player movement compared to NHL player movement, and pointed out that they are, like all other things NFL, apples and oranges.
I don't think I am arguing with you. I am saying that I do not want an NFL salary cap, near unrestricted free agency and lots of player movement. I am saying that any system that increases player movement will hurt competetive balance and hurt the game. I am saying that payroll disparity is meaningless. If the NHL is changed to assure payroll parity the result must be more free agency and more player movement. I'm saying that will mean less competitive balance, not more.

That is the whole point of the exercise. To get more player movement. To prevent anyone from getting too good. To eliminate elite teams. To give the Rangers a chance at good players before they are too old to win. To make sure the word "rebuilding" is never heard in New York, Los Angeles, Toronto or any other big market. To make sure the players get free young enough that the next Todd Bertuzzi is a New York Ranger where he can really make money for the league. To get the biggest superstars in the biggest markets. To make sure teams that fork out zillions for free agents get players worth the money. To make sure big US and Canadian media markets go deep into the playoffs.

All those things will sell more tickets and drive up TV ratings. Isn't that the way you would restructure the league if you were an owner? How can the league tolerate a system that allows Ottawa to produce an elite team? Toronto invests way more and that team is looking for a cliff to fall off. Detroit and Dallas are in the same shape. The Rangers? The Hawks? Do these guys want to make money or not? We can't have the next decade dominated by elite teams from small markets can we? Wouldn't that suck for the NHL?

The real "problem" in the NHL today is that it is really hard to build a winner. It is a team game and one or two good players - no matter how good - can't make a huge difference. A team must be assembled starting with a clump of prospects more or less the same age. It has to end up with three or four more good players than the average team. That is very hard to do.

Once a really good team is put together it will stay really good for a long time, over the careers of those core players so painstakingly acquired.

And, it is all a zero sum game. No matter what there can't be more than 5 or 6 elite teams.

This is all awful for the business of hockey. Jim Bob did hit one nail on the head, "Fan's buy tickets for many reasons. But the #1 reason is the hope that their team will win. In a hard capped world more fans will have hope than in the current system where many small market fans feel like they have no realisitic shot at winning any time soon because of the way the league is structured."

It is not the way the league is structured that creates this problem. It is the nature of the game. It is hard to find 10 good players. There is a way the league can structure itself to solve only the problem. The one way to solve it is to make it impossible to have 10 good players on a team.

At best, the NHL wants a near random result with all 30 teams having a more or less equal chance before every season starts. At worst, the NHL wants an NBA system, one that puts the dynasties in the proper markets.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin 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 04:33 AM.

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.