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.

Should the Oilers fold?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-07-2003, 06:53 PM
  #51
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolguy3650
I have a question. Do you think there is any way a restrictive hard cap will ever actually happen?
I don't think so. I think the players know they will have to give up something, but this is where they will draw the line. I think they will stand firm no matter what, but the owners may not agree.

When I am really optimistic and seeing the world through rose coloured glasses I think the owners may be even smarter than I credit them - and I credit them as very smart - and it is all an elaborate negotiating strategy. They extract as much as they can from the players without a lockout and then gracefully accede - say just before the World Cup.

When I am pessimistic, I see a lockout cancelling the season, a NHLPA decertification vote, and the WHA emerging as a player's league. I think we would see chaos and turbulent times for years.

Do the owners think they can get a restrictive hard cap? That's what matters.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-08-2003, 09:09 AM
  #52
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hemskyfan
I would think that a cap would make the league competitive, not mediocre, because every team would have an equal chance to become "powerhouses".
I think every team does have an equal chance to be a powerhouse. The problem is with perceptions, not reality. The problem is that it is really hard to become a powerhouse and most efforts fail. When they fail, you start over by unloading your veterans for kids. It is the only way you can acquire enough young players - a clump of them to form the core of a Champion - to win.

The correct decision - unloading Weight or Straka - looks awful from the marketing side, but it is all perception.

Quote:
You know what your talking about Tom, so I'm want to ask, what is the best solution to fix this problem?
The real problem or the perceived problem? The perceived problem is that small market teams are disadvantaged. I think Ottawa and Vancouver and Colorado demonstrate that this is not true. I also think Nashville is going to be another example. I picked them to be my surprise team of the year .

The real problem is that New York can't rebuild - the fans insist on the latest free agent - so they can't win. That is bad for the NHL. You can't buy a winner, but fans don't believe that, so they insist on spending. The only easy way to solve this problem is to structure the league so the Rangers can win without going through the pain Pittsburgh fans are enduring today. It took Nashville five hard years to become my surprise team this year.

The other real problem is that a league with 30 teams has to have 29 losers. In the 1980's we only had 20 losers. In the 1970's we had 13 losers. In the 1960's we only had five losers. I objected to expansion for this reason. I don't think dilution matters on the player side. The talent pool is too big.

But I wanted to win more than I wanted John McCaw to make $20 million in expansion fees. The hidden cost of expansion is that expansion teams are only lousy for a few years. Ten years ago the Canucks had a 1 in 20 chance of being the next dynasty. Today it is one in 30. That's a huge difference.

Nothing short of contraction can be done about this last problem. I don't think that is fair to fans in the cities to be contracted. Fans have to learn how hard it is to win. Teams have to learn to sell hockey rather than hope for a Stanley Cup. The entertainment value has to go up.

While I don't favour contraction, I have no problem with teams failing because fans won't endure long periods of losing. I've been waiting 45 years for my first Cup. (I was a Red Wing fan before the Canucks existed.) I think there is zero chance Oiler fans will quit on the NHL even if you told them they could never be any better. They would hang in there even if the league was not fair and their only hope was a fluke run. Oiler fans love hockey too much to bail just because the team can't win in the short run. If they are not willing to be as patient in, say, Florida, fine. The team fails.

The NHL wants to solve the problem by eliminating dynasties with a salary cap. By conceding earlier free agency to get the cap, they will allow the Rangers to get younger players as free agents and hopefully be able to compete without rebuilding.

They also solve the perceptual problem of too many teams by eliminating dynasties and increasing the player movement. Nothing really changes but the perception. Instead of having a one in 30 chance of becoming the next dynasty, teams will have a one in 30 chance of catching lightning in a bottle and actually winning a Cup.

If nothing changes, my experience - 45 years and no Cup - will not be unusual. Heck, no matter what, my experience will not be unusual. Even if every team starts every year with an equal chance to win, random chance would not provide 30 different winners in 30 years. We will still have many fans in my boat although not nearly as many as they would if nothing changes.

What the NHL will get is poorer hockey for better optics. I don't like the tradeoff.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-09-2003, 04:30 AM
  #53
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
If billions were bet on hockey, I'd worry about it. There is no money in fixing a hockey game so I don't worry about it. Racing commissions do worry about horse races being fixed for obvious reasons. The NFL? Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil. I guess there is no possibility of evil.
Do you have any proof that NFL games are being fixed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The logic goes like this:

1) The best games are played between the best teams. The Olympics produced better hockey than the NHL, no?

2) In the NHL, the best games are the ones played between Colorado and Vancouver or Detroit and St. Louis or....

3) Even when the game is between a great team and an also ran, the game is better than when two also rans play. The also ran usually steps up. The great team won't play down like a mediocre one does.

4) Artificial parity eliminates great teams.

5) Therefore the overall quality of play is worse.
1) The best games arent always between the best teams its a matter of opinion not fact or logic. Yes the olympics were very good, but under olymipc rules and ice surface, whats to say the NHL couldnt be exciting by going to olympic rules? Whats the point?

2) Not always, Ive seen some very good games this year involving the Penguins. Whats the point?

3) Thats totally a matter of opinion. No fact or logic. The olso ran doesnt always step up and the great team sometimes plays down to a mediocre level. This is an untrue statment again not based on fact or logic. Whats the point?

4) What do you consider "artificial parity"? How does it eliminate great teams? If you point to the NFL again the facts do not support you.

If you look at it there usually is one dynasty every decade. In football the Packers in the 60's, the Steelers in the 70's, the 49ers in the 80's, and the Cowboys in the 90's. Well gee the Cowboys were a great in the early days of the cap. Its still to early in the 00' to say there will be no dynasty and if the Rams, a great team, win 1 or 2 super bowls the would have to be considered with the other teams mentioned.

The problem with you argument is its not based in fact, just opinion. There are great teams in the NFL. You want to say the NFL eliminates dynasties but I ask you wheres the evidence that it has?

5) Opinion not fact. Some people will say it was better before some people will say its better after. The fact is the NFL has never been more successful. Whats the point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The NFL is obviously a well run business. So is the WWF. Otherwise I agree. A sports fan doesn't get excited about Macho Randy Savage. Or Warren Sapp for that matter. Football is a TV show, not a sport. The NFL would not exist without TV. It would not exist without betting. Is "Survivor" a sport? Is bingo a sport?
I dont know why you keep bringing up the WWE (not WWF the name was changed). They dont claim to be a sport so how can you compare them to a sport? Sounds like grasping at straws.

I dont understand you point about sports fans getting excited about Randy Savage or Warren Sapp. Its again opinion. When I see people with Sapp jerseys I would think they would be a little excited to see him. You make no point here. Maybe you dont like it, I dont like wrestling either, but to say a sports fan doesnt watch it doesnt state a fact just your opinion.

How would the NFL not exist without TV? The is nothing to suggest that. It wouldnt be big money business. The same could be said of baseball, basketball, soccer, and hockey. Just another opinion grasping at straws.

What does survivor have to do with anything? Just trying to get off the subject. What does bingo have to do with anything? Grasping at straws again. Neither of those claim to be sport they are games. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
I agree that we are talking about opinion and it is opinion about what the NHL really wants. It wants to please people like you. It thinks it can sell you mediocre hockey and convince you it is great. They are probably right. The business will probably be more profitable, but what's good for the business is not necessarily good for the sport.
Im not making opinions about what the NHL wants. Im trying to discuss what is better for the NHL to do.

You keep throwing aroung the word mediocre. What is mediocre? Its an opinion. If you dont want to buy then dont. There will be other people to replace you. In their opinion it will be better. Are you really sure whats good for the business inst good for the sport?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
I'm objecting to that vision of the future for hockey. I don't want the NHL to go in that direction. For fans, I think this is the only issue that matters in the labour dispute. The quality of the game. Some people think it is okay to go in this direction. That it will be better. I don't.
What do you define as quality? Having a dynasty? Having that 1 team a decade that is better then everyone? Do you want that 1 great team at the expense of losing other teams? Quality is just a matter of opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
This is exactly what people should be arguing about. Do we want elite teams? Are dynasties okay? Will the game be better if nobody can get any better than a couple of good players more than the average team? Will the game be better if signing a couple of free agents turns a team from a loser into a winner? Will the game be better if more than half the rosters change every year? Do we cheer for hockey or for uniforms?
Why do we have to argue about dynasties? There will be elite teams in any system. Even dynasties are a matter of opinion. Were the Red Wings a dynasty in the 90's? Thats debatable.

Would the system be better if only a few teams were able to get a bunch of players while the other teams had to take the average players that were left?

Would the game be better if a couple free agents would turn a loser into a winner? You know thats totally a matter of opinion. I like the fact that any team can win and can get better in a heartbeat. I like that every team has a chance to win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
These are the issues. The issues are not "protecting small markets" or $300 million in losses or competitive imbalance.

The issue is whether we want a system that rewards the good or a system that rewards the lucky. Put that to the fans honestly. Let's hear Bettman describe how his new system will work. His vision of the league. Let's hear what hockey fans have to say about that vision.
You are tellin gme that with team in bankruptcy that the issue should be protecting dynasties? Thats mind boggling.

At what point should the owners talk about $300 million dollar losses? At what point does teams going bankrupt become an issue?

Do you really think the economical issues have nothing to do with dynasties and mediocrity?

My definition or mediocrity is MLB look how many team are forced to be mediocre because they dont have owners with deep enough pockets.

My definition of boring is knowing what teams will be competitive every year. My definition of boring is knowing teams that I would root for have no chance of ever winning. My definition of boring is knowing there are teams forced into being no better then mediocre.

No the issue that needs to be discussed is how to make every team profitable. How to make sure everyteam can give its fans to see a winner. Who cares about dynasties if I know my team can never have one?

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
12-09-2003, 04:43 AM
  #54
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
I think every team does have an equal chance to be a powerhouse. The problem is with perceptions, not reality. The problem is that it is really hard to become a powerhouse and most efforts fail. When they fail, you start over by unloading your veterans for kids. It is the only way you can acquire enough young players - a clump of them to form the core of a Champion - to win.
Do really think every team has a chance to become a powerhouse?

The Penguins would seem to kill that statement. THey were in the conference finals in 2001. They needed only 2 maybe 3 solid defensemen to become a powerhouse. Yet they traded away all their talent for money reasons?

Is that problem real or perceived?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The real problem or the perceived problem? The perceived problem is that small market teams are disadvantaged. I think Ottawa and Vancouver and Colorado demonstrate that this is not true. I also think Nashville is going to be another example. I picked them to be my surprise team of the year .
The real problem isnt "small markets". The problem is owners independent wealth.

By mentioning Ottawa you show the problem. Ottawa was in trouble. They got a rich owner and now everything is fine. Why couldnt the team be successful under the old ownership? What has changed in Ottawa to allow the new ownership to keep the team together?

Independent wealth.

The NHL needs to keep independent wealth out of the equation. The teams should only be spending money the team generates. If they dont make enough fine they have to go. But to tell me a team like the Penguins should fold, with the only reason they dont have money is because the owner isnt rich enough, I dont think thats the way it should be.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
12-09-2003, 06:38 AM
  #55
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
The real problem isnt "small markets". The problem is owners independent wealth.

By mentioning Ottawa you show the problem. Ottawa was in trouble. They got a rich owner and now everything is fine. Why couldnt the team be successful under the old ownership? What has changed in Ottawa to allow the new ownership to keep the team together?

Independent wealth.
If you're ignorant about something you really should keep quiet about it instead of babbling on about it and demonstrating your ignorance.

The Ottawa Senators are a profitable operation that had been buried under accumulated debt. The mountain of debt finally toppled over and Bryden couldn't get the government to dig his way out of it.

The debt is gone. The new owner is making millions.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-09-2003, 08:16 AM
  #56
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
Do really think every team has a chance to become a powerhouse?
Yes.

Quote:
The Penguins would seem to kill that statement. THey were in the conference finals in 2001. They needed only 2 maybe 3 solid defensemen to become a powerhouse. Yet they traded away all their talent for money reasons?
Plus a goaltender. Yep, add four good players to the Pittsburgh Penguins in 2001 and they are a powerhouse. But they have no legitimate way to get those four players. That is miles away.

An average team will have six good players. A powerhouse has ten. The Penguins had six. They were a little above average because the six players were so good. Johann Hedberg got as hot as a pistol, God dropped everything else and they made the Conference Finals. It was a shock.

Lemieux, Darius, Kovalev, Straka, Jagr and Lang were all at the wrong points of their careers. None of them were improving. All are about to enter a decline. Mario already was in decline.

So all Pittsburgh had to do was find four good players and keep Mario healthy. Plus Kovalev, Kasparaitus, Jagr, Straka, and Lang had to keep playing great even though they were approaching the age when players don't keep playing great. (None of those players have played as well since.)

This team was a loser. It was going nowhere. It was about to get expensive. An expensive winner is a money maker. A cheap loser is a money maker. An expensive loser is a money loser.

You are the owner of the Pittsburgh Penguins in 2001 and you can imagine a Stanley Cup? You can imagine the Penguins competing with the Avalanche or the Senators or the Canucks in 2003?

That's ridiculous. This is a no-brainer. The reality is that you are about to become an expensive loser. It is time to rebuild. It is time to become a cheap, young loser. Even if you are a billionaire who is desperate to win and prepared to lose money, you are crazy not to rebuild. You won't find four good players before Mario is done. You won't find four players before the others have to be replaced.

The only way you can get the four good players before the others get too old is a) buy them as free agents or 2) Trade prospects and draft picks for them.

Obviously both are stupid choices whether you are Pittsburgh or the New York Rangers. Facing the same situation, the Rangers have been making the stupid choice for six years. As a result, they are in exactly the same place as they were six years ago. They've spent a fortune on salaries to go nowhere. They have no prospects left. They are old and expensive and mediocre.

How many players are the Rangers away from being a powerhouse? Poor Pittsburgh. Oh boo-hoo. Under this CBA they can't afford to become old, expensive and mediocre. Oh boo-hoo.

Aren't the Rangers lucky? They never have to rebuild.

Tom


Last edited by Tom_Benjamin: 12-09-2003 at 08:38 AM.
Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-09-2003, 10:48 AM
  #57
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDaddyMeatWhistle
If you're ignorant about something you really should keep quiet about it instead of babbling on about it and demonstrating your ignorance.

The Ottawa Senators are a profitable operation that had been buried under accumulated debt. The mountain of debt finally toppled over and Bryden couldn't get the government to dig his way out of it.

The debt is gone. The new owner is making millions.
So a team that couldnt make payroll and was trying to get the government to dig it out was a cash cow?

Wow I thought I was ignorant.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
12-09-2003, 11:07 AM
  #58
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
So a team that couldnt make payroll and was trying to get the government to dig it out was a cash cow?

Wow I thought I was ignorant.

You are ignorant.

I could have a cash cow of a job paying me $1M a year but if I'm putting all my purchases on my credit card while only making the minimium payment each month, eventually I'll have have to find a way out of the debt.

If I'm Rod Bryden my options are:

1) Get the government to give me money to pay down my debt
2) Get the government to give me a tax ruling where I can sell my debt to wealthy investors as a tax shelter
3) File for bankruptcy protection

After the debt is gone, I'm still making $1M a year and things are good.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-09-2003, 02:07 PM
  #59
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
Do you have any proof that NFL games are being fixed?
Of course not. We'd never hear about it anyway if it did happen. I'm saying that huge dollars are there and 20% of NFL players have been charged with a serious crime. If a few NFL players are murderers and rapists who is to say a few aren't willing to make a few harmless bets and miss a tackle or two? Forty years ago, the NFL had a betting scandal with Hornung and Karras. You don't even wonder about it when that late, dubious pass interference call prevents a team from covering the spread?

It doesn't happen? It can't happen?

Quote:
I dont know why you keep bringing up the WWE (not WWF the name was changed). They dont claim to be a sport so how can you compare them to a sport? Sounds like grasping at straws.
I'm not comparing them to a sport. I'm comparing them to the NFL. I can't tell the difference. WWE, WWF, NFL, XFL, all the same right? Go, Vince McMahon, go. They are weekly TV shows. They build to a big moment, just like Survivor. Football is easily the most profitable of the trashsports because you can get a bet down on the game, but it is clearly trashsport.

Canada gave the world the sport called hockey. Today it is played everywhere it is cold. Mostly it is played for fun, but there are also professional leagues all over the world. The United States gave the world baseball and it has spread widely.

The United States also gave the world American football and the world said "No, thanks." Imagine football at the Olympics! LOL.

Quote:
No the issue that needs to be discussed is how to make every team profitable.
This is not our problem. If teams want to fold, they can fold. They never do.

Quote:
How to make sure everyteam can give its fans to see a winner.
This is impossible no matter what the system. There are 30 teams and one Cup. Unless you make it like wrestling! Then you can make sure every fan gets to see a winner! Just take turns! We will all pretend the games are real! Even this will suck too, though, won't it? Who goes first? Who should have to wait 30 years? How to make sure every team can give its fans a winner. What a joke.

What does that have to do with which organizations are managed the best, which organizations find the best young players and which organizations play the best hockey? That's the team I want to see win the Stanley Cup. Every time. Even if that organization is never in Vancouver.

Quote:
Who cares about dynasties if I know my team can never have one?
Real hockey fans.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-11-2003, 11:27 AM
  #60
Terrier
Registered User
 
Terrier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Waltham, MA
Posts: 2,581
vCash: 500
True Fans Want The Oilers To Stay

I'm a Boston Bruins fan here in New England, but I'm an avid enough hockey fan to know that Edmonton needs to stay in the NHL. They play one of the best brands of hockey in the league, on the best ice, in front of some of the best fans around. What's ruined hockey is this Sun Belt mentality that has given us an unmanageable number of teams and taken the whole NHL product downhill. I happen to enjoy tuning in the late HNIC game in a bar after attending a hockey game. What true hockey fan wouldn't want to tune in a playoff game from Rexall Place? If, after the CBA shakeout, there is hockey in Nashville and Houston but not in Edmonton, then I'll know the league has gone to hell in a handbasket.

Terrier is offline  
Old
12-11-2003, 01:05 PM
  #61
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
Its funny if you look at the arguments for parity people site the NFL which has benefited greatly from parity. Interest is up, revenue is up. Parity has not made the league boring or unexciting. I really think people that dont like the NFL today, for the most part, have never liked it.

The arguments against parity are just opinion. I dont like it. I want to see dynasties, as if watching the same team win 4 years in a row is more exciting then watching a different team every year. The NFL is mediocre and boring.

Nobody ever gives examples, based on fact, of how parity has hurt the NFL. Attendance isnt down, the tv contract inst in jeopardy, revenue isnt down. Nothing can be said except I dont like it.
I dont think the NFL has benefitted from parity or raised its revenues because of it. It was always popular. If they made players wear purple tails, it would still be popular. The cap level has been rising each year and is scheduled to disappear isnt it. The next TV cotract is not expected to be as lucrative.

I posted this on this thread

From the article: Anyway NFL slices it, Parity means mediocrity

Quote:
Originally Posted by RANDY GALLOWAY Knight Ridder News service
The National Football League has broken new ground in the area of marketing. At least I've never heard of a billion-dollar corporation that sells itself with a consumer campaign of "If you want mediocrity, buy us."

Then again, give credit here for truth in advertising.

If you mouse around on geek-net these days, what you find is a familiar theme being repeated in various NFL cities.

Concessions of football mediocrity are rampant by players, coaches and media.

The basic message is:
"OK, we're not so good, but that makes us a playoff contender."
It's true too.

Ugly is as ugly does. Flip on a TV any Sunday. Ninety-nine percent of the games have a face a mother couldn't love.

"It's a .500 league," Campo said Tuesday at Valley Ranch. Campo actually meant that as a compliment, even for a guy who had a coaching hand in the Cowboys' dynasty days, when the games and the teams were much, much different.

It's difficult these days to disagree with the opinions that the NFL has never been worse from top to bottom.

"But instead of being negative, instead of just saying it's bad football, the fans should be positive about what they are seeing," Campo said. "Every team has a chance to go to the playoffs. It's as competitive as I've ever seen the league."

Yeah, but Dave, c'mon man.

"Like I said, I'm not going to say it's bad," Campo answered. "It's just different, that's all."

"It's parity, that's what it is," Campo said. What it really is, is a combo of salary cap and free agency, but why bicker? Parity is just a fancy word for mediocrity.

"A couple of elite teams, with everybody else about the same," Campo said of the NFL. "But the difference in everyone, including those at the top, is not much. The best teams all have their holes.
"So, what separates a winning team from a losing team in each game is basically a couple of plays, provided you don't have a bunch of turnovers."

"From a coaching standpoint, it's more difficult this way because you are asking your players to be emotionally peaked for all 16 games," Campo said. "Anyone who follows this league knows that has always been impossible. But there is no week anymore where you can let emotion slide. You used to win games simply because you were better than a certain opponent. Now you have to have the emotional peak every week."

There is the legitimate argument that making the playoffs would signify nothing, particularly for a club like the Cowboys. So what if you're only going to be first-round fodder.

"In the playoffs, "anything" can happen," Campo argued, strongly.

See there - mediocrity is just another fancy word for hope. In today's NFL, hope is what they sell.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 06:45 AM
  #62
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
I dont think the NFL has benefitted from parity or raised its revenues because of it. It was always popular. If they made players wear purple tails, it would still be popular. The cap level has been rising each year and is scheduled to disappear isnt it. The next TV cotract is not expected to be as lucrative.
Parity sure hasnt hurt the popularity of the game. Its making more and more money as other sports like baseball and hockey continue to see dips in attendance.

Purple tails have nothing to do with anything. Yes the cap level tends to rise every year which means the league is making more money. Where did you hear the cap is scheduled to disappear?

I have no idea where you get the notion the next tv contract will not be as lucrative. The league is already starting talks. All signs point to more money.

You can make the point all you want that popularity has nothing to do with quality. But I would suggest that if something is more popular wouldnt you think more people think it is better quality? Quality is purely a matter of opinion in this case. Lets not kid ourselve into thinking the NFL or NHL are not businesses. I say make as many teams competitive as possible because thats how you create greater interest and make more money.

The feeling I get from most people that critize the NFL, especially on a hockey board, is that those people have never liked football, and wouldnt like it salary cap or no. I like NFL football, if you want to discuss pros and cons fine but dont try to make me feel stupid for liking it.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
12-25-2003, 07:23 PM
  #63
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mariano
Canada is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the NHL. Canadian are now half the players, but a large percentage of these are the goons and grinders. They could easily be replaced by reral players, except for the Canadian good old boy, Don Cherry loving attitude that permeates the league. Not only does the NHL not need Canadian teams, it might be better off without them.
Canada is becoming increasingly more relevant to the NHL. The dollar is higher, revenues are up, PPV could be the way of the future and Canada is far more willing to shell out for PPV then the US.

Oh and the NHL would be a lot better place without guys like Heatley, Spezza, Lecavalier, Richards, Comrie, Luongo, Bouwmeester, Nash, Fleury, Thornton, Stuart, Jackman, Hartnell, Williams, Weiss, Horton, Staal, Burns, Tanguay, Gagne, Marleau, Brewer, etc.

I don't know if it would be possible to make a more misinformed statement.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-25-2003, 07:56 PM
  #64
Youreallygotme
Registered User
 
Youreallygotme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kelowna BC
Posts: 2,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mariano
What tradition. They are about 25 years old. If you think that's tradition, then you must be a child.

And exactly why does does the NHL NEED Canadian franchises? For what? They can get along quite nicely without them, although that will never happen since Toronto is the richest team in the NHL.

Canada is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the NHL. Canadian are now half the players, but a large percentage of these are the goons and grinders. They could easily be replaced by reral players, except for the Canadian good old boy, Don Cherry loving attitude that permeates the league. Not only does the NHL not need Canadian teams, it might be better off without them.
OH yea.....And seeing as you can get along without the canadian franchises.....heres a reality check: Americans dont watch hockey. Americans dont care for hockey. They care for bowling, Football, racing, Almost every sport but hockey. hockey fans are the minority in the U.S.

In canada, maybe 40-50% of people are hockey fans. Thats where they get all the ratings. So go on. Go on without us. See how you do! And by the way, we'll just take back Lemieux, pronger, brodeur, Thornton, Allison, Bouwmeeester, M.A. Fleury, Shanahan, Yzerman, Staal, O'niell, Legwand, Hartnell, Marleau, Gigeure(pretty well nearly all the goalies)and all those unneeded grinders i havent mentioned. Oh and we'll take crosby too! Still doing well? how about afterwe take back all the coaches, GMs, Scouts, all canadian hockey people. Getting a little thin there? No? Still doing well? Ok: take away all the canadian hockey fans living in the U.S. uh oh. that did it. NO??? well I'm shocked. have a nice time with your little "league"!!! Oh and we get the stanley cup too.

Of course this is irrelevant, Canadians dont make a difference to hockey. Don Cherry is corrupting the whole NHL!

Next thing youll tell me is that the Bettman/Goodenow era has been good for hockey. HMMMMMMMM What should i say to that?

Edit: Read the post above mine^ to see a full list of players that you really can do without.


Last edited by Youreallygotme: 12-25-2003 at 08:05 PM.
Youreallygotme is offline  
Old
12-25-2003, 08:02 PM
  #65
Youreallygotme
Registered User
 
Youreallygotme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kelowna BC
Posts: 2,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
I think every team does have an equal chance to be a powerhouse. The problem is with perceptions, not reality. The problem is that it is really hard to become a powerhouse and most efforts fail. When they fail, you start over by unloading your veterans for kids. It is the only way you can acquire enough young players - a clump of them to form the core of a Champion - to win.

The correct decision - unloading Weight or Straka - looks awful from the marketing side, but it is all perception.



The real problem or the perceived problem? The perceived problem is that small market teams are disadvantaged. I think Ottawa and Vancouver and Colorado demonstrate that this is not true. I also think Nashville is going to be another example. I picked them to be my surprise team of the year .

The real problem is that New York can't rebuild - the fans insist on the latest free agent - so they can't win. That is bad for the NHL. You can't buy a winner, but fans don't believe that, so they insist on spending. The only easy way to solve this problem is to structure the league so the Rangers can win without going through the pain Pittsburgh fans are enduring today. It took Nashville five hard years to become my surprise team this year.

The other real problem is that a league with 30 teams has to have 29 losers. In the 1980's we only had 20 losers. In the 1970's we had 13 losers. In the 1960's we only had five losers. I objected to expansion for this reason. I don't think dilution matters on the player side. The talent pool is too big.

But I wanted to win more than I wanted John McCaw to make $20 million in expansion fees. The hidden cost of expansion is that expansion teams are only lousy for a few years. Ten years ago the Canucks had a 1 in 20 chance of being the next dynasty. Today it is one in 30. That's a huge difference.

Nothing short of contraction can be done about this last problem. I don't think that is fair to fans in the cities to be contracted. Fans have to learn how hard it is to win. Teams have to learn to sell hockey rather than hope for a Stanley Cup. The entertainment value has to go up.

While I don't favour contraction, I have no problem with teams failing because fans won't endure long periods of losing. I've been waiting 45 years for my first Cup. (I was a Red Wing fan before the Canucks existed.) I think there is zero chance Oiler fans will quit on the NHL even if you told them they could never be any better. They would hang in there even if the league was not fair and their only hope was a fluke run. Oiler fans love hockey too much to bail just because the team can't win in the short run. If they are not willing to be as patient in, say, Florida, fine. The team fails.

The NHL wants to solve the problem by eliminating dynasties with a salary cap. By conceding earlier free agency to get the cap, they will allow the Rangers to get younger players as free agents and hopefully be able to compete without rebuilding.

They also solve the perceptual problem of too many teams by eliminating dynasties and increasing the player movement. Nothing really changes but the perception. Instead of having a one in 30 chance of becoming the next dynasty, teams will have a one in 30 chance of catching lightning in a bottle and actually winning a Cup.

If nothing changes, my experience - 45 years and no Cup - will not be unusual. Heck, no matter what, my experience will not be unusual. Even if every team starts every year with an equal chance to win, random chance would not provide 30 different winners in 30 years. We will still have many fans in my boat although not nearly as many as they would if nothing changes.

What the NHL will get is poorer hockey for better optics. I don't like the tradeoff.

Tom
good post but....colorado has filthy rich owners. they are not included. And i think youre a bit off base with another thing - You need to go through a LOT of losing to do a little winning. Vancouver didnt just pop out of nowhere, neither did those formerly AWFUL senators. And even with an EXTREMELY disciplined rebuilding effort those teams cant pull it off. If they do, the NHL may just change. If the senators won the cup a couple times, the nhl would change. Teams follow what it takes to win. Thats why i think if everybody followed the senators/nucks model it would be a better league.

Youreallygotme is offline  
Old
12-27-2003, 11:23 AM
  #66
Jets4Life
Registered User
 
Jets4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 634
vCash: 500
hell no!

The Oilers should never fold. If they did, the NHL would essentially be erasing all memories of the the 80's.

Jets4Life is offline  
Old
01-01-2004, 06:07 PM
  #67
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Wow, Tom Benjamin...fanhome is just rolling on in here! Might explain why that place has the feel of a house full of teenagers with the parents gone for a week on the infrequent occasions that I drop by there.

I have a point to make about the Oilers that I have yet to see made on this thread. For those of you who don't know, Tom was a pretty respected member on fanhome, and has consistently held that there isn't much wrong with the NHL's financial structure, and that Edmonton in particular should just eat it. If the Oilers fans don't want to pay the same money that the fans in other cities are willing to pay, we should just eat it. I apologize if I've mischaracterized it, but that seems to be what it has been to me.

The problem I have with this is that everyone in Canada subsidizes NHL teams, and in particular the Toronto Maple Leafs. One of the Oilers major problems as a franchise is that they simply don't have the corporate head offices in Edmonton who can buy and write off tickets. Its more difficult to comment on America, as I am less familiar with the set up of their country, but all Canadians know that in many ways Canada is a series of branch offices, with head office in Toronto.

Hell, even just look at the ownership of the teams. The Ontario Teacher's Pension Fund, who own the Leafs, was able to purchase them with before-tax dollars. Our guys in Edmonton had to come up with after tax dollars. Everyone in Canada pays as the pension fund gets to defer taxes. What is so wrong with saying, no, I want revenue sharing, because I don't think I should have to support the Leafs with my tax dollars without being able to have an NHL team somewhere close to my home. I really hope that if the NHL sells out the small market franchises, and we see three of them go down, there is a lot of pressure on politicians to end tax writeoffs for sport-why should we pay for them, if there is nothing in it for us? Why should we pay for them period, to be honest, but if I have to support the Leafs, there damn well better be an Oilers.

mudcrutch79 is offline  
Old
01-02-2004, 09:49 AM
  #68
rabi_sultan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, England
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,782
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to rabi_sultan Send a message via AIM to rabi_sultan Send a message via MSN to rabi_sultan Send a message via Yahoo to rabi_sultan
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowetide
It's a tough question to answer. I think the best solution is to have divisions ala English football.
This won't work either, in fact it will make things worse. Why pay to see a lower division team than a higher division team, also after a few years all the teams with the big $$$ will be in the higher divisions meaning that the less $$$ teams have less talent to show off and won't even be visited by the teams in the higher divisions since there is no need to play a lower division team. This will reduce national coverage which in turn will reduce the coroporate support, sponshorship and merchandising.

No in fact one of the best solutions i can think of as a short term meaasure is that the NHL should allow small market clubs ONLY no large market clubs the chance to put one sponsor's logo on the jersey, no need ot turn into formula one but one more like the European soccer leagues where there is only the one logo on the jersey.

rabi_sultan is offline  
Old
01-02-2004, 11:49 AM
  #69
rabi_sultan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, England
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,782
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to rabi_sultan Send a message via AIM to rabi_sultan Send a message via MSN to rabi_sultan Send a message via Yahoo to rabi_sultan
in regards to Tom Benjamin's as best said by mudcrutch
Quote:
Tom was a pretty respected member on fanhome, and has consistently held that there isn't much wrong with the NHL's financial structure, and that Edmonton in particular should just eat it. If the Oilers fans don't want to pay the same money that the fans in other cities are willing to pay, we should just eat it.
now no offence Tom coz you made some stellar points earler. BUT

You are being silly if you think that. Why do I say that? because it simply goes against every single basic economic theory that was created. why am i saying that? because every market's supply and demand levels are different regardless if it is the same product. If this, like you are saying, isn't a factor and that the local public should just "eat it" well it wont work they will just reject the good and bye bye Edmonton Oilers. and of course I'm not just talking the Edmonton Oilers you can throw in any number of small market teams in the same situation.

So we are doing as you said earlier letting small markets go to their death beds. hmm ok nice plan let's look at this situation NOT from the fans POV as basically at the end of the day we don't form any part of the equation, the NHL can field crap and we'll still watch it coz its hockey. Instead the real people to discuss about are the private investors/owners of the teams.

This leads onto each team having a different client structure as well, as somebody mentioned in Canada you have head office toronto branch offices everywhere else, in other words corporate clients. heck could there be a reason why Edmonton has an international airport that is basically empty and vancouver has a much larger one? or that toronto's airport is huge?

so yeah those points all make a different to where things are affordable, this is also dictated by the local labour salary scales etc there are more richer people living in the Toronto / New York areas than there is in the Edmonton / Calgary areas. So by saying the Oilers should "eat it" is being extremely naive, the NHL should, no HAS, to look for a method that only brings the small market teams into an advantage a sort of heavy subsidy for them yet allow a dynasty to exist.

Tom the point you made of a expensive winner makes money, a cheap loser makes money but a expensive winner loses money hits home. A team like the Blues are basically trying to build a mediocre team and then buy the rest of their way through with overpaid talent, same with the Capitals. The difference between them and the Rangers is that the Rangers don't even have a mediocre team, without their hired talent they are worse than Pittsburgh. You need a team with a decent baseline and then added talent (someone said 10 stars, sounds about right tho i prefer 9) to become a powerhouse. The Devils are very good in this in that they may not have 10 stars more like 6 but have a very very good baseline and excellent coaching and scouting that allows them to build on top every year, which is why i cannot see the Devils ever having to make a true rebuild as they are always building every year.

rabi_sultan is offline  
Old
01-02-2004, 02:44 PM
  #70
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabi_sultan
You are being silly if you think that.
Well, I don't think that. If Mudcrutch believes that's what I've said, well, that's his problem. He doesn't actually believe it because he knows he has mischaracterizes my argument and he apologises in advance. I decided to accept the apology and pass on the rest.

I think all the small markets can compete in today's NHL. Including Edmonton.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
01-02-2004, 04:25 PM
  #71
FlyerFire
Registered User
 
FlyerFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,122
vCash: 500
i can't believe

this question is even being posed.i am an American and a Flyers fan.but please don't hold these against me lol .this is one of the most successful NHL franchises in history.i would never want the NHL to leave Edmonton and its awesome fans.they have all my respect as a fan.they compete hard every night against teams with payrolls near or over $70 mil US.and they do well-look at Ottawa recently.in fact i'd like to see some US franchises possibly move to other sites in Canada.i won't mention franchises but many are not doing well.even with decent budgets.for me -long live the Oil in EDMONTON.god bless you all.

FlyerFire is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 10:22 AM
  #72
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Well Tom, I guess we'll have to disagree in regards to what you have expressed in the past, but I have two questions for you.

1. Do you agree with the idea that "Edmonton fans should pay the same prices as other cities, in particular Toronto, if they want a budget of the same size?
2. Do you agree that the Maple Leafs are unfairly subsidized by tax policies in Canada?

If you agree with both of those, I don't see how you can tell me that revenue sharing isn't appropriate. The rest of the country is subsidizing hockey, and the Leafs are the beneficiaries of a massive portion of that. I'd be just as happy to see all tax benefits for hockey wiped out, but I don't think that's gonna happen, so I'll take what I can get. I still strongly feel that, because of the way in which the economy is set up in Canada, there is much more of a market in Toronto for $300 hockey tickets than there is in Edmonton, Calgary, or other Canadian cities. It's a result of the history of the country, but there should be an element of fiscal fairness, through revenue sharing. I'd take full revenue sharing and no salary cap in a heartbeat, although I recognize the difficulties associated with teams then deciding not to spend any money and just collect their cheques (Hello Kansas City Royals), but I believe that solutions can be found to that problem.

mudcrutch79 is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 02:39 PM
  #73
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudcrutch79
Well Tom, I guess we'll have to disagree in regards to what you have expressed in the past, but I have two questions for you.
My position has been expressed as clearly as I can express it. If we disagree about what I have written in the past, what hope is there for anything I say in the future?

Your questions? We'll just end up disagreeing about what I say in my answer anyway. Why don't you just make up something you can pretend I believe? That way we can skip right along to agreeing to disagree.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
01-09-2004, 08:16 PM
  #74
OYLer
Registered User
 
OYLer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Win Desperate & Mad!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
My position has been expressed as clearly as I can express it. If we disagree about what I have written in the past, what hope is there for anything I say in the future?

Your questions? We'll just end up disagreeing about what I say in my answer anyway. Why don't you just make up something you can pretend I believe? That way we can skip right along to agreeing to disagree.

Tom
Hey Tom, with your thumb stuck in your mouth, if you want to come talk with me, let's talk REALITY!

OYLer is offline  
Old
01-09-2004, 08:51 PM
  #75
OYLer
Registered User
 
OYLer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Win Desperate & Mad!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,703
vCash: 500
Live is a accident waiting to happen!

Crap is as crap does! The Americanization of hockey has done, almost irreparable damage, to the game of hockey. The idiocy of penalizing, a diving call, continues to make me want to puke! Yes, I'm Canadian, and no I'm not interested in watching - Bowling, or NoiseyCar, or "As the Stomach Turns!" Yes, we Canadians' might have invented basketball, but we never envisioned boredom executed by a team of players, who would all lick the rim before they disappointed us and themselves with a lack of sportsmanship.

OYLer 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 10:24 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.