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.

You can see why NHL Players don't want NFL type deal

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-04-2004, 11:36 AM
  #26
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
Oh really? I ask the question again, who can afford a dynasty? Look at a team like Atlanta right now. They are building a very good team. At some point they are going to get hit with some high contracts. At current contract levels it isnt impossible to see Kovalchuk, Heatly, Lehtonen, and Coburn taking up 35-40 million in payroll. Thats a lot of money for 4 players. So now Atlanta has to jetison players because they cannot afford them.

Something has to be done. I think a soft cap that allows some way for teams to keep its own draft choices would be the best solution.

Dynasties are definitely possible in today's NHL. Its a little harder with 30 teams but possible. The near dynasties we see right now are good evidence for it.

I will agree that if a cap of some sort is put in place it will have to be a soft cap. But I worry that something like that will increase the difference between the haves and have nots. A team like the New York Rangers can afford a big bucks payroll (if they decide its in their best interest to do so) and pay any luxory taxes or what not in doing it. A smaller market cannot and would have to jettison players - likely to the larger markets - and likely at higher rates then is done now since there would be one more mechanism to force their hands.

I am not sure I buy your premise that "Something has to be done." Why does something have to be done? Specifically what problem will it solve by doing something?

CH is offline  
Old
03-04-2004, 11:40 AM
  #27
David Puddy
Registered User
 
David Puddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
Ladies and gentlemen Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig...the Marlins beat the Yankees in last years World Series so that proves baseball has no problems what so ever. The NHL should keep their current CBA and be exactly like MLB.
Big deal - the Yankees have won 4 of the last 8 World Series Championships. They have also made it to and lost two addition times.

You mentioned the Florida Marlins, but they won in 1997 with a "for hire" team. They also increased payroll and added a few veterans last year to go along with young quality pitching (which is very affordable.)

The thing that I find interesting about the Yankees is the team tried to buy the World Series in the mid to late 1980's using the same model the New York Rangers are currently using (or were using up until three days ago) - go out and get some home run hitters, baseball's version of the goal scorer, but not much pitching, which translates nicely to goaltending.

The Yankees finally fixed their system by the mid-90's and became a force, a true dynasty. The Yankees might struggle with their pitching staff this season, so they will start raiding the staffs of KC, Toronto and the like by midseason.

David Puddy is offline  
Old
03-04-2004, 12:30 PM
  #28
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
At current contract levels it isnt impossible to see Kovalchuk, Heatly, Lehtonen, and Coburn taking up 35-40 million in payroll.
But that's more then 10 years down the road from now. If the Thrashers have won the Cup and been a contender since then, they should have no problem paying those salaries just like Colorado could do so for Forsberg, Sakic, Blake and Roy.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
03-04-2004, 01:55 PM
  #29
HckyFght*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HckyFght*
First of all, there's only one way the NHL is ever going to get a network deal. That is when the average NHL team can compete with network programming on nights when the team is on TV in its local market. So, when the Caps, or the Thrashers, or Devils, or Sharks, are beating or competing with netowrk programming in their area, then, and only then, will the networks sit up and take notice. All the glow pucks, rules changes for more scoring, or the abolition of physical play so that soccer moms will let the kids watch, are stupid, ruinous ideas that have only chased away regular customers at a greater rate than the casual fans those changes were engineered to attract.

Dynasties? John Madden, speaking about the NFL last season, said that the quality of NFL play was "the worst I have ever seen," and that "it will never be as good as it was." Reason? Free agency. Teams simply cannot stay together long enough to be good. The NHLPA has been eroding free agency constraints in the NHL over the years and wants to lower the age of free agency even more. It should be restored to the age of 32 so teams can retain players long enough to make a long run at the cup. As it is, teams like the Lighning, or Senators, who build their teams the old fashioned way through the draft, augmenting their rosters with trades and the odd free agent, can keep their teams together just long enough to get good, then must sell off those players when their salary demands become prohibitive.

Lock the players out, replace them on the ice until the union comes to its senses!
-HckyFght!

HckyFght* is offline  
Old
03-04-2004, 01:56 PM
  #30
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
Dynasties are definitely possible in today's NHL. Its a little harder with 30 teams but possible. The near dynasties we see right now are good evidence for it.
Near dynasties provide no proof. They only show a team with enough money can keep a great team together.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
I will agree that if a cap of some sort is put in place it will have to be a soft cap. But I worry that something like that will increase the difference between the haves and have nots. A team like the New York Rangers can afford a big bucks payroll (if they decide its in their best interest to do so) and pay any luxory taxes or what not in doing it. A smaller market cannot and would have to jettison players - likely to the larger markets - and likely at higher rates then is done now since there would be one more mechanism to force their hands.
I would worry about a luxury tax system also. A luxury tax system isnt the same as a salary cap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
I am not sure I buy your premise that "Something has to be done." Why does something have to be done? Specifically what problem will it solve by doing something?
Whats the need to be specific?

This is just the way I see it. Salary cap with revenue sharing = keeping all teams. Continuing current CBA = contracting teams that cant afford to compete.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
03-04-2004, 02:14 PM
  #31
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HckyFght
Dynasties?
Good question.

You see a lot of people saying "I love dynasties", "we need dynasties", "real hockey fans want dynasties", "salary caps destroy dynasties". Why are dynasties the issue?

This is the business of hockey board not the I love dynasties board. The NHL needs to do what is best for business.

Sure loads of hardcore fans love to see dynasties. But casual fans love to see teams compete. The hardcore fans will show up no matter what. The casual fans will not.

Should the NHL really keep things the way they are possibly having to contract, move or fold teams with the hope someone will build a dynasty? Is it worth risking whole franchises hoping for something that might happen a once a decade? Something that didnt happen in the 90's and doesnt look to be happening any time soon?

I cant imagine a league full of mediocre teams playing any more mediocre hockey then what I have watched the last few seasons.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
03-04-2004, 03:42 PM
  #32
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
Good question.

You see a lot of people saying "I love dynasties", "we need dynasties", "real hockey fans want dynasties", "salary caps destroy dynasties". Why are dynasties the issue?

This is the business of hockey board not the I love dynasties board. The NHL needs to do what is best for business.

Sure loads of hardcore fans love to see dynasties. But casual fans love to see teams compete. The hardcore fans will show up no matter what. The casual fans will not.
Nice rant about a strawman position I doubt anybody holds.

A salary cap that is low enough to have any teeth prevents very good teams from staying together. Teams that are not good enough to be dynasties but are still very good. Teams that qualify as "almost dynasties" like Detroit and Colorado would never have stayed together as long as they have with a salary cap in place. And that is a real shame. The good playoff series we saw between Detroit and Colorado would not have happened.

Do casual fans like a scenario where there is increased player movement as teams struggle to stay under salary caps? That is not obvious to me. I think they would dislike it. That comes with your scenario where teams compete. I am not convinced that casual fans are any more likely to come to a game with a salary cap then without. You would need to back up this statement or else retract it. Can you support this statement somehow?

The nightmare scenario that a salary cap could cause is one where there is practically no difference between the best team in the NHL and the worst one. There arew no more exciting games when the top teams come to town. Each game is effectively a coin toss. The only people who benefit from that run gambling operations. Imagine a situation where the Stanley Cup finals each year are a battle between two teams that are today's equivalent of Nashville and the New York Islanders. Does that excite you? In a league where the salary cap is low enough to have teeth every team would be another Nashville or Islanders. There would be no good and no bad - just lots of average. If anybody got to be good they wouldn't be able to afford to keep their team. If anybody got to be bad they could pick up the players available that the good teams could not afford. I cannot imagine this situation having any drawing power to casual fans that doesn't exist today.

Of course that is a nightmare scenario. Its possible to have a leaky soft salary cap. Its possible to have a salary cap that is so high that effectively it doesnt exist. It is possible to have a luxory tax. All come with their own benefits and problems. I remain agnostic here. I am not convinced that the current CBA causes any serious problems to the NHL that require major changes to it. If teams are losing money quit signing expensive free agents. If the problem is a lack of TV deal I dont see how a CBA can solve it at all. If the problem is some kind of alleged disparity between the have and have not teams somebody better be able to explain why the New York Rangers were selling players to the Edmonton Oilers as recently as last night.

The problem as best I can understand it is the NHL owners see a chance to increase profits by creating a crisis to force through a salary cap. Nobody has clearly defined what they want to accomplish with a new CBA. Gary Bettman steers clear of defining problems. He likes to make statements that the NHL has many problems that we are all aware of (without attempting to name them). I think for a large part that is because the owners cannot agree on what the problems are. If Gary Bettman made a clear statement like X is the number one problem with the NHL today then he'd have half the league's owners calling for his head. Until we define the problem we cannot solve it.

As a hockey fan I want to see as much exciting hockey as I can. The number one thing that can hurt my chances to do this is a lockout. No more NHL hockey for its duration. So I am against a lockout (or strike). Right now I am seeing lots of exiciting hockey. There are great games every night. I cannot wait until the playoffs begin. I'm sure it will get turned up a notch and get even more exciting when that happens.

I see that there are new teams that are ready to make serious runs at the Stanley Cup. Ottawa and Tampa Bay are buying players for their cup runs when they have historically been non-participants. Thats good. New blood is good. You cannot tell me small markets cannot compete when you see that. Naturally you cannot have new contenders without old contenders falling back to make room. Thats happening in Dallas and St Louis (for example). The big market teams are learning that you cannot win without producing young talent. Even the New York Rangers are selling at the deadline. That is evidence to me that this CBA is pretty fair. Spending money is not going to win it all. You must develop young talent either by draft or by trading for it before it matures (ie Naslund and Bertuzzi in Vancouver). I dont see the problem here.

Is this a perfect system? No. Nothing is perfect. It is a very good system. Be careful fixing that which isnt broken - you might break it. That is my biggest worry about the new CBA. It may break the system. It may hurt the competitive balance in the league.

Could this system cause teams to fold or move? It hasn't caused any folding yet. Only one NHL team has folded since the depression era (Cleveland Barons - they actually merged with Minnesota but it left one less team so that is the same thing effectively). So folding NHL teams does not seem like a real problem. Maybe if 1 or 2 fold it might be time to rethink that. Teams moving is a realistic possibility. It happened a few times in the 90s. If there is a team now in a market that cannot support a team that is probably the best option. Its better than weakening the rest of the league so that everyone is on the level of that team - which is what is what most suggestions I have heard attempt to do. Teams havent moved for almost 10 years, so I am not sure how big a risk it actually is. I think the league should actively prevent teams from moving when they are doing fine where they are (Minnesota North Stars -> Dallas), but if it turns out that hockey in Carolina or Phoenix cannot draw then why not let them start again in Houston for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
I cant imagine a league full of mediocre teams playing any more mediocre hockey then what I have watched the last few seasons.
Then I dont think you have been watching the same games I have. Sure some games are Chicago at Minnesota and have no impact on anything so they are hard to keep interest, but most are not. Almost every game is exciting for one reason or another and the playoffs are still to come!

If you think hockey is giving you mediocre games then maybe you are not a hockey fan. I think your presense on this board might say otherwise. I think most likely you enjoy complaining. Complaining about hockey makes you happy. That opinion is far more widespread than I can understand.


Last edited by CH: 03-04-2004 at 04:08 PM.
CH is offline  
Old
03-04-2004, 03:44 PM
  #33
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
This is just the way I see it. Salary cap with revenue sharing = keeping all teams. Continuing current CBA = contracting teams that cant afford to compete.
Easy call. If teams want to fold, let 'em go. If teams want to compete, let 'em stay. Nobody outside of Alberta will give a damn if the Edmonton owners think they can do better in the AHL. Most fans want to see a smaller league anyway. Let the market get rid of the teams in minor league cities.

Let the rest of us enjoy NHL hockey. Why pretend we care about Edmonton? The world didn't end when Winnipeg and Quebec moved. It won't end if Edmonton folds either. What's the downside? Oiler fans will learn to like the AHL.

Maybe the owners want to see that happen. A long lockout is supposed to sink some franchises anyway. We don't have to pick six teams for contraction. We can let the teams that want to commit suicide go.

Player salaries will surely drop because demand drops. Then the owners will drop the ticket prices for the rest of us because everybody knows it is high salaries that cause high ticket prices. Goodbye Edmonton and the rest of us get better hockey cheaper. Excellent idea all the way around. Win-win except for Oiler fans, but I'm not an Oiler fan. How many years was the league successful before they let minor league cities in? Let's turn back the clock. No more small markets unless they are willing to compete head to head with New York and their wallet. Make it a condition to enter the league.

Me, I think the owners are full of it and zero teams will go, and I think ticket prices have nothing to do with salaries, but everbody knows that's wrong. I agree with the idiot. On this choice, we have a very, very easy call. Contraction through a lockout? Why bother?

Let's contract by extending this CBA.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
03-04-2004, 03:57 PM
  #34
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
If you think hockey is giving you mediocre games then maybe you are not a hockey fan. I think your presense on this board might say otherwise. I think most likely you enjoy complaining. Complaining about hockey makes you happy. That opinion is far more widespread than I can understand.
Nice post. Vancouver-Colorado was a barn burner last night. Every single game Vancouver has played against a quality team this year has been great. In fact, the Canucks produce great entertainment almost every night. Even bottom feeders usually get up to play a good team. That's the best part of being a fan of a bottom feeder. (Canuck fans are experienced.) A great team still comes to town and the home side always plays their best against the best. If they get thumped, you enjoy watching the Sakics and Forsbergs do the thumping.

There are lots of matchups that matter only to the fans of the teams involved, and lots of them are mediocre because both teams are mediocre. Imagine the whole league like that!

Tom

NHL Weblog

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
03-06-2004, 03:17 PM
  #35
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Most fans want to see a smaller league anyway.
I guess thats just the real fans?

Forget dynasties. They are dead. Smaller league or no they arent coming back. Keep dreaming the impossible dream.

Real fans? Who are they? The NHL is a joke of a league. Gets beat by bowling.

Keep dreaming of your smaller league. Your dynasties that are never gonna happen . And after the cap is put in place real fans like you will still claim to be real fans. Cause of course real fans will stick around no matter what.

The sad thing is real fans dont really care about the NHL. They only care about old tyme hockey. They just want to go back to the old ways. Hockeys always been a regional sport after all.

The NHL is a business. They should do whats best for them. Not the so called real fans.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
03-06-2004, 03:24 PM
  #36
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Let's contract by extending this CBA.
Thats the sick thing Tommy. Real fans like you know the NHL is in trouble. They know extending the CBA will force some teams to fold.

They know the NHL cant continue under the current structure. But they long for the old days of fewer teams.

Understanding contraction isnt going to happen the real hockey fans argue that the teams are in no trouble. Theres no problem at all. Lets keep the current CBA. All the while knowing keeping the current CBA will get them to their goal of a smaller league.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
03-06-2004, 06:25 PM
  #37
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
Thats the sick thing Tommy. Real fans like you know the NHL is in trouble. They know extending the CBA will force some teams to fold.
I don't believe it will happen for one moment. But if it happens, it happens.

Quote:
Understanding contraction isnt going to happen the real hockey fans argue that the teams are in no trouble. Theres no problem at all. Lets keep the current CBA. All the while knowing keeping the current CBA will get them to their goal of a smaller league.
I'm just offering a good solution to the problems using the premises of the NHL and people like you. What problem are we trying to solve?

The logic is inescapable. A couple of teams fold and the league will be much healthier and fans will be much happier. Salaries and as a result, ticket prices will go down. Profits go up for the survivors. The quality of play will go up. If more than a couple teams fold, so much the better. Why do we favour a lockout and new system? I can understand that for fans of the bankrupt teams but sometimes the good of the many should take precedence over the good of the few.

I am absolutely not in favour of contraction. Let them go broke if they can't compete. Let them stay if they can. That's free enterprise. I'd never vote to shut anyone down. That's the owner's choice.

A few fans in small markets might be losers, but the league will be far healthier. Are you saying a smaller league would not be better? That the talent has not become badly diluted? Don't you agree that the NHL is a sick herd? So cull the herd like they do in every other industry. In other industries they don't try to prop of the failures when times turn tough. The failures get swallowed and disappear.

Give me one good reason why that shouldn't happen. Give me one good reason why Edmonton has to have a team in the NHL. Or Pittsburgh if Mario doesn't get his rink. Wouldn't it be great if Wirtz folded the Hawks and the team was replaced by another one with a real owner? He's losing his shirt, or so he says. He says he's getting out if things don't change. That would be bad? Why?

That's a clear message for any owner who thinks the business stinks. Get out. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Who needs them? The survivors will form a great league and everyone will be happy. That's one option.

The other option is a long lockout that perhaps leads to a stupid system that protects poorly run organizations from market forces. Who needs that when there is another far more attractive option?

Extend the existing CBA. If it causes teams to fold, good. If everyone survives, better. Win-win.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
03-06-2004, 08:23 PM
  #38
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
there's been disagreements on whether a cap will work or not, and it's led to some interesting convo on each side, fact of the matter si, no matter what the cap will be, the owners w/ deep pockets (nyr, col, det etc.) will still push the envelope and pay the luxury tax or what have you

it's also been mentioned that teams should be rewarded for drafting, this statement has mostly been agreed with, i'd even go so far as to say there should be a reward for keeping your players, the argument of how to reduce players' salaries without having a collusion suit slapped on the league is a tough one, and will probably be argued about til the new cba finally gets hammered out,

a few ideas have been floating around in my head, feel free to add opinions, suggestoins to make it more workable

I. REWARDING A TEAM FOR DRAFTING WELL

a drafted player's salary will not be factored as part of the cap for his first 3-5 years.
a player drafted by the club will have only part of his salary count towards the cap. (all years start after the 3 - 5 years has expired)
1 - 5 years 66 % toward cap
6 - 12 years 40 %
13 - 16 years 25 %
17 + years 15%

II. REWARDING A TEAM FOR KEEPING IT'S UFA'S (non drafted)
3 - 6 years 75 % toward the cap
6 - 10 years 45 %

garry1221 is offline  
Old
03-06-2004, 09:03 PM
  #39
tom_servo
Registered User
 
tom_servo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 11,014
vCash: 500
People never acknowledge that while small market teams can win every once in a while, it's almost impossible for them to remain competitive. God forbid a smaller team wins a Cup; in five years, three quarters of their players will be gone.

tom_servo is online now  
Old
03-06-2004, 10:14 PM
  #40
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_servo
People never acknowledge that while small market teams can win every once in a while, it's almost impossible for them to remain competitive. God forbid a smaller team wins a Cup; in five years, three quarters of their players will be gone.
How about providing an example of a small market team that won (once in a while) but found it impossible to remain competitive? I will acknowledge it if there was a shred of evidence that it is true. Provide some evidence that involves something that has actually happened. What you would imagine would happen if, say, Nashville wins the 2006 Stanley Cup, doesn't count.

Denver is not a big market. It is a non-traditional hockey market and the Avalanche have to compete with the Broncos, Nuggets and Rockies. Did they manage the nearly impossible?

The alternative explanation is that the Avalanche turn huge revenues because they are so good they sell out their arena every night at high prices, get tons of broadcast and sponsorship money, and get lots of playoff games. Why wouldn't that happen in Nashville too if they get that good?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
03-07-2004, 12:25 AM
  #41
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
How about providing an example of a small market team that won (once in a while) but found it impossible to remain competitive? I will acknowledge it if there was a shred of evidence that it is true. Provide some evidence that involves something that has actually happened. What you would imagine would happen if, say, Nashville wins the 2006 Stanley Cup, doesn't count.

Denver is not a big market. It is a non-traditional hockey market and the Avalanche have to compete with the Broncos, Nuggets and Rockies. Did they manage the nearly impossible?

The alternative explanation is that the Avalanche turn huge revenues because they are so good they sell out their arena every night at high prices, get tons of broadcast and sponsorship money, and get lots of playoff games. Why wouldn't that happen in Nashville too if they get that good?

Tom
i think there needs to be a clarification as to what a small market team is, is it a team in an area not thought of immediately for hockey, or is it a team w/ a small financial base if it were me i'd say it was the latter of the two, sounds like you're saying it's the first

garry1221 is offline  
Old
03-07-2004, 01:09 AM
  #42
CapitalsCupFantasy
HFBoards Sponsor
 
CapitalsCupFantasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 28,002
vCash: 500
go sell crazy some where else

Quote:
Originally Posted by CH

The nightmare scenario that a salary cap could cause is one where there is practically no difference between the best team in the NHL and the worst one. There arew no more exciting games when the top teams come to town. Each game is effectively a coin toss. There would be no good and no bad - just lots of average. I cannot imagine this situation having any drawing power to casual fans that doesn't exist today.
Tell that to the NFL. Are NFL games a coin toss? Hell no...on any given Sunday, any team can win. Does it mean you can't stay on top and alway contend? No...The Patriots are a fine, RECENT example. Draft well, be smart with your money, and have a good coach and game plan.

CapitalsCupFantasy is offline  
Old
03-07-2004, 03:20 AM
  #43
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garry1221
i think there needs to be a clarification as to what a small market team is, is it a team in an area not thought of immediately for hockey, or is it a team w/ a small financial base if it were me i'd say it was the latter of the two, sounds like you're saying it's the first
No. I'm saying that teams across the league all have a different financial base. The most important factor in determining the size of that base is not location or market size. It is team success. Colorado has a huge financial base even though they are not a big market and they are not a traditional market. The first time hockey was tried there, the team failed. Colorado now has a huge financial base because they win. That is the reward for winning - local revenues go through the roof. They will go through the roof anywhere.

Teams succeed by building a cheap young team that gets really good. The crowds go way up, even in Nashville. As Nashville's excellent young players mature and continue to improve, they cost more and payroll chases revenue up the ladder. At the top you are pulling in $20 million a year in the playoffs, selling every ticket at outrageous prices and beating off sponsors with a hockey stick. That is the way every single winner has been built. Dallas, Detroit, New Jersey and colorado all sucked for a long time.

The way to lose money is to try to build a team by signing free agents or trading for veteran players. They don't help a lousy team and they cost a fortune.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
03-08-2004, 12:59 PM
  #44
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Why wouldn't that happen in Nashville too if they get that good?
Pittsburgh was good. Made it to the conference finals. Three years later they have sold off all their big contracts. If winning = money where was the Pens money to keep any of their big contracts. 11 straight playoff years including 2 cups. All that winning still didnt get them the money to keep the contracts.

Oh thats right they didnt make any trades because of money. It was just the right thing to do.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
03-08-2004, 01:19 PM
  #45
HckyFght*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HckyFght*
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
Pittsburgh was good. Made it to the conference finals. Three years later they have sold off all their big contracts. If winning = money where was the Pens money to keep any of their big contracts. 11 straight playoff years including 2 cups. All that winning still didnt get them the money to keep the contracts.

Oh thats right they didnt make any trades because of money. It was just the right thing to do.
When Super Mario retired the first time the team still owed him somewhere around $50 million dollars. Since his contract was garunteed they had to pay him anyway even though he wasn't playing. Once he stopped playing season ticket sales started dropping like crazy. Super Mario was looking at a situation where the team was going to go under or he was going to own it. Herein lies the dilema: If you don't sign your star players your ticket base will evaporate. If you do sign them there's a gun at your head, put their by the Players Union and the courts, to hand out enormous contracts...Mario is an extreme example of what is happening on most teams, as salaries have been spiraling upward...

The problems I have with an owner being a player are too numerous to mention...just one of which being how do you referee a game that your boss is playing in?

-HckyFght!


Last edited by HckyFght*: 03-08-2004 at 01:40 PM.
HckyFght* is offline  
Old
03-08-2004, 01:48 PM
  #46
HckyFght*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HckyFght*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The way to lose money is to try to build a team by signing free agents or trading for veteran players. They don't help a lousy team and they cost a fortune.

Tom
But what a bout teams that get it right? Build thru the draft, making intelligent personnel choices, and still, when your players finally reach maturity and begin producing, those 3 and 5 year contracts are up and they want huge money to stay? Yes revenue has supposedly been rising as you went from the cellar to contention and then deeper into the playoffs, but I think salaries have even outpaced that kind of increase. It will be interesting to see how the Lightning and the Sens hold together in the next couple of years as all those young players, fast becoming stars, want to cash in.
-HckyFght!

HckyFght* is offline  
Old
03-08-2004, 02:08 PM
  #47
pavel13
Registered User
 
pavel13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,712
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to pavel13
Yes, salary increases have definitely outpaced profit increases in the NHL.

It's a big problem that young players (RFA's) hold out and want a huge salary, but the team can't afford it (Mike Comrie, Alexei Yashin, Marian Gaborik, Sergei Fedorov). That is one of the biggest problems I think. Those are the players (budding superstars) that teams need to be competitive. When there are teams that are willing to take on another big salary (and probably lose more money than they are alrady), how can the smaller market team (or team with a limited budget) compete?

What about a cap on players' salaries? Or maybe a limited amount that a player of a certain age can get?

pavel13 is offline  
Old
03-08-2004, 03:31 PM
  #48
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HckyFght
But what a bout teams that get it right? Build thru the draft, making intelligent personnel choices, and still, when your players finally reach maturity and begin producing, those 3 and 5 year contracts are up and they want huge money to stay?
The CBA allows these players to file for arbitration. The bar isn't raised in arbitration. They get market value. They can also hold out, but all players who have so far have lost the holdouts big time since teams stopped making stupid offers to RFAs. Fedorov was the last player to win a holdout.

The teams have the leverage with RFAs, not the player.

Salaries can easily be sorted by age. I recently did a study for a court case involving defencemen and the average salary by age goes like this:

Age 20-24: $873,934
Age 25-29: $1,394,387
Age 30 plus: $2,499,775

Salaries take a big jump when players acquire arbitration rights and another big jump when they close in on UFA status. Players under 30 average $400,000 less thasn the league average salary. Players 30 and over average nearly $700,000 more than average.

Young players are cheap, old ones are expensive. Young teams are cheap, old ones are expensive. There are good old teams and good young teams. There are poor young teams and lousy old teams.

Quote:
Yes revenue has supposedly been rising as you went from the cellar to contention and then deeper into the playoffs, but I think salaries have even outpaced that kind of increase. It will be interesting to see how the Lightning and the Sens hold together in the next couple of years as all those young players, fast becoming stars, want to cash in.
-HckyFght!
You *think* salaries outpace that kind of increase? Do you have some evidence that this is the case? I was told that Vancouver would not be able to afford Naslund, Jovanovski or Bertuzzi. All of them got whopping raises, raises consistent with what similar players received. The Canuck payroll has zoomed from $26 million (when they were one of the threatened Canadian teams) to $45 million today. Revenues have exploded and the Canucks admit they are making money.

Under this CBA, the cash in date is when the player becomes a UFA. Age 31. Right when the player is about to go into decline. These players are worthless on a bad team. They don't turn the team into a winner, so they get sold. When Vancouver sucked, they sold. When they win, they have revenues rolling in and they buy.

If Vancouver can do it, why can't every team? Colorado did it. Ottawa is doing it. It isn't that hard to figure out.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
03-08-2004, 08:45 PM
  #49
tom_servo
Registered User
 
tom_servo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 11,014
vCash: 500
If every team had owners of uniform wealth, there wouldn't be much of a problem. But some owners can withstand losses a lot easier than others. It's a sort of predatory effect. I know teams don't try to put each other into bankruptcy, but with the arbitrary distribution of wealth (since few teams make money, independantly-wealthy owners are more important than markets), that's what ends up happening.

I think each owner should be a proportionate shareholder of the NHL itself; not the proprietor of a business that must concentrate on the bottom line. With profit margins so thin, it's too easy to be hurt by some dotcom millionaire at the top.

tom_servo is online now  
Old
03-09-2004, 02:36 AM
  #50
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_servo
If every team had owners of uniform wealth, there wouldn't be much of a problem. But some owners can withstand losses a lot easier than others. It's a sort of predatory effect. I know teams don't try to put each other into bankruptcy, but with the arbitrary distribution of wealth (since few teams make money, independantly-wealthy owners are more important than markets), that's what ends up happening.

I think each owner should be a proportionate shareholder of the NHL itself; not the proprietor of a business that must concentrate on the bottom line. With profit margins so thin, it's too easy to be hurt by some dotcom millionaire at the top.
Dubi Silverstein profiles the ownership group here. The only teams that don't have several hundred of millions in the owner's pocket are in Edmonton and Pittsburgh. Even in those places, there could be very deep pocketed investors in the background.

Does it matter whether the owner has $750 million, $500 million, $1 billion or $3 billion?

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 04:23 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.