Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2

Interesting Larry Brooks article...

Closed Thread
Thread Tools
05-10-2004, 06:05 PM
Registered User
Dantes19's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 1,355
vCash: 500
Interesting Larry Brooks article...


Was posted on the Business of Hockey Board. I was wondering what you guys here on the NYR board thought of it. Seems almost coherent, unusual for Larry...

Dantes19 is offline  
05-10-2004, 06:20 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
I'd be interested to see..

the financials of San Jose, Calgary and Tampa. They're going deep into the playoffs and off low payrolls. If they're still losing money, there's little hope. And with the records they tallied during the regular season, they should be making money. Again, if not, this is a lost cause.

Fletch is offline  
05-10-2004, 06:35 PM
Very Random
Trottier's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 28,616
vCash: 500
I posted the following on another board, in response to some who were ripping Brooks' article and chanting the tiresome mantra of how a hard cap is needed to "save the NHL":


Leafs, Avs, Flyers, Wings, whoever...You wish to "inflict pain" on them (hard cap), arbitrarily, since you do not like them and their ability to win more frequently than the hometeam, by virtue of having resource$ and the capacity to spend it wisely. Crushing the wealthy, the successful. An uprising of the NHL's bourgeoisie, as it were.

Once again, playoff envy is just fine, though petty, IMO. Please just stop perpetrating the myth of a corelation between budget and on-ice success....Unless one is prepared to explain, among others:

Calgary Flames (Conference Finalists, '04)
San Jose " " "
Tampa Bay " " "
Minnesota " " '03
Pittsburgh " " '01
Anaheim (Cup Finalists '03)
Carolina ( " " '02)
Buffalo ( " " '99)

While on the other side of the coin, the following "big budget" franchises have one Stanley Cup among them in the last decade (two in the last 29 years): Flyers, NYR and Dallas (formally Minn.).

Oh, the lack of parity!


Point being, "hard cap" is synonymous with "my franchise is incapable of winning, so let's even out the playing field by putting restrictions on successful franchises, and thus tearing them down. All in the absolute baseless claim for the need of greater parity."

Brooks has it 100% correct.

Trottier is offline  
05-10-2004, 07:20 PM
HockeyBurd*'s Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,579
vCash: 500
*sigh* Things are sure looking bleak for our beloved sport.

HockeyBurd* is offline  
05-10-2004, 07:48 PM
Master Lok
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,999
vCash: 500
Actually I disagree with several points by Brooks:

1) He links a hard cap with a lower UFA. Who says so? There's many options out there: hard cap, soft cap, luxury tax, lower UFA, fewer games, rookie salary cap etc. What if the owners threw out an idea of a soft cap of $40 million combined with fewer games?

2) A lower UFA age. 25? C'mon. That's ridiculously low. There would be no point in developing a player at 19-22 and then having that player start to really grow into their own. The lowest I can see is maybe 28. That would definitely not fly.

3) Do you actually think Larry Brooks knows the plight of small market teams? The reason why small market teams want a cap is to lower the player salaries, because it is obvious that certain owners lack the smarts or the willpower to do so themselves. In Edmonton here, we've seen the departure of Doug Weight, Billy Guerin, and Curtis Joseph over the past decade, for the sole reason that the Oilers could not afford to sign these players. So we've been left with making do with less. Brooks cites San Jose, Calgary and Tampa Bay as examples where the CBA has worked for. These teams aren't in the Final Four because of the CBA, but IN SPITE OF the CBA. San Jose made a commitment last year to do a revamp by letting go of some of their veteran and hence more expensive players - what's the point in not making the playoffs at $60 million when you can at $40?

Calgary has a $36 million payroll with $7.5 million sunk into one player: Iginla. Turek is #2 at 4.5 followed by Gelinas at 2.4 and Conroy at 2.2. Iginla represents 21% of the entire Calgary payroll. What if he got hurt? Where would Calgary be? Do you think any team would want to sink 1/5 of their payroll into one player? But they've had to in order to retain Iginla and in so doing, they've had to trade away other players (Rob Niedermeyer, Bob Bougher, Derek Morris) Calgary didn't get into the top four because they were able to sign the players they wanted, they got into the top four because of team chemistry and they were able to pull off a shrewd trade for Kiprusoff.

Master Lok is offline  
05-10-2004, 09:29 PM
True Blue
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,243
vCash: 500
"The NHL is refusing to negotiate a deal with the union that isn't based on a hard-cap concept."

Scary stuff. Such a statement makes me think that perhaps the rumors of the league being shut down for, not 1, but 2 years could be true.

"Bettman and the Board will blame it on the union. Bettman and the Board should be ashamed. "

Again agreed. He is determined not to let any teams fold and to ENSURE that the Canadian teams have equal footing. That equal footing, to him, is an under $40m hard salary cap.
We can talk rebuild all we want, but by the time the next season starts, we may have 2 years worth of #6 draft picks and such.

True Blue is offline  
05-10-2004, 09:51 PM
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,625
vCash: 500
i think if there is no hockey next season the union will cave in. players need to get paid and losing one year of salary will hurt most of the union. if players are looking at two years of not getting paid they will never stand for it. i am certain that there will be no hockey next season and its really sad.

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
05-10-2004, 11:08 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
What the NHL needs is laying somewhere between the points that Brooks made and the points that Bettman and the NHL will make.

Brooks is right in that the current CBA is very effective in one way: it rewards the smarter teams who develop their players. The CBA allows those teams to retain the rights to those players until they are 31, thats 13 years after being drafted. Basically any team that drafts smart or makes smart trades for young players is in good shape, which is the way it should be.

However Bettman is right in saying that those 13 years are often cut short because star players in small markets sometimes can't be resigned because of money, which isn't right. Like someone said Cujo and Weight in Edmonton are a good example.

The only thing that seperates small market from big market right now is the ability to keep star RFA's. Small market teams can draft well, but might end up having to trade a star player they drafted when he's 26 because they simply can't resign him and pay him for 5 more years until he can make his own decision. Thus they trade him to a big market team who can resign him. The way to prevent this is to take away as many options for a trade as they can. How they do that is by creating a salary cap, soft not hard, but making it at around $50 million. This way the players are still paid what they deserve, but RFA's are more likely to stay with their team and sign for less simply because there aren't as many teams that can afford to trade for them.

nyr7andcounting is offline  
05-12-2004, 10:30 AM
Vito Andolini
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
The way I see it, what's going on here is just a lot of posturing. The NHL is trying to make the NHLPA think that it cannot afford to get anything less than a hard cap, and the NHLPA is trying to make the NHL think that they'll go on strike forever to prevent a hard cap. In the end, they'll compromise and hockey will probably start around the new year, like in 1995. I understand that the NHL is in a worse financial state than they were pre 1995, but the game of hockey is also at a worse state. Bottom line is the league knows that right now its product is pretty much garbarge, and they cannot afford to alienate anymore fans. Therefore, there's no way that a strike lasts more than a year. If it did, hockey would fall even further off the chart.

There probably will be a hard cap, but it won't be the 30 something million that the owners want, it will probably be in the mid to upper 40's.

The way I see it, the real solution to the NHL's problems is not to cut costs, but instead to improve the way hockey is played in the NHL. Compared to the other professional leagues, the revenues that the NHL takes in is laughable. The league needs to open up the game, put the excitement back into the hockey, and put the NHL back on the track it was on in the early 1990's. The increased revenue would soften the hit teams take when they have to pay the players. Combine this with equitable revenue sharing, and this small market B.S. goes away.

Vito Andolini is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


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 09:05 PM.

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

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