The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
The Pirates made nearly $29.4 million in 2007 and 2008, according to team financial documents, years that were part of a streak of futility that has now reached 18 straight losing seasons. The team’s ownership also paid its partners $20.4 million in 2008.
I know the Leafs can be listed as Pirate type team; make profits while the team fails to make the playoffs....
I know the Leafs can be listed as Pirate type team; make profits while the team fails to make the playoffs....
Different scenario entirely. The Pirates are mooching off revenue sharing and spending as little as humanly possible on talent. Meanwhile, the Leafs spend to the cap, acquire talent, and contribute to revenue sharing.
To say the Leafs are like the Pirates because they both make money while losing is like saying Jon Stewart and Oprah are exactly the same because they're both on television.
I know the Leafs can be listed as Pirate type team; make profits while the team fails to make the playoffs....
Difference is the Pirates dont need to spend up to a salary floor so they can just pocket revenue sharing while being a farm team for the bigger markets.
Luxury tax is just one of the ways MLB deals with revenue discrepancies - they also have rather vigorous revenue sharing of somewhere around 30% of local revenue. Last time I looked eg the Yankees were kicking something like $75M a year into pot above and beyond the luxury tax.
Baseball has no parity because it has no salary cap. The owners of the crappy teams, like the Pirates, simply just pocket the cash from the luxury tax instead of using it to compete. That's not similar at all to the NHL or the Leafs.
Baseball has no parity because it has no salary cap. The owners of the crappy teams, like the Pirates, simply just pocket the cash from the luxury tax instead of using it to compete. That's not similar at all to the NHL or the Leafs.
Well....is parity necessary? If the goal is to run a successful business.....it doesn't seem that parity matters. As a fan....I'd like it, but if I'm an Owner of an MLB team or an NHL team....does it matter when it comes to my bottom line?
Teams will stink and make money....teams will win and lose money.....it happens. The goal should be to have all teams making money regardless....and create parity at the same time. The NHL has a system to allow for that...they just don't want to take that last step to make it happen.
Baseball has no parity because it has no salary cap.
MLB has had more different winners over the past 20 years than any of the other big 4 sports. It doesn't seem to need a salary cap to remain competitive.
Makes ya wonder what a luxury tax system could have done for hockey.
While the Atlanta's, Miami's, Phoenix's might not have competitive teams for a while....they'd probably be doing much better financially.
Teams like the Blackhawks could stay together and be a dynasty....while at the same time indirectly keeping a cruddy market afloat.
A luxury tax would likely price the top players out of Chicago's range. Instead of losing guys like Ladd and Byfuglien they'd be losing Kane and Toews.
A luxury tax would likely price the top players out of Chicago's range. Instead of losing guys like Ladd and Byfuglien they'd be losing Kane and Toews.
this.
the smaller markets would get some luxury tax money from NY, Philly, & toronto.. but the very reason they're getting this money is because these teams destroyed them in the free agent market (due to higher population=much more revenue). i don't care if MLB has had multiple champs over the last 20 years. anything can happen in the playoffs. look at the post-season appearances of the large market teams vs the small market teams in baseball... it tells a different story. non-capped leagues are a joke.
also, the pirates are a HORRIBLE example. mlb's luxury tax system is flawed because it doesn't make the clubs dump the free money into the players. the pirates take full advantage of this. better examples are the twins and the A's. model small market franchises who build quality teams... then have to watch the mets & yanks steal their free agents.
MLB has had more different winners over the past 20 years than any of the other big 4 sports. It doesn't seem to need a salary cap to remain competitive.
I'm a Jays fan, please try to make an argument that the MLB has parity.
Marlins made 45 million with a 49 million salary team.
They are not that great either
All of the small market teams make money and cry they can't be competitive. Reason being, if they spend the money, they lose their distribution of the league revenues....
If I owned a team and someone gave me $70 mil a year, I would pocket it as well. This is a business and if that $70 mil means I make a profit, great.
Do you really think teams like the Royals and the Pirates should be ale to keep fielding such bad teams yet distribute $20 mil in profits to the ownership group?? Similar to the Yotes, take away the league revenues and what do you have?? A franchise losing a boatload of money being propped up by the league. Except in the Yotes case, they still lost money.
All of the small market teams make money and cry they can't be competitive. Reason being, if they spend the money, they lose their distribution of the league revenues....
If I owned a team and someone gave me $70 mil a year, I would pocket it as well. This is a business and if that $70 mil means I make a profit, great.
Do you really think teams like the Royals and the Pirates should be ale to keep fielding such bad teams yet distribute $20 mil in profits to the ownership group?? Similar to the Yotes, take away the league revenues and what do you have?? A franchise losing a boatload of money being propped up by the league. Except in the Yotes case, they still lost money.
The difference with the NHL is a team has to spend the cap min on salaries
MLB teams can spend what ever they want... until Selig rags on you because you dont spend much
The marlins a couple years ago got **** on by the MLB because they were spending so little on salaries.
It was like 15 million for the whole team or something stupid like that.
All of the small market teams make money and cry they can't be competitive. Reason being, if they spend the money, they lose their distribution of the league revenues....
If I owned a team and someone gave me $70 mil a year, I would pocket it as well. This is a business and if that $70 mil means I make a profit, great.
Do you really think teams like the Royals and the Pirates should be ale to keep fielding such bad teams yet distribute $20 mil in profits to the ownership group?? Similar to the Yotes, take away the league revenues and what do you have?? A franchise losing a boatload of money being propped up by the league. Except in the Yotes case, they still lost money.
Here's what you're missing:
Big market teams will NEVER have to choose between winning and profitability. they will always be profitable. it's easy to appear like you "care" more about winning when you're revenue streams dwarf the smaller city teams. The rangers could never be outbid by edmonton. even though edmonton fans are just as supportive pound-for-pound. the cap fixes this imbalance.
also, like i said earlier, the pirates are a bad example. they are an embarrassment to the league, and to the city of pittsburgh.
No cuz again, NHL teams have to spend a minimum of 75% of the maximum (or 43.4 million out of a max 59.4) which is still pretty significant. If you are already spending 43 million a team you already have a shot at making playoffs if your team performs well.
A 20 million $ MLB team (or a 20 million $ NHL team pre-lockout playing against 50-80 million $ teams) has no chance.
i don't care if MLB has had multiple champs over the last 20 years. anything can happen in the playoffs. look at the post-season appearances of the large market teams vs the small market teams in baseball... it tells a different story.
For the NHL, you have to throw away the first-round chaff, as MLB only has 8 playoff teams. And once that's done - yeah - MLB has more playoff variety than the NHL from start to finish.
Parity doesn't mean "badly run teams can win", it means "well run teams can lose". As in the $170M Red Sox being six games back of the $70M Rays.
Right now it's looking like 8 of the top-10 spending teams are going to miss the playoffs outright.
The Red Sox have the 3rd most wins in the A.L. They are out of the playoffs by virtue of being in a division with A) the top spending team in the MLB, and B) a team that was terrible for years and years, and thus was able to stockpile valuable draft picks and assets which have turned into a dynamite young team, most of whom they will lose to free agency in the coming years.
What do the winning percentages of the 10 top spending teams look like over the last ~10 years?
In MLB, 20 of the teams are less than 5 seasons removed from the playoffs. This is a better success rate than the NHL has in teams making the second round (there are only 8 playoff teams in MLB == NHL second round).
Looking at only at the "parity" post-lockout NHL years, there are 20 teams that have failed to make the second round, whereas MLB has 20 teams that have *succeeded* in making the final 8. Advanage MLB, big time.
And unlike the NHL, MLB manages to do this without hamstringing the big-revenue teams from putting the best possible teams on the field.
In MLB, 20 of the teams are less than 5 seasons removed from the playoffs. This is a better success rate than the NHL has in teams making the second round (there are only 8 playoff teams in MLB == NHL second round).
Looking at only at the "parity" post-lockout NHL years, there are 20 teams that have failed to make the second round, whereas MLB has 20 teams that have *succeeded* in making the final 8. Advanage MLB, big time.
And unlike the NHL, MLB manages to do this without hamstringing the big-revenue teams from putting the best possible teams on the field.
Since the lockout the following teams have made it to the second round of the playoffs
Ottawa
Buffalo
Carolina
New Jersey
San Jose
Edmonton
Anaheim
Colorado
New York Rangers
Detroit
Vancouver
Montreal
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Colorado
Dallas
Boston
Washington
Chicago
19 teams
Since the 2006 season these teams have made the MLB Playoffs
New York Yankees
Detroit
Minnesota
Oakland
New York Mets
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Diego
St. Louis
Boston
Los Angeles Angels
Cleveland
Arizona
Chicago Cubs
Philadelphia
Colorado
Tampa Bay
Chicago White Sox
Milwaukee
18 teams
Not exactly a huge advantage by MLB.
The way the MLB system works, it doesn't allow for any team to stay competitive for an extended period. Some teams have their year where they have a chance, but usually fall back to reality shortly thereafter. Milwaukee in 2008. It had a chance to make the playoffs for the first time in 26 years. They went for it by trading for C.C. Sabathia. They made the playoffs and were quickly eliminated in the first round and have not and most likely will not be able to match the success of the 2008 season in the near future. There are plenty of other teams like this. Teams that can not afford to hold onto their best homegrown players because they can't afford them. Tampa had a great 08 season and is having a great year this year, but most likely won't be able to hold onto one of their best players, Carl Crawford, after this year. And most have been expecting him to to go to one team, the team that constantly wins most of the big name free agents, the Yankees.
The MLB system allowed for the Yankees to sign 3 of the biggest free agents last year. They promptly won the World Series with them. The NHL system allows for it to be fairer and there is no way that one team would be able to sign the three biggest free agents in one off season.
What MLB needs is a minimum salary cap similar to the NHL. This way the teams don't just sit on the money that they get from other teams just because they don't have as many fans in their market. They would have to spend that money to at least attempt to remain competitive. Instead we see owners who don't care if they have a winning team and just are in it to collect the profit.
