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.

Are the Leafs trying to Sabatoge the new CBA?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-08-2004, 06:56 PM
  #51
DutchLeafsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Rotterdam, NL
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 4,922
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DutchLeafsfan Send a message via MSN to DutchLeafsfan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve L
The teams and leagues position is that they want a cap with no grandfathering.
Ever heard of the principles of diplomacy? Set your initial demands high, so that the outcome will be a compromise situation somewhere halfway between the position of the two parties involved...

DutchLeafsfan is offline  
Old
07-09-2004, 12:17 AM
  #52
Hart_House_Ca
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
What really bothers people about the leafs is that we haven't wont in such along time, yet we are very happy each year. People keep bringing up the fact that we havent' won, but that really doesn't matter too much to leaf fans. What matters is that we have a competitive team which gives all leaf fans the hope of a championship. The hope that this team could win is all that matters. There's no worse feeling then to know your team is in a rebuilding stage and that next year is going to be a waste of a season.

People are upset that we are happy about our team and can't figure out why. I just thought I might give you some insight.

Yes leaf fans are cocky. Yes leaf fans are proud. Yes leaf fans are arrogant. You would be too if you had the money, the players, and the fan support.

Hart_House_Ca is offline  
Old
07-09-2004, 09:16 AM
  #53
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchLeafsfan
Ever heard of the principles of diplomacy? Set your initial demands high, so that the outcome will be a compromise situation somewhere halfway between the position of the two parties involved...
Yes I have but seeing as neither side has moved an inch in a year it might seem that this is not the case.

Steve L* is offline  
Old
07-09-2004, 09:18 AM
  #54
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hart_House_Ca
Yes leaf fans are cocky. Yes leaf fans are proud. Yes leaf fans are arrogant. You would be too if you had the money, the players, and the fan support.
Not me unless my team had actually acheived something and won the Cup.

Steve L* is offline  
Old
07-09-2004, 09:40 AM
  #55
DutchLeafsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Rotterdam, NL
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 4,922
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DutchLeafsfan Send a message via MSN to DutchLeafsfan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve L
Yes I have but seeing as neither side has moved an inch in a year it might seem that this is not the case.
Well, it could be me, but I don't expect us to be in a 1000 year stalemate, even though it may take a while...

DutchLeafsfan is offline  
Old
07-09-2004, 10:33 AM
  #56
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchLeafsfan
Well, it could be me, but I don't expect us to be in a 1000 year stalemate, even though it may take a while...
Of course but it still seems daft to say "we want a cap with no grandfathering" then immediately go out and screw yourself if you get exactly what you ask for!

Steve L* is offline  
Old
07-09-2004, 11:26 AM
  #57
IWD
...
 
IWD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Country: Spain
Posts: 5,074
vCash: 500
For a team that is supposedly ruining the CBA negotiations, only a third of their current payroll belongs to players that were signed as free-agents. And only two(Ed Belfour, Ken Klee) are signed past this coming year.

Player...............2004/2005
Ed Belfour..........$6,000,000
Alexander Mogilny...$5,500,000
Gary Roberts........$3,750,000
Joe Nieuwendyk......$3,000,000
Ken Klee............$2,500,000
Tie Domi............$1,900,000
------------------------------
Total:..............$22,650,000


Sounds like people just want a scapegoat. The Rangers are now rebuilding, so of course Toronto is the next logical choice. They have money. A large fanbase. They're an upper echelon team. It makes perfect sense.


Last edited by IWD: 07-09-2004 at 03:41 PM. Reason: Didn't add up the total, just cut and paste it from a different thread.
IWD is offline  
Old
07-09-2004, 03:06 PM
  #58
Volcanologist
Used Register
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cosmodrome
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve L
Not me unless my team had actually acheived something and won the Cup.
Have Flyers won the Cup recently?

I'm trying to think of another explanation for your case.

Volcanologist is offline  
Old
07-09-2004, 03:44 PM
  #59
txpd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 43,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icewind Dale
For a team that is supposedly ruining the CBA negotiations, only a third of their current payroll belongs to players that were signed as free-agents. And only two(Ed Belfour, Ken Klee) are signed past this coming year.

Player...............2004/2005
Ed Belfour..........$6,000,000
Alexander Mogilny...$5,500,000
Gary Roberts........$3,750,000
Joe Nieuwendyk......$3,000,000
Ken Klee............$2,500,000
Tie Domi............$1,900,000
------------------------------
Total:..............$1,400,000


Sounds like people just want a scapegoat. The Rangers are now rebuilding, so of course Toronto is the next logical choice. They have money. A large fanbase. They're an upper echelon team. It makes perfect sense.
i dont think the reason that people comment about the cba is because of the players signed as free agents. its the total payroll. if you have a $25m payroll and sign a $10m a year free agent, big deal. if you have a $45m payroll and sign $25m in free agents on top of that, its different. the players you have listed above amount to over $22m in payroll not counting Belfour's $2m signing bonus. thats 6 players that cost as much as some teams full payrolls. then you add Sundin's $9m and Leetch and so on....that payroll gets pretty bloated.

its just my view, but it appears that toronto is almost challenging the nhl to do anything to restrict their payroll. in my view what they are doing threatens any idea of a luxury tax. toronto seems to be saying they can afford any luxury tax and are more than willing to pay both the high dollar players and the tax incurred.

that presses the owners to insisting on a hard cap.

txpd is online now  
Old
07-09-2004, 04:09 PM
  #60
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepNCheese
Have Flyers won the Cup recently?
No but Im not being cocky or arrogant about the Flyers, am I?


I really cannot believe someone can fail to get the point in that post.


Last edited by Steve L*: 07-09-2004 at 04:14 PM.
Steve L* is offline  
Old
07-09-2004, 04:44 PM
  #61
IWD
...
 
IWD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Country: Spain
Posts: 5,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd
i dont think the reason that people comment about the cba is because of the players signed as free agents. its the total payroll. if you have a $25m payroll and sign a $10m a year free agent, big deal. if you have a $45m payroll and sign $25m in free agents on top of that, its different. the players you have listed above amount to over $22m in payroll not counting Belfour's $2m signing bonus. thats 6 players that cost as much as some teams full payrolls. then you add Sundin's $9m and Leetch and so on....that payroll gets pretty bloated.

its just my view, but it appears that toronto is almost challenging the nhl to do anything to restrict their payroll. in my view what they are doing threatens any idea of a luxury tax. toronto seems to be saying they can afford any luxury tax and are more than willing to pay both the high dollar players and the tax incurred.

that presses the owners to insisting on a hard cap.
I stand by what I said. people are looking for a scapegoat. Toronto has done nothing wrong, yet a majority are harping on them for no good reason. It really has nothing at all to do with anyone but Leaf fans.

You're mistaken when you say people don't care so much about their free-agents, but rather total payroll. History has shown people will complain about what the Leafs do no matter what. Same with the Rangers. Same with the Red Wings to a lesser degree. I assume the only reason they don't get harrassed as much is because their team has won the cup recently.

It's highly unlikely that a hard cap will be introduced. I expect there to be a soft cap, but I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't occur, either. The majority of the NHL doesn't want it. That majority being the big spenders and the players. Yes, while the owners have to vote 2/3's to get something passed I think people are completely kidding themselves if they think that the Hurricane organization holds as much political and financial clout in these discussions as the Ranger, Wing or Leaf organizations do. But I digress.

The Leafs have not signed any unrestricted free-agents. They have simply signed existing players on their roster. Unlike the small-market teams, the Leafs are not the ones giving out contracts they can't afford to pay. The NHL is a business, plain and simple. Always has been. Some teams can't afford to keep up in that business market. That's not the Leafs fault, as much as many fans of small-market teams would like to think.

Here's an analogy. If I live in a nice, quiet neighbourhood, should I be penalized and harrassed because I can afford a house that's twice as big as what everyone else can afford?

IWD is offline  
Old
07-09-2004, 07:51 PM
  #62
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icewind Dale
Yes, while the owners have to vote 2/3's to get something passed I think people are completely kidding themselves if they think that the Hurricane organization holds as much political and financial clout in these discussions as the Ranger, Wing or Leaf organizations do. But I digress.
Since each team has exactly one vote, how would the Rangers, Wings or Leaf's have any more say than anyone else? Unless of course they are buying votes...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icewind Dale
Here's an analogy. If I live in a nice, quiet neighbourhood, should I be penalized and harrassed because I can afford a house that's twice as big as what everyone else can afford?
Your confusing a free market (home buying) with a market that is anything but free, and is supposed to have at least the appearance of every team having the same ability to be competetive...

djhn579 is offline  
Old
07-09-2004, 08:18 PM
  #63
IWD
...
 
IWD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Country: Spain
Posts: 5,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Since each team has exactly one vote, how would the Rangers, Wings or Leaf's have any more say than anyone else? Unless of course they are buying votes...
Are you saying that the Rangers, Wings and Leafs don't have more overall clout in the NHL than a team like Phoenix or Miami? We're not talking about single votes here. Being a large-market team does more than give you a big payroll. But, of course I'm sure you know this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Your confusing a free market (home buying) with a market that is anything but free, and is supposed to have at least the appearance of every team having the same ability to be competetive...
There's no confusion at all. At least on my end. You're making the mistake of thinking there is a difference between the homebuying and the player-buying. The principles are identical. Person/Team A can afford a larger house/payroll because they have a larger income/revenue than Person/Team B.

All the teams currently have the same ability to be competative. There is no special treatment for the larger markets. If they wanted to, the owners of each team could ice a $50m payroll. They don't because their expenses would severely outweigh their income. That's just economics that is stopping them, not the current system/CBA.

I assume you're a fan of the Sabres, so it's no wonder you want to see the big-markets lose their capitalist right to compete. Sour grapes.

It's as simple as this. More money being spent on the Leafs/Wings/Rangers/Stars/Avalanche = more money being put towards the team. If the government starts charging me more taxes, I had better start seeing more benefits as a result. Punishing teams for having a lot of support is ridiculous and reeks of jealousy.

IWD is offline  
Old
07-09-2004, 08:56 PM
  #64
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icewind Dale
Are you saying that the Rangers, Wings and Leafs don't have more overall clout in the NHL than a team like Phoenix or Miami? We're not talking about single votes here. Being a large-market team does more than give you a big payroll. But, of course I'm sure you know this...



There's no confusion at all. At least on my end. You're making the mistake of thinking there is a difference between the homebuying and the player-buying. The principles are identical. Person/Team A can afford a larger house/payroll because they have a larger income/revenue than Person/Team B.

All the teams currently have the same ability to be competative. There is no special treatment for the larger markets. If they wanted to, the owners of each team could ice a $50m payroll. They don't because their expenses would severely outweigh their income. That's just economics that is stopping them, not the current system/CBA.

I assume you're a fan of the Sabres, so it's no wonder you want to see the big-markets lose their capitalist right to compete. Sour grapes.

It's as simple as this. More money being spent on the Leafs/Wings/Rangers/Stars/Avalanche = more money being put towards the team. If the government starts charging me more taxes, I had better start seeing more benefits as a result. Punishing teams for having a lot of support is ridiculous and reeks of jealousy.
Your right. I'm jealous. I made the mistake of thinking that since there were 30 teams in the league, they were all supposed to have the same chance to build their team and compete. I didn't know that there was supposed to be a league in side of the league where some teams were supposed to have more opportunity to keep their players and sign players that the other teams can't afford because of rising salaries.

How many leagues in the world treat about 2/3rds of their members as second class citizens, so that the privleged few can have a majority of the glory? The NFL went to a salary cap and revenue sharing and very few of it's teams are losing money and the NFL still has a large percentage of the highest paid salaries in sports. In fact, the NFL is one of the most successful leagues in the world since it put a salary cap and revenue sharing in place.

And when it comes to voting on a new CBA, it doesn't matter how many fans an individual team has. Each team has one vote, and guess what. If the majority of teams vote for a hard cap and revenue sharing, the rangers, wings and leafs can live with it or leave. If they decide to leave, it won't take long for another team to move into those markets. A free market is a wonderful thing!

djhn579 is offline  
Old
07-09-2004, 09:05 PM
  #65
andora
Registered User
 
andora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illuminating Prince
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,051
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to andora
Quote:
Originally Posted by The~Franchise
I think this statement proves just how dilusional some Leaf fans are.

Do us a favour, Continue to be happy in your own little universe, don't try to drag us in there.
and continue to ruin everyone else's by not being able to recognize a guy having fun. have a juice

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve L
No but Im not being cocky or arrogant about the Flyers, am I?


I really cannot believe someone can fail to get the point in that post.
you're just kind of being cocky and arrogant in general, confrontational may be a better word, nitpicking, nagging.. etc..


Last edited by andora: 07-09-2004 at 09:09 PM.
andora is offline  
Old
07-09-2004, 09:11 PM
  #66
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icewind Dale
There's no confusion at all. At least on my end. You're making the mistake of thinking there is a difference between the homebuying and the player-buying. The principles are identical. Person/Team A can afford a larger house/payroll because they have a larger income/revenue than Person/Team B.
I think you're the one making the mistake of saying apples and oranges are identical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icewind Dale
Sour grapes.

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
07-09-2004, 10:02 PM
  #67
IWD
...
 
IWD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Country: Spain
Posts: 5,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Your right. I'm jealous. I made the mistake of thinking that since there were 30 teams in the league, they were all supposed to have the same chance to build their team and compete. I didn't know that there was supposed to be a league in side of the league where some teams were supposed to have more opportunity to keep their players and sign players that the other teams can't afford because of rising salaries.
You are jealous and your post is full of it. If you were the fan of a big-league team, you wouldn't be making a sound about this. Hate to break it to you, but all 30 teams in the league do have an equal opportunity to ice competative teams. You're making the mistake of thinking that not being able to afford a player is the same as not having the opportunity of acquiring him. I repeat: Economics are stopping the small market teams from having large payrolls. Not the system itself. The system allows for any team to pursue any player they wish without any interference. That, right there, is about as equal an opportunity as it comes.

A hard cap is against the very idea of capitalism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
How many leagues in the world treat about 2/3rds of their members as second class citizens, so that the privleged few can have a majority of the glory? The NFL went to a salary cap and revenue sharing and very few of it's teams are losing money and the NFL still has a large percentage of the highest paid salaries in sports. In fact, the NFL is one of the most successful leagues in the world since it put a salary cap and revenue sharing in place.
Second-class citizens? Come on, man. Give your head a shake. No team is being treated as a second-class citizen. Everyone is given an equal opportunity to succeed. Everyone has access to the same free-agents. Everyone participates in the same draft. Everyone can hire the same personel. There are no special rules in the CBA that gives the big market teams first crack at the best players, scouts or whatever.

Your comparison to the NFL is a little off. It's always been one of the most successful leagues in the world. Cap or no cap. It's because it's the top Football league in a country where Football is considered a way of life to many Americans. In fact, many would argue that Football has lost a lot of its appeal since the cap was introduced.

You want glory? Invest in your team. Make them richer. Buy their merchandise. The Sabres now have the lowest ticket prices in the league. Go buy more tickets. Get your friends to. Something tells me they won't sell out every game next year, though. That's why your team is struggling. There's not enough support. Fan support = revenue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
And when it comes to voting on a new CBA, it doesn't matter how many fans an individual team has. Each team has one vote, and guess what. If the majority of teams vote for a hard cap and revenue sharing, the rangers, wings and leafs can live with it or leave. If they decide to leave, it won't take long for another team to move into those markets. A free market is a wonderful thing!
Actually, the bottom line is money. A team with more money will have more clout overall. While every team has one vote, the big markets have more say than you give them credit for. Not only that, but:

"When the NHL board of governors extended Bettman's tenure, they also gave him extraordinary veto power on the matter of a new CBA. Under terms of Bettman's contract, if he recommends a tentative agreement to the board, then he'll need only a simple majority -- or 16 owners -- to certify it. However, if Bettman presents an offer to the board, but withholds his blessing, he needs only eight votes to turn it down.

Accordingly, even if all the usual suspects waver about a lockout and want to play -- New York, Detroit, Philadelphia etc. -- Bettman only needs to keep eight owners on his side, not 30. So when Bettman warned the players in his Stanley Cup news conference, don't test our resolve, there may actually be something to his threat."

Erik Duhatschek

Since the NHL owners have given Bettman their full support to negotiate a deal, it's a lot less likely that a vote for a hard cap will go through. I can think of 7 teams that would almost certainly vote against a hard cap. I don't think it'd be hard to find another, do you?

A hard cap is a fantasy more than anything. The big spenders don't want it. Neither do the players. As a result, it won't happen. I'm willing to bet money on it. You're right when you say that a free market is a wonderful thing. That's why it'll continue being a free-market.

IWD is offline  
Old
07-09-2004, 10:17 PM
  #68
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icewind Dale
A hard cap is against the very idea of capitalism.
How so?

I don't see it at all.

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
07-09-2004, 11:31 PM
  #69
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icewind Dale
Actually, the bottom line is money. A team with more money will have more clout overall. While every team has one vote, the big markets have more say than you give them credit for.
And I'm still looking for an explanation why the teams you mentioned would have more say, especially in the current situation where 2/3rds of the teams are losing money. Are the big spenders going to be able to force the other teams to go with a CBA that does not address at least some of their concerns? I don't think so. Just because the teams you mention earn more in (edit) hockey revenue, that doesn't mean that they will be able to force the other equally wealthy owners to agree to continue with a system that is costing them money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icewind Dale
"When the NHL board of governors extended Bettman's tenure, they also gave him extraordinary veto power on the matter of a new CBA. Under terms of Bettman's contract, if he recommends a tentative agreement to the board, then he'll need only a simple majority -- or 16 owners -- to certify it. However, if Bettman presents an offer to the board, but withholds his blessing, he needs only eight votes to turn it down.
This one is kind of interesting... The man that is in the forefront stating that the owners want cost certainty, needs 16 votes to approve a CBA that he "recommends", but if he presents a CBA but withholds his "recommendation (or blessing...)", he needs only 8 votes to turn it down. Please note, HE NEEDS ONLY 8 VOTES TO TURN IT DOWN.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icewind Dale
Accordingly, even if all the usual suspects waver about a lockout and want to play -- New York, Detroit, Philadelphia etc. -- Bettman only needs to keep eight owners on his side, not 30. So when Bettman warned the players in his Stanley Cup news conference, don't test our resolve, there may actually be something to his threat."

Erik Duhatschek

Since the NHL owners have given Bettman their full support to negotiate a deal, it's a lot less likely that a vote for a hard cap will go through. I can think of 7 teams that would almost certainly vote against a hard cap. I don't think it'd be hard to find another, do you?
Since Bettman is pushing for cost certainty (a cap of some kind), he is not going recommend a CBA that does not have some provisions for cost certainty, though he MIGHT present one to the board. If he does present a CBA that he does not recommend, he needs only 8 owners to vote AGAINST it (edit)to kill it, not 8 votes to approve it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Icewind Dale
A hard cap is a fantasy more than anything. The big spenders don't want it. Neither do the players. As a result, it won't happen. I'm willing to bet money on it. You're right when you say that a free market is a wonderful thing. That's why it'll continue being a free-market.
I really don't care what they put in place as long as the playing field is a little bit more level. And it is not a free-market. The expired CBA limits the number of players available overall (must be drafted or signed within certain time limits) and limits which players are available (as free agents or restricted free agents) to all the teams, and also limits the available roster spots. That by definition is not a free-market.


Last edited by djhn579: 07-09-2004 at 11:37 PM.
djhn579 is offline  
Old
07-10-2004, 08:28 AM
  #70
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icewind Dale
Here's an analogy. If I live in a nice, quiet neighbourhood, should I be penalized and harrassed because I can afford a house that's twice as big as what everyone else can afford?
No but youd be laughed at if there were limits introduced on the size of your house just after you built a huge extension to it and you were one of the people lobbying for the limits on house size!

Steve L* is offline  
Old
07-10-2004, 08:31 AM
  #71
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by andora
you're just kind of being cocky and arrogant in general, confrontational may be a better word, nitpicking, nagging.. etc..
He was talking about fans being cocky about their team, that has nothing to do with what youre saying.
Its a message board, of course people are going to be confrontational when theres a difference of opininion. Of course all the non Leaf fans could say the same about Leaf fans, it just depends on which side of the fence you are.

Steve L* is offline  
Old
07-10-2004, 10:07 AM
  #72
txpd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 43,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icewind Dale
It's highly unlikely that a hard cap will be introduced. I expect there to be a soft cap, but I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't occur, either. The majority of the NHL doesn't want it. That majority being the big spenders and the players. Yes, while the owners have to vote 2/3's to get something passed I think people are completely kidding themselves if they think that the Hurricane organization holds as much political and financial clout in these discussions as the Ranger, Wing or Leaf organizations do. But I digress.

The Leafs have not signed any unrestricted free-agents. They have simply signed existing players on their roster. Unlike the small-market teams, the Leafs are not the ones giving out contracts they can't afford to pay. The NHL is a business, plain and simple. Always has been. Some teams can't afford to keep up in that business market. That's not the Leafs fault, as much as many fans of small-market teams would like to think.

Here's an analogy. If I live in a nice, quiet neighbourhood, should I be penalized and harrassed because I can afford a house that's twice as big as what everyone else can afford?
1. yes, it takes a 2/3 vote from the owners to pass a proposal. please show me the majority of owners that fall into the big spenders catagory??? are you seriously convinced that the 20 plus owners that need payroll below $40m to break even are going to give in to the leafs and wings? there are 6 teams in the nhl that can compete and survive as big spenders. i'll help you with the math. 6 is not two-thirds, its not a majority, its not even enough to block a proposal. in fact, since you brought up carolina, the hurricanes, capitals, thrashers, lightning and panthers alone nearly have the votes to block an none salary cap cba. you can then easily add montreal, ottawa, edmonton, calgary, and vancouver. thats enough to block a cba.

2. your analogy about the house is misplaced. basically what you are saying is that if a team can't afford to compete for players with the big revenue teams, they should either be satisfied with losing or get out of the league.

the nfl, the most successful professional sports business of our times, doesn't have that attitude. in the nfl, the green bay packers, kansas city chiefs and charlotte panthers have an equal chance to win in a league with the NY Giants and Dallas Cowboys.

if i saw even occasional posts from fans of teams in the bottom half of the league in payroll, that agreed with you then i might feel differently. but all i see here is a fan of a team that has a wallet advantage on most of the league and wants to keep it.

txpd is online now  
Old
07-10-2004, 10:12 AM
  #73
txpd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 43,026
vCash: 500
one more point...you say, The Leafs have not signed any unrestricted free-agents. They have simply signed existing players on their roster. Unlike the small-market teams, the Leafs are not the ones giving out contracts they can't afford to pay. The NHL is a business, plain and simple. Always has been. Some teams can't afford to keep up in that business market. That's not the Leafs fault, as much as many fans of small-market teams would like to think.
.................................................. .................................................. ............

they have signed their share of ufa's. belfour being one. he was originally aquired as a ufa, yes?

lets look at another analogy. because of arbitration and other salary setting factors the big dollar teams set the price of labor for the entire league. if the rest of Canada and the United States had to pay for a cup of coffee what they price in New York and Toronto is for coffee, most of the coffee businesses outside of NY and TO would be out of business. People in Kansas City and Winnepeg can't afford NY prices. Same with the hockey teams.

txpd is online now  
Old
07-10-2004, 04:01 PM
  #74
MacDaddy TLC*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leafin La Vida Loca
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,478
vCash: 500
What the hell do Winnipeg and freaking Kansas have to do with anything? I could give a rat's ass about the small market teams. Look at who has been signing the UFAs that were property of other teams! Looks like some can competye afterall, and If a team can't compete in the NHL, there's the AHL or WHA.

MacDaddy TLC* is offline  
Old
07-10-2004, 04:31 PM
  #75
ATG
Registered User
 
ATG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto
Country:
Posts: 9,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by puck528
As we all know the leafs have made some recent "suprise" signings. The market appears to be correcting itself with players ie Preems et.al. signing for what last year was considered to be below market value. Do you think the Maple Leafs, a large market team, is trying to undercut the negotiations for the new CBA?
Flame Away!
Ya,that's it.The Leafs are just trying to keep their assests in order and by signing Joe,Eddie and Gary their keeping the core together.Sure I wish they were younger but by getting rid of guys like Renberg,Reichel and Fitzgereald the Leafs will be a younger and faster team.And hopefully with the emergence of a dominant Nik Antropov and a healthy Owen Nolan

ATG 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 08:24 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.