Small markets face big trouble

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Jul. 16, 2005. 01:00 AM

Small markets face big trouble
Free agent frenzy looming next year
NHL lockout will count as a season

KEN CAMPBELL
SPORTS REPORTER

Upon further review, the new collective bargaining agreement is looking better for the likes of Tomas Kaberle, Jarome Iginla, Joe Thornton and Vincent Lecavalier and potentially disastrous for the small-market teams it was supposed to help.

A source close to the negotiations confirmed a published report yesterday stating that not only does the free agency age drop to 29 next summer, but players under that age who have eight years of NHL experience, will also qualify for unrestricted status. In the summer of 2007, players who are 28 or have seven seasons will qualify. In 2008 — and for the remainder of the agreement — players who are 27 or have seven seasons of experience will qualify.

Also, for purposes of player tenure, last year's aborted season will count as a season played for all NHL players.

All of which means next summer is shaping up to have the strongest free agent crop in the history of the game. Along with Iginla, Thornton, Lecavalier and Kaberle, other potential unrestricted free agents include Martin St-Louis, Marian Hossa, Zdeno Chara, Wade Redden, Jose Theodore and Ed Jovonovski.

Under the previous CBA, the Leafs wouldn't have had to deal with Kaberle as an unrestricted free agent until after the 2008-09 season. Because he will have been an NHLer for eight years once his contract expires next summer, Kaberle will now be unrestricted.

Liberalized free agency was one of the concessions the owners made in exchange for a salary cap, but critics suggest that this will do nothing to protect the small-market teams. What it does mean is that the effects of arbitration, one of the league's biggest concerns going into negotiations for a new CBA, will not drive salaries for players in their mid 20's because those dollars will now be driven by unrestricted free agency.

But instead of holding a player's rights until age 31, teams will now face the proposition of losing star players because they either won't have enough room under the salary cap or it will force them to spend closer to the cap limit of $39 million (all figures U.S.). In 2003-04, 15 of the league's 30 teams spent under what the cap will be next season.

"Wait until fans of small-market teams like the Ottawa Senators find out about this," said one player agent. "I sure hope they win the Stanley Cup next season because what are they going to do when teams offer Chara and Hossa the cap (of $7.8 million) and Redden $6 million?"

The Calgary Flames will be particularly hard-hit by the CBA for several reasons. If not for the eight-year rule, Iginla would have had to wait one more year to become an unrestricted free agent, but unless the Flames sign him to a long-term deal, he'll be free next summer.

To make matters worse, the revenue-sharing aspect of the deal will also hurt Calgary.

"If you go by 2003-04, they were in the top 10 in revenues so they'll have to share revenues," said an NHL executive. "So now they lose the Canadian assistance plan and they have to share revenues. How exactly does that help them?"

It was always thought that the deal would put a larger importance on drafting and developing players, an area in which the Leafs have been lacking, but this makes player personnel decisions even more crucial.

"Edmonton always complained that they couldn't keep their stars and that they lost Doug Weight and Bill Guerin when they were 30," the agent said. "But now they might lose Eric Brewer when he's 26."

- tinyurl.com/8j6cf

*

Wake up and smell the Nabob (of Negotiation).

[Yeti]

Sounds overly alarmist to me... A few teams will reach the cap but they still have to put only 5 players on the ice at the same time. They won't sign all the available UFAs... And at least we know the Rangers and Leafs won't be able to offer an insane amount of money that no one else can match... Do you think teams will be able to have two or three 'superstars' on their team; 40-60% of their budget???

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

yeti said:

Sounds overly alarmist to me... A few teams will reach the cap but they still have to put only 5 players on the ice at the same time. They won't sign all the available UFAs... And at least we know the Rangers and Leafs won't be able to offer an insane amount of money that no one else can match... Do you think teams will be able to have two or three 'superstars' on their team; 40-60% of their budget???

Small market teams still face the prospect of losing their stars (and now at earlier ages) to big market teams, because those are the places where the endorsements flow like honey. The big market teams won't necessarily have to pay top dollar in salary to those players, due to the available extra income that can be made.

[Yeti]

I don't think I ever saw the face of Bobby Holik in a commercial in Canada or the US... The true superstars get national sponsorship and attention anyway. If Crosby gets drafted by Atlanta, will Gatorade give him more money than if he gets drafted by Calgary? At least for now, hockey players are better marketing tools in Canada than in the US (no TV deal!).

The pool of UFAs will be bigger each year- everyone will be able to ice a competitive team.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

mrbozo said:

yeti said:

I don't think I ever saw the face of Bobby Holik in a commercial in Canada or the US... The true superstars get national sponsorship and attention anyway. If Crosby gets drafted by Atlanta, will Gatorade give him more money than if he gets drafted by Calgary? At least for now, hockey players are better marketing tools in Canada than in the US (no TV deal!).

Local sponsorship deals in, say, New York or Chicago media markets, dwarf those in Calgary or Nashville, for instance.

The pool of UFAs will be bigger each year- everyone will be able to ice a competitive team.

Theoretically yes—assuming an equal level of competency for all owners, GMs, and scouting staffs.

As the English say, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating."

[Yeti]

mrbozo said:

mrbozo said:

Local sponsorship deals in, say, New York or Chicago media markets, dwarf those in Calgary or Nashville, for instance.;

I have to say, I know nothing about how it works for local sponsorships. But, apart from Detoit maybe, hockey is the no 3 sport everywhere else in the US, fourth in many places behind college basketball... The potential is there I agree to earn more in NY but how many New Yorkers know Jaromir Jagr?

And of course people have multiple interests in life other than money... Between 7 millions in Calgary and 7 millions in NY + 1 million in tv ads, Iginla might just stay in Calgary if he and his family are happy there. An economist won a Nobel prize recently for this simple truth that sociologists, anthropologists and social psychologists have discovered oh let's say a long time ago. I know we walked that road before, different players will make different decisions, we can't predict it and that's why I think that reporter is overstating his case.

[Rhiessan]

Def alarmist view here.
This reporter states that Owt for example is going to shell out all that money for those 3 players and honestly it may happen...the first year and to some degree next year but IMO what is going to happen is with the sheer number of FA's available is that teams are going eat up their caps and in year 3 at the very latest there just won't be that much money to go around at least not on the desireable teams.
The players that try and high ball teams will shoot themselves in the foot cause the longer they wait to sign the less money will be available.
Do you really think the "contenders" will have enough cap room to sign a Jajr or an Iginla at full price and that Dec 30th FA deadline will be a factor bigtime "Accept a contract or don't play this year".
I mean seriously how many players are going to get top dollar at that point and if they do it will be with teams that they never even considered playing for previously like Fla, Ana and Edm.
Like i said you won't see it much this year but you will see it starting next year and most assuredly the year after.
Pretty ingenius system in the long run really, the more teams pay now the less they will be able to pay later and that will be league wide by year 3.

The owners finally realised that no matter what they do they can not keep salaries down by restricting FA's and they sure as hell can't expect their GM's to not offer the big contracts (GM's seem to want to keep their jobs and that means icing a winner).
So instead of restrictions they opened the flood gates and squarely have put the ball in the players court now. Instead of teams high balling each other raising the salaries it will be the players low balling one another lowering salaries.
Don't think this will happen? We'll see but IMO this is exactly where we are heading.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Strange days ahead indeed.

[BadCompany]

rhiessan said:

Def alarmist view here.
This reporter states that Owt for example is going to shell out all that money for those 3 players and honestly it may happen...the first year and to some degree next year but IMO what is going to happen is with the sheer number of FA's available is that teams are going eat up their caps and in year 3 at the very latest there just won't be that much money to go around at least not on the desireable teams.
The players that try and high ball teams will shoot themselves in the foot cause the longer they wait to sign the less money will be available.
Do you really think the "contenders" will have enough cap room to sign a Jajr or an Iginla at full price and that Dec 30th FA deadline will be a factor bigtime "Accept a contract or don't play this year".
I mean seriously how many players are going to get top dollar at that point and if they do it will be with teams that they never even considered playing for previously like Fla, Ana and Edm.
Like i said you won't see it much this year but you will see it starting next year and most assuredly the year after.
Pretty ingenius system in the long run really, the more teams pay now the less they will be able to pay later and that will be league wide by year 3.

The owners finally realised that no matter what they do they can not keep salaries down by restricting FA's and they sure as hell can't expect their GM's to not offer the big contracts (GM's seem to want to keep their jobs and that means icing a winner).
So instead of restrictions they opened the flood gates and squarely have put the ball in the players court now. Instead of teams high balling each other raising the salaries it will be the players low balling one another lowering salaries.
Don't think this will happen? We'll see but IMO this is exactly where we are heading.

The assumption you are making there is that all teams will be able to spend to the cap limit. Gary Bettman's infamous "cap magnet." I still don't see how this is going to be possible, unless the revenue sharing plan they have is quite the good one indeed. Several teams, including the Oilers, had payrolls under $30 million, and still claimed to have lost money. At best, the the revenue sharing will ensure that they no longer lose money, but how are they going to raise their payrolls by $10-15 million to hit the cap maximum? Teams like Montreal, and even Calgary, may have to GIVE money away, as part of the revenue sharing scheme, further reducing their ability to spend on players.

Now when a team like New York or Toronto, or Detroit comes along, offering $5, 6, 7 million, how are they going to match that? So Toronto maxes out their cap, big deal. If they want a new free agent, they simply buy out some over-paid guy they signed the year before, and snag a new guy.

Toronto reputedly made over $20 million, with a $65 million payroll. Drop that down to $39 million, and they'll be making $46 million profits. How hard would it be for them to buy out a Belfour, to sign a Kiprusoff?

[Habit]

badcompany said:

rhiessan said:

Def alarmist view here.
This reporter states that Owt for example is going to shell out all that money for those 3 players and honestly it may happen...the first year and to some degree next year but IMO what is going to happen is with the sheer number of FA's available is that teams are going eat up their caps and in year 3 at the very latest there just won't be that much money to go around at least not on the desireable teams.
The players that try and high ball teams will shoot themselves in the foot cause the longer they wait to sign the less money will be available.
Do you really think the "contenders" will have enough cap room to sign a Jajr or an Iginla at full price and that Dec 30th FA deadline will be a factor bigtime "Accept a contract or don't play this year".
I mean seriously how many players are going to get top dollar at that point and if they do it will be with teams that they never even considered playing for previously like Fla, Ana and Edm.
Like i said you won't see it much this year but you will see it starting next year and most assuredly the year after.
Pretty ingenius system in the long run really, the more teams pay now the less they will be able to pay later and that will be league wide by year 3.

The owners finally realised that no matter what they do they can not keep salaries down by restricting FA's and they sure as hell can't expect their GM's to not offer the big contracts (GM's seem to want to keep their jobs and that means icing a winner).
So instead of restrictions they opened the flood gates and squarely have put the ball in the players court now. Instead of teams high balling each other raising the salaries it will be the players low balling one another lowering salaries.
Don't think this will happen? We'll see but IMO this is exactly where we are heading.

The assumption you are making there is that all teams will be able to spend to the cap limit. Gary Bettman's infamous "cap magnet." I still don't see how this is going to be possible, unless the revenue sharing plan they have is quite the good one indeed. Several teams, including the Oilers, had payrolls under $30 million, and still claimed to have lost money. At best, the the revenue sharing will ensure that they no longer lose money, but how are they going to raise their payrolls by $10-15 million to hit the cap maximum? Teams like Montreal, and even Calgary, may have to GIVE money away, as part of the revenue sharing scheme, further reducing their ability to spend on players.

Now when a team like New York or Toronto, or Detroit comes along, offering $5, 6, 7 million, how are they going to match that? So Toronto maxes out their cap, big deal. If they want a new free agent, they simply buy out some over-paid guy they signed the year before, and snag a new guy.

Toronto reputedly made over $20 million, with a $65 million payroll. Drop that down to $39 million, and they'll be making $46 million profits. How hard would it be for them to buy out a Belfour, to sign a Kiprusoff?

The buyout option only counts for this year. Any other year, and the buyout counts towards your cap. And it won't be at 67%.

[Yeti]

The fact that the very best players are limited to 7.4 millions will make it easier for everybody else. No team will be able to spend 20 millions for their first line alone, especially since they will need to pay the fourth line guys or the occasional goon 450 000/year. They will quickly get to 39 millions. It also means the 20 goals scorers will not cost 3-4 millions/year anymore. it brings the whole scale down. Even the Leafs GM said they will now need to switch from a buy strategy to a build strategy.

[Forum Ghost]

badcompany said:

Now when a team like New York or Toronto, or Detroit comes along, offering $5, 6, 7 million, how are they going to match that? So Toronto maxes out their cap, big deal. If they want a new free agent, they simply buy out some over-paid guy they signed the year before, and snag a new guy.

Toronto reputedly made over $20 million, with a $65 million payroll. Drop that down to $39 million, and they'll be making $46 million profits. How hard would it be for them to buy out a Belfour, to sign a Kiprusoff?

Yup.

This is why I wanted the league to include a luxury tax on top of the cap. Say, a dollar-for-dollar tax after $30M, with the money from the luxury tax going to teams who spent below the tax threshold. This would allow teams like Edmonton and Calgary to maintain payrolls they can afford, while at the same time giving them an extra infusion of cash that would allow them to match offers for their stars (like Smyth and Iginla).

The salary cap in place now is great for reducing the dollar discrepancy between the payrolls of big-market teams and small-market teams, but I'm not too sure it's going to allow the small-market teams to keep their stars.

[Cranky]

forumghost2 said:

The salary cap in place now is great for reducing the dollar discrepancy between the payrolls of big-market teams and small-market teams, but I'm not too sure it's going to allow the small-market teams to keep their stars.

It won't. In fact, I am certain that there will be far more player movement then before. Not only that, free agency at 27 will DOUBLE the amount of free agents at any one time.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

badcompany said:

Teams like Montreal, and even Calgary, may have to GIVE money away, as part of the revenue sharing scheme, further reducing their ability to spend on players.

If we go by (almost) everyone's favourite bean-counters, Forbes, the 10 clubs for the 2003-04 season who would have had to cough up revenue monies were (with 2003-04 revenus in millions of dollars listed after their names):

New York Rangers 118
Toronto Maple Leafs 117
Philadelphia Flyers 106
Dallas Stars 103
Colorado Avalanche 99
Detroit Red Wings 97
Boston Bruins 95
Montreal Canadiens 90
Tampa Bay Lightning 88
Los Angeles Kings 80

I can see 5 clubs who would squash the piece of pie they're bound to surrender to their chest, crying, "But we can't afford to, you'll kill us!" (whether it's true or not).

Now when a team like New York or Toronto, or Detroit comes along, offering $5, 6, 7 million, how are they going to match that? So Toronto maxes out their cap, big deal. If they want a new free agent, they simply buy out some over-paid guy they signed the year before, and snag a new guy.{/quote]
Tu as raison. Odds are Edmonton still couldn't afford to retain the services of Doug Weight under the new CBA.

Toronto reputedly made over $20 million, with a $65 million payroll. Drop that down to $39 million, and they'll be making $46 million profits. How hard would it be for them to buy out a Belfour, to sign a Kiprusoff?

The Maple Leafs are laughing. The have a license to print money—they were just pissed off because the lockout temporarily slowed the mint's production. Besides, now with that extra disposal cash and a newfound awareness, they are determined to pay top dollar for the services of non-playing hockey people—no cap on their salaries (Paul Maurice just signed a $200,000 contract to coach the AHL franchise). This little tempest in a spitoon could be the best thing that's happened to the Buds in a donkey's age.

[Forum Ghost]

I have a question about the clause that states that no players shall earn more than 20% of the team cap.

Now is this in reference to 20% of the maximum team cap (ie. $39M), or is this projected on a team-by-team basis? If it's the latter then I see major problems for small market teams. If Columbus has a payroll of $24M the maximum they can offer Rick Nash is $4.8M. Whereas a team with a $32M payroll can offer Nash $6.4M.

Therefore, it follows the trend of the league under the old CBA. The small market teams will still struggle to retain their stars and the big-market teams will still benefit from having larger payrolls.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

forumghost2 said:

I have a question about the clause that states that no players shall earn more than 20% of the team cap.

Now is this in reference to 20% of the maximum team cap (ie. $39M), or is this based on a team-by-team basis? If it's the latter then I see major problems for small market teams. If Columbus has a payroll of $24M the maximum they can offer Rick Nash is $4.8M. Whereas a team with a $32M payroll can offer Nash $6.4M.

- No player can earn more than 20 per cent of the team cap, which for 2005-06 means no player can earn more than $7.8 million

- www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=130343&hubName=nhl

The cap ceiling will be set each season, based on the previous season's revenues. How much each team chooses (can afford) to spend toward that ceiling is up to them.

Columbus, with a hypothetical payroll of $24M, can choose to bid top-dollar ($7.8M) for Nash—which he surely will attract in the marketplace—but does it make economic sense to pay one player a third (7.8 / 24) of your allotted payroll?

Therefore, it follows the trend of the league under the old CBA. The small market teams will still struggle to retain their stars and the big-market teams will still benefit from having larger payrolls.

Exactly the point the author of the article that kicked off this thread makes.

"I am the bombardier."

[Forum Ghost]

badcompany said:

The assumption you are making there is that all teams will be able to spend to the cap limit. Gary Bettman's infamous "cap magnet." I still don't see how this is going to be possible, unless the revenue sharing plan they have is quite the good one indeed. Several teams, including the Oilers, had payrolls under $30 million, and still claimed to have lost money. At best, the the revenue sharing will ensure that they no longer lose money, but how are they going to raise their payrolls by $10-15 million to hit the cap maximum?

I'm very curious to know the details of the percentage of revenues that are to be shared. The upper-tier owners were not too keen on sharing their earnings with the league's less fortunate so I wonder how significant this plan is going to be.

[Cranky]

mrbozo said:

Edmonton always complained that they couldn't keep their stars and that they lost Doug Weight and Bill Guerin when they were 30," the agent said. "But now they might lose Eric Brewer when he's 26?

[sarcasm] We all know thay this deal was about the fans! [/sarcasm]

Wait until our resident "superstars" takes off for greener pastures. Residents in Habland will stomp their feet and cry about the greedy players but in reality, it was the greedy owners who gave away team-player identity for MORE profits.

Meat on a hockey hook.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

habsaddict said:

mrbozo said:

Edmonton always complained that they couldn't keep their stars and that they lost Doug Weight and Bill Guerin when they were 30," the agent said. "But now they might lose Eric Brewer when he's 26?

[sarcasm] We all know thay this deal was about the fans! [/sarcasm]

Wait until our resident "superstars" takes off for greener pastures. Residents in Habland will stomp their feet and cry about the greedy players but in reality, it was the greedy owners who gave away team-player identity for MORE profits.

Meat on a hockey hook.

Say, whose side are you on, anyway? Weren't you calling for Goodenow's crucifixion not too long ago? Isn't the almighty dollar bottom line that gave you the fever to boost the owners against Evil Bob and the Mercenaries at all cost (until death did you part)? Like, what gives now?

Hasn't the Nabob of Negotiation done right by you?

It isn't like every team can't afford an attack monkey or two at $450,000 (or an entire roster of them if you really want to save some green).

[Cranky]

mrbozo said:

habsaddict said:

[sarcasm] We all know thay this deal was about the fans! [/sarcasm]

Wait until our resident "superstars" takes off for greener pastures. Residents in Habland will stomp their feet and cry about the greedy players but in reality, it was the greedy owners who gave away team-player identity for MORE profits.

Meat on a hockey hook.

Say, whose side are you on, anyway? Weren't you calling for Goodenow's crucifixion not too long ago? Isn't the almighty dollar bottom line that gave you the fever to boost the owners against Evil Bob and the Mercenaries at all cost (until death did you part)? Like, what gives now?

Hasn't the Nabob of Negotiation done right by you?

It isn't like every team can't afford an attack monkey or two at $450,000 (or an entire roster of them if you really want to save some green).

I really don't like the free agency at 27 or the 7/25 rule. It will DESTROY team-player identity and be very inflationary. It was an absolutely STUPID short sighted move by the owners and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that all they cared for was more money NOW!

People are happy that hockey is back but it will soon be tempered when they see the players they like leave the team for more money. Mark my words, in a few years, fans will realize just how bad this deal is for the FANS. How the hell can these guys be billionaires if they can't even see the forest from the trees. Wait a minute, how stupid of me, I am assuming that owners give a damn about the meat.....err.....I mean the fans.

Ultimatly, the players lost some money now and the owners are going to make more money now but in the end, the fans will suffer. Every time a Theo or a Koivu or a Thornton leave just as they hit their prime, all hell will break lose. Fans will scream for their favorite player and the owners will yap "oops, sorry we don't have cap room".

This deal sucks from a fans perspective.

[MC Habber]

habsaddict said:

I really don't like the free agency at 27 or the 7/25 rule. It will DESTROY team-player identity and be very inflationary. It was an absolutely STUPID short sighted move by the owners and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that all they cared for was more money NOW!

I'm not so sure about that. Earlier free agency will give players more opportunity to choose where they want to spend their careers. Instead of being traded to a team he didn't want to play for, a player has a chance to sign with the team that he wants to play for. As a result, he is happier and performs better on the ice, and so the team is happy with him and when his contract is up they resign him. Players who would previously have bounced around in trades, going from one bad fit to another, might end up spending years with the same team. The salary cap greatly reduces the monetary incentive to move.

Under the old system, a player only had a couple of years of UFA status before he started to decline, so naturally he would look for the big payoff. Now, a player might spend more than half of his career as a UFA, so he won't feel the same pressure to get the biggest paycheck possible before it's time to retire.

Certainly, players will move when they wouldn't previously have had the opportunity to do so, but I think other players will end up staying when they would previously have been traded. Besides, do you really want to cheer for a team full of guys who can't wait to become UFAs so they can go to the Rangers or Leafs?

EDIT: I might have been more unhappy about this a few years ago, but "team-player identity" is mostly dead already, because of trades as much as free agents. I'm much more concerned about the "revenue sharing" plan than I am about this.

[Rhiessan]

badcompany said:

The assumption you are making there is that all teams will be able to spend to the cap limit. Gary Bettman's infamous "cap magnet." I still don't see how this is going to be possible, unless the revenue sharing plan they have is quite the good one indeed. Several teams, including the Oilers, had payrolls under $30 million, and still claimed to have lost money. At best, the the revenue sharing will ensure that they no longer lose money, but how are they going to raise their payrolls by $10-15 million to hit the cap maximum? Teams like Montreal, and even Calgary, may have to GIVE money away, as part of the revenue sharing scheme, further reducing their ability to spend on players.

Now when a team like New York or Toronto, or Detroit comes along, offering $5, 6, 7 million, how are they going to match that? So Toronto maxes out their cap, big deal. If they want a new free agent, they simply buy out some over-paid guy they signed the year before, and snag a new guy.

Toronto reputedly made over $20 million, with a $65 million payroll. Drop that down to $39 million, and they'll be making $46 million profits. How hard would it be for them to buy out a Belfour, to sign a Kipusoff?

But do you not see that if the small market teams do not go to thier cap max that will only make it even harder on the top end players and their salaries.
Before you could always count on the Detroits, Rangers and Laffs of the league to house half a dozen or more of these 4-7 mill+ players, that won't be possible anymore.
Once the big wheels fill their rosters up there will be alot of excess high end/high $$ players hanging around and if what you say happens and some/alot of the small market clubs do not intend on using much more than the minimum cap then these high end players will be forced to take less money or not play at all.
Look at it this way...by the end of november out of the 30 teams the bigger market teams max out to the cap lets say 12 for an example, then lets take the small market teams that have their payroll set lets say 8, so now there are a total of 10 teams left to attain the left over FA's and out of those teams how many are just like the Habs and are hovering in and around the 30 mill range and will be shelling out 5-7 mill contracts.
Know what i mean?
Easiest way to figure it all is to find the salaries of every team to start this season = 1320 mil www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm
(You will have to copy and paste the whole link apparently)
then knock off the 24% rollback = 1003mil.
Now take the max cap figure of 39mil and multiply it by 30 teams = 1170
You are then left with 167mil to go around and that is only with every team going to their cap max so in reality that number will be closer to half or less that, my guess is about 60mill, that aint alot of dough when signing highend players.

Yeah this is alot of rambling but i think/hope i got my point through heh

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

The small market (read low payroll) teams have much more room to manuever than the teams who are nearer the cap. Calgary can afford to keep one Iginla and the Rangers and Wings can afford to pay him but are restricted from doing so by the tip of their caps.

[Bob]

mrbozo said:

Jul. 16, 2005. 01:00 AM

Small markets face big trouble
Free agent frenzy looming next year
NHL lockout will count as a season

KEN CAMPBELL
SPORTS REPORTER

Wait until fans of small-market teams like the Ottawa Senators find out about this," said one player agent. "I sure hope they win the Stanley Cup next season because what are they going to do when teams offer Chara and Hossa the cap (of $7.8 million) and Redden $6 million?


Wake up and smell the Nabob (of Negotiation).

But a big market team won't be able to sign Chara, Hossa AND Redden at those prices, in the same way that Detroit, Toronto and New York have tried to corner the market in the past.

If they did, it would leave only $17.4 million for the other 20 players on the team. I doubt that would fly with the remaining twenty.

I have to agree, it does sound alarmist.

[Bob]

badcompany said:

Now when a team like New York or Toronto, or Detroit comes along, offering $5, 6, 7 million, how are they going to match that? So Toronto maxes out their cap, big deal. If they want a new free agent, they simply buy out some over-paid guy they signed the year before, and snag a new guy.

Toronto reputedly made over $20 million, with a $65 million payroll. Drop that down to $39 million, and they'll be making $46 million profits. How hard would it be for them to buy out a Belfour, to sign a Kiprusoff?

After this year, buyouts will count against the salary cap. If they bought out Belfour for $3 million and paid Kiprusoff $4 million, then it would count as $7 million against their cap.

This isn't going to be as easy at it looks.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Small markets, big problems
Strachan: NHL teams face unique issues

AMONG THE reasons for the National Hockey League's decision to lock out the players was a desire to perpetuate hockey in some of its less traditional markets.

Now, with cost certainty in place and a revamped game being offered to the public, those markets will have to try to win back their fans who, for the most part, exhibited a profound disinterest to the game's absence.

There is no specific formula. In each instance, the team will face issues that may or may not be relevant in other markets.

In Columbus, the game should do well. Crowds were solid before the lockout, and in that part of Ohio, hockey was the fastest-rising participatory sport.

Since then, the league took a year off, but in that time, Rick Nash, who justifiably is adored in Columbus, has become even better. And this is a kid who tied for the league lead in goal scoring in 2003-04.

- www.torontosun.com/Sports/Hockey/2005/07/18/pf-1136631.html