|
|
Post by blaise on Sept 19, 2004 19:26:35 GMT -5
I saw a game (I can't remember the year) in which the Habs started with only 3 D because of injury. Doug Harvey played over 50 minutes. Ralph Backstrom took a few shifts at D, always partnered by Harvey. The Habs won the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Sept 20, 2004 18:14:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Sept 21, 2004 6:42:23 GMT -5
Leafs want role in the CBA talks
By LANCE HORNBY -- Toronto SunMaple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Ltd. is on tap to play a key role in helping solve the National Hockey League's collective bargaining deadlock. A flagship NHL franchise, operating a multi-use venue, with a basketball team that plays under a cap system, MLSEL would be able to offer more business-related expertise to commissioner Gary Bettman than many other clubs.-- read the rest --R.
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Sept 21, 2004 8:24:15 GMT -5
Leafs want role in the CBA talks
By LANCE HORNBY -- Toronto SunMaple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Ltd. is on tap to play a key role in helping solve the National Hockey League's collective bargaining deadlock. A flagship NHL franchise, operating a multi-use venue, with a basketball team that plays under a cap system, MLSEL would be able to offer more business-related expertise to commissioner Gary Bettman than many other clubs.-- read the rest --R. What pomposity! Reminds me of a bullfrog that inflates itself to an impressive size by drawing in air, the volume of which is increased when the air molecules are heated.  |
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Sept 21, 2004 8:31:17 GMT -5
What pomposity! Reminds me of a bullfrog that inflates itself to an impressive size by drawing in air, the volume of which is increased when the air molecules are heated.  have you seen this sentence: "We're arguably the most significant (franchise) in the league," Peddie said. R. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Sept 21, 2004 8:32:55 GMT -5
What pomposity! Reminds me of a bullfrog that inflates itself to an impressive size by drawing in air, the volume of which is increased when the air molecules are heated. Oh dear... |
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Sept 21, 2004 8:42:53 GMT -5
have you seen this sentence: "We're arguably the most significant (franchise) in the league," Peddie said. R. The key word is 'arguably'. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Sept 21, 2004 14:04:34 GMT -5
Great article. It makes me wonder how the league can survive with anything less than a salary cap, if it only takes one owner with a lot of cash to inflate the market that much over night. Perhaps a cap on player raises would help - a player's salary can not go up by more than 40% in a single year, say. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Sept 21, 2004 17:46:18 GMT -5
Were the seeds for the ruination of the CBA agreement sown in 1997? Well, it's a good article, but essentially, the problem was in the CBA - it was a sure thing that someone would overpay eventually, the CBA simply doesn't have a mechanism for re-adjusting salaries downwards, which would have been needed to compensate for these slip-ups. To me the problem was there from the start, in 95. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Sept 21, 2004 21:22:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 22, 2004 21:14:41 GMT -5
have you seen this sentence: "We're arguably the most significant (franchise) in the league," Peddie said. R. Gotta give Bill Watters credit. Upon reading this article he said, paraphrased: Fine...great...go ahead. Try it. That's what this process needs...people who don't know what they're talking about. My advice to MLSE...shutup. |
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Sept 24, 2004 3:30:39 GMT -5
Cold war gets chillier
Players file complaint with U.S. labour body
By BRUCE GARRIOCH -- Ottawa Sun
The war between the NHL and its players' association has started to escalate, the Sun has learned. Multiple league sources told the Sun last night that the NHLPA has filed an ''unfair labour practices'' charge against the NHL for its failure to provide a list of locked out players.
Sources say the union requested the list in a letter to the league dated Sept. 20 because there was confusion among the players on which players are locked out. --read the rest--R.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Sept 24, 2004 4:58:41 GMT -5
The players' wives and girlfriends will be the deciding factor as to how long the lock-out lasts, and whether another one begins.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habbout on Sept 24, 2004 8:11:22 GMT -5
On the day of the lockout, I was listening to the local sports am station the fan 590. They made the most intersesting points about the lockout. Their suggestions were to get rid of those teams where fans don't give a care in the world about hockey. Teams that include Columbus, Atlanta, Nashville, Florida, Pheonix and Carolina. That is where they are losing out on money. They were saying that there is no need for so many teams in the league (which is true). And if they're so concerned about keeping the number of teams the same, then get rid of those teams and bring back winnipeg and quebec. I would love to see those teams come back. I think it's time for a big change in the NHL.  |
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Sept 24, 2004 8:39:05 GMT -5
On the day of the lockout, I was listening to the local sports am station the fan 590. They made the most intersesting points about the lockout. Their suggestions were to get rid of those teams where fans don't give a care in the world about hockey. Teams that include Columbus, Atlanta, Nashville, Florida, Pheonix and Carolina. That is where they are losing out on money. not entirely true. they are also losing money in Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Ottawa, Buffalo, L.A, Pittsburgh... are you suggesting we get rid of these franchises as well? bring back franchises to places that couldn't support them economically even when salaries were much lower than today? R. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 25, 2004 10:39:47 GMT -5
I have been looking at the salaries for the past 6 years for teams and trying to relate that expenditure some way to the way the compete in the regular season. So far I have looked at the East. And even though you have the New York Rangers on one end of the spectrum (spend alot , finish poorly) and Ottawa on the other end (spend thrifty, finish good) the middle does have some correlation to the more you spend the better you compete.
Here is a ranking in order of first to worst in spending.
1) NYR - avg salary rank (1) ...... average finish (10.8)
2) PHI - avg salary rank (2.2) ... avg finish (3.2)
3) TOR - avg salary rank (3) ... avg finish (3.8)
4) WASH - avg salary rank (5.6) ... avg finish (8.3)
5) NJ - avg salary rank (5.8) .... avg finish (2.8)
6) MON - avg salary rank (6.8) .... avg finish (9.7)
7) FLO - avg salary rank (7.7) .... avg finish (10.8)
8) BOS - avg salary rank (8.7) .... avg finish (6)
9) CAR - avg salary rank (8.8) .... avg finish (9.7)
10) BUF - avg salary rank (9.8) .... avg finish (8.3)
11) NYI - avg salary rank (10.5) .... avg finish (10.2)
12) Pitts - avg salary rank (10.8) ... avg finish (10)
13) TB - avg salary rank (12.3) .... avg finish (10)
14) OTT - avg salary rank (12.3) ... avg finish (3.5)
15) ATL - avg salary rank (14.5) ..... avg finish (13)
Only 5 teams average a playoff spot in the entire 6 years (Philly, Toronto, NJ, Boston, and Ottawa). But only one team in the bottom 7 average a playoff berth (Ottawa). This highlights the competitive nature of the bottom tier of teams in the east regardless of money expenditure but there is a correlation between more money being spent and winning.
Off the top eight teams in spending only two are outside the top eight in regular season finish (NYR and Florida). And the two teams that are in the top eight instead of them-
Ottawa - eveb though they are 14th in overall expenditure over the 6 year frame, in the last two years they have jumped from 14th in expenditure to 9th.
Buffalo - are overall 10th in expenditure although they have settled into 12th in expenditure over the last 3 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Sept 25, 2004 12:19:58 GMT -5
IMO it is questionable to include profits from ownership of an arena as a basis for estimating the profit or loss of an NHL team. The owners had to put up capital and/or take out loans to buy the arenas over and above what it cost to buy their teams. Even if the owners artificially charge the teams rather steep rents this is chicken feed compared with the other expenses the owners pay (salaries, travel, overhead, marketing, advertising, etc.). The players have little justification for expecting their salaries to be partially based on profits from theaters, restaurants, or bowling alleys, or even from basketball teams that use the same arena.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 25, 2004 17:35:25 GMT -5
Here is a ranking in order of first to worst in spending. 1) NYR - avg salary rank (1) ...... average finish (10.8) 2) PHI - avg salary rank (2.2) ... avg finish (3.2) 3) TOR - avg salary rank (3) ... avg finish (3.8) 4) WASH - avg salary rank (5.6) ... avg finish (8.3) 5) NJ - avg salary rank (5.8) .... avg finish (2.8) 6) MON - avg salary rank (6.8) .... avg finish (9.7) 7) FLO - avg salary rank (7.7) .... avg finish (10.8) 8) BOS - avg salary rank (8.7) .... avg finish (6) 9) CAR - avg salary rank (8.8) .... avg finish (9.7) 10) BUF - avg salary rank (9.8) .... avg finish (8.3) 11) NYI - avg salary rank (10.5) .... avg finish (10.2) 12) Pitts - avg salary rank (10.8) ... avg finish (10) 13) TB - avg salary rank (12.3) .... avg finish (10) 14) OTT - avg salary rank (12.3) ... avg finish (3.5) 15) ATL - avg salary rank (14.5) ..... avg finish (13) In the West in order from first to worst in spending: 1) DET - avg salary rank (1) .... avg finish (1.8) 2) DAL - avg salary rank (2.5) .. avg finish (3.8) 3) COL - avg salary rank (3.8) .. avg finish (2.7) 4) STL - avg salary rank (4.7) ... avg finish (4.3) 5) SJ - avg salary rank (5.7) .... avg finish (6.5) 6) ANA - avg salary rank (6.5) .. avg finish (10) 7) LA - avg salary rank (6.7) .. avg finish (8.5) 8) CHI - avg salary rank (7.7) ... avg finish (10.3) 9) PHO - avg salary rank (8.2) ... avg finish (8.2) 10) VAN - avg salary rank (9.2) ... avg finish (7.7) 11) CAL - avg salary rank (10.7) .... avg finish (10.2) 12) EDM - avg salary rank (11.8) ... avg finish (7.8) 13) CLB - avg salary rank (12.8) ... avg finish (14) 14) NSH - avg salary rank (13.7) ... avg finish (11.7) 15) MIN - avg salary rank (14.5) ... avg finish (10.5) It is clear that in the west the 60 milion dollar teams are heads above the rest. San Jose used to be the 4th highest spending team and last year fell to 10th. (the 14th place finish in 03 when they were a high spending team offset the 2nd place finish when they were the 10th). I was surprised to find out that Vancouver was only 10th in spending. The last 2 or 3 spots in both divisions appear to be up for grabs each and every year, as each conference seems to have a team or 2 that does well even though they do not spend much money. But 4 or 5 teams in a league of 30 is only 17%. Clearly it is true thatthe more money you spend the better you do. The competitive balance of the league during the regular season is in need of an overhaul. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Sept 25, 2004 20:50:35 GMT -5
The only certain way to get a salary cap would be to give all 30 teams to the NHLPA. Believe me, there'd be cost certainty because the players wouldn't want to get into major debt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habit on Sept 26, 2004 13:24:01 GMT -5
If the NHL imposses it's own CBA, as Mr B states on another thread, would every contract that was signed in the old agreement with the NHLPA have to be re-negotiated? Or they might all be UFA's?
If so, GM's would be very busy people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habbout on Sept 26, 2004 19:05:34 GMT -5
Rimmer... maybe you should back up your comments before you speak. Just to let you know, montreal had a higher attendace record than toronto in regular season. montreal has over 300,000 more than nashville, over 200,000 more than atlanta, over 300,000 than carolina, over 300,000 more than pheonix, and over 200,000 more than florida. And montreal, calgary, ottawa, and edmonton are well over these teams by at least 200,000. you can see for yourself. www.sportsnetwork.com/default.asp?c=sportsnetwork&page=nhl/teams/teams.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Sept 27, 2004 7:07:55 GMT -5
Rimmer... maybe you should back up your comments before you speak. maybe you should pay more attention to what I was saying. I was responding to your post by showing that they are losing out on money in other places "where fans care" about hockey. nowhere did I say anything about attendance because high attendance doesn't keep you out of red in today's NHL. you need look no further than your example of Montreal and Toronto. Boivin said the Habs needed to reach the 3rd round of playoffs to break even meaning that a franchise with the highest or 2nd highest attendance in the league is still losing out on moneyI'm looking at the numbers at ESPN and they show me that of the 6 teams you named (Columbus, Atlanta, Nashville, Florida, Phoenix and Carolina) 4 have higher average attendance than places like Boston, Chicago, NY/NJ (Isles/Devils), Washington, Buffalo and Pittsburg that are traditionally considered as strong(er) hockey markets. also, Columbus, for example, has a higher average attendance than Calgary and only 360 spectators per game less than Edmonton and 420 less than Ottawa. and Florida and Atalanta are not that far off, either. R. |
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Sept 27, 2004 9:18:34 GMT -5
The issues around salary caps
Canadian Press
9/24/2004
Commissioner Gary Bettman argues a salary cap is the vaccine that will cure the NHL's financial ills while the players call it a plague that will cripple their ability to earn a fair living.
The CFL, NFL and NBA all operate under a salary cap, while Major League Baseball has a luxury tax.
All function as a drag on salaries. To compensate, baseball, football and basketball all have some form of revenue sharing among teams and came to an agreement with their players on what constitutes league revenues.
The NHL has locked its players out in a labour dispute which centres around the owners' desire for cost certainty.--more--R.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Sept 27, 2004 9:29:46 GMT -5
a good article from TSN.ca: UBC professor weighs pros/cons of a cap
Canadian Press
9/24/2004
A salary cap would probably guarantee NHL teams make money but could also reward owners who are poor businessman and deprive some fans of the chance to see their teams improve, says a sports law professor.
"The NHL would love to have a system where it is guaranteed that the smallest market and the weakest teams break even," said Stephen Ross, a University of Illinois sports law professor who teaches classes at the University of British Columbia.
"An across-the-board cap, that takes no account of the team and where they are, is an anti-fan idea."
The NHL has locked its players out in a labour dispute which centres around the owner's desire for cost certainty.
The owners say salaries have escalated to a point where player costs eat up 75 per cent of league revenues. They want that figure reduced to between 50 and 55 per cent.
Those who support a salary cap say it allows small-market teams to remain competitive against wealthy clubs. Ross counters it also penalizes smart businessmen who make good decisions.
"Yes, it does protect owners in advance from making really stupid decisions," said Ross, who has written an article on salary caps for the UBC Law Review.
"But what it also protects the owners against is an owner who could spend wisely on a new free agent who will put his team over the top. If a team has not been a contender recently, and they can spend more money to make more money, there should be no limit on their ability to do so."
Ross used the Vancouver Canucks as an example of an NHL team that turned itself around both financially and on the ice, through careful budgeting and smart player signings.
Some owners can even use a salary cap as an excuse, he said.
"No matter what the level of the salary cap, there are going to be a lot of teams who have lousy teams because they have overpaid, underachieving players and now they are at the cap level," Ross said.
"If you are an owner, that's exactly what you want. You want to be able to tell your fans `I'm sorry there is nothing I can do to improve the product because of the cap.' The fans are stuck with another year of a lousy team."
What separates hockey from baseball, football and basketball is the NHL doesn't have a comprehensive revenue sharing system, Ross said.
Hockey, unlike the NFL, also has guaranteed contracts which means a player is paid even if he's released.
In the NFL, a team can reduce its salaries by cutting bad players.
Ross has three proposals which he thinks would help the NHL without imposing a blanket salary cap:
1. Improved revenue sharing: This would put more money into the budgets of small-market teams.
2. Allow teams to buy players for cash, much like the transfer system used in soccer: This would allow a team to purchase a player they need to fill a specific need without being forced to give up other assets or driving up free-agent salaries.
3. Impose team specific salary caps: Wealthy, successful teams like Detroit, Colorado or Dallas would be capped to they couldn't keep spending more money on players. Teams that lose money for two or three years in row would also be capped until they broke even.
Ross said he understands why NHL players are so adamantly opposed to a salary cap.
Other leagues introduced salary caps along with the carrot of free agency or with the promise player salaries would eventually rise.
"In the NHL's case, they already have free agency and you're asking them to impose a Draconian salary cap that is significantly lower than the payrolls of 20 of the teams," he said.
"It is very difficult to say this plan is going to be good for players." R. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Sept 27, 2004 11:18:45 GMT -5
Posted on Sun, Sep. 26, 2004 On the NHL | The real money problem: Big deals for little talentBy Tim Panaccio Inquirer ColumnistIt's finger-pointing time throughout hockey because of NHL commissioner Gary Bettman's lockout. The owners say the players got greedy with the expired 10-year collective-bargaining agreement and drove parity out of the game because of inflationary salaries. The players say that the owners aren't losing as much money as they claim - $224 million last season - and that as long as a free-market system exists, they're entitled to whatever owners are willing to pay. The league wants to impose a $31 million salary cap. The union counters with a luxury tax at $50 million. Many of those who follow hockey's finances blame the current economic chaos on a series of expensive - in some cases, stupid - deals in the 1990s. There is widespread opinion that four deals forever changed hockey's landscape. - www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/columnists/tim_panaccio/9759676.htm?1c |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 27, 2004 17:23:25 GMT -5
a good article from TSN.ca: UBC professor weighs pros/cons of a cap
Canadian Press
9/24/2004
A salary cap would probably guarantee NHL teams make money but could also reward owners who are poor businessman and deprive some fans of the chance to see their teams improve, says a sports law professor.
"The NHL would love to have a system where it is guaranteed that the smallest market and the weakest teams break even," said Stephen Ross, a University of Illinois sports law professor who teaches classes at the University of British Columbia.
"An across-the-board cap, that takes no account of the team and where they are, is an anti-fan idea."
The NHL has locked its players out in a labour dispute which centres around the owner's desire for cost certainty.
The owners say salaries have escalated to a point where player costs eat up 75 per cent of league revenues. They want that figure reduced to between 50 and 55 per cent.
Those who support a salary cap say it allows small-market teams to remain competitive against wealthy clubs. Ross counters it also penalizes smart businessmen who make good decisions.
"Yes, it does protect owners in advance from making really stupid decisions," said Ross, who has written an article on salary caps for the UBC Law Review.
"But what it also protects the owners against is an owner who could spend wisely on a new free agent who will put his team over the top. If a team has not been a contender recently, and they can spend more money to make more money, there should be no limit on their ability to do so."
Ross used the Vancouver Canucks as an example of an NHL team that turned itself around both financially and on the ice, through careful budgeting and smart player signings.
Some owners can even use a salary cap as an excuse, he said.
"No matter what the level of the salary cap, there are going to be a lot of teams who have lousy teams because they have overpaid, underachieving players and now they are at the cap level," Ross said.
"If you are an owner, that's exactly what you want. You want to be able to tell your fans `I'm sorry there is nothing I can do to improve the product because of the cap.' The fans are stuck with another year of a lousy team."
What separates hockey from baseball, football and basketball is the NHL doesn't have a comprehensive revenue sharing system, Ross said.
Hockey, unlike the NFL, also has guaranteed contracts which means a player is paid even if he's released.
In the NFL, a team can reduce its salaries by cutting bad players.
Ross has three proposals which he thinks would help the NHL without imposing a blanket salary cap:
1. Improved revenue sharing: This would put more money into the budgets of small-market teams.
2. Allow teams to buy players for cash, much like the transfer system used in soccer: This would allow a team to purchase a player they need to fill a specific need without being forced to give up other assets or driving up free-agent salaries.
3. Impose team specific salary caps: Wealthy, successful teams like Detroit, Colorado or Dallas would be capped to they couldn't keep spending more money on players. Teams that lose money for two or three years in row would also be capped until they broke even.
Ross said he understands why NHL players are so adamantly opposed to a salary cap.
Other leagues introduced salary caps along with the carrot of free agency or with the promise player salaries would eventually rise.
"In the NHL's case, they already have free agency and you're asking them to impose a Draconian salary cap that is significantly lower than the payrolls of 20 of the teams," he said.
"It is very difficult to say this plan is going to be good for players." R. This guy sounds like a real "unbiased" source. When he uses terms like Draconian to describe a salary cap - a system that most major sports leagues have developed - he loses a bit a credibility in my eyes. His 3 point plan shows how little the fool knows about hockey. 1) Improve revenue sharing. What revenue sharing? Is he taking about the "next to non-existant+ television deals? Or is he going off the deep end and want the entire league to pool all money from ticket sales and divide it 30 ways evenly? 2) Allow team to buy players for cash. It works in soccer because the whole world plays soccer and their is umpteen different championships that you try to better your team for. (UEFA, Champions League, FA Cup, etc...) There are about 32 excellent soccer teams in Europe, spread through about 12 leagues or more. All who can afford to buy a Beckham for 100 million pounds. There are only 7-8 teams in hockey that could do the same, and there is only one league competing for the services of that player. Allowing this in hockey would mean that no small market team, or any team outside of Detroit, Colorado, Dallas, St. Louis, Toronto, New York Rangers, and Philly for that matter, would be able to sign a free agent or make a trade to improve their club. The owners will just wait until year's end and sell their top players (thereby guaranteeing a profit) instead of trading them at the deadline. 3) Team caps. I know this will fly. Detroit will agree to spend only 40 million, but a small market team can go over them on a cup run at the trade deadline? What is the difference bewteen a league wide cap (which would be put in to stop the rich teams from spending and restore some competitive balance) and this "team cap" which limits the rich teams? The point is that the owners are stupid by nature and have made bad decisions in the past. If Vancouver is now able to go and spend more money than Detroit because of a team cap, and they need that extra player, you can betthey will also make a stupid contract offer. No all owners must be reigned in, and what Ross proposes is unfair, probably unconstitutional (unfair labour practices, competition act, etc.), and way more draconian than a simple salary cap. Why complicate something so simple. If Detroit spends 40 million 3 years in a row and vancouver spends 45 million, is Detroit than a small market team and Vancouver put under a cap? Sometimes the best solution is the easy answer ..... a league wide salary cap .....keep it simple. |
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Sept 28, 2004 4:54:30 GMT -5
This guy sounds like a real "unbiased" source. When he uses terms like Draconian to describe a salary cap - a system that most major sports leagues have developed - he loses a bit a credibility in my eyes. I'm pretty sure he used the term Draconian to describe the salary cap of $31M as proposed by the league, not the salary cap in general. as for being biased, I don't see why he would be biased. you can say he doesn't know what he's talking about, but saying he's bised is a bit much, IMO. not true. 5 teams at the most can afford to buy Beckham without selling a good part of their squad. or at least they could at the time he had been sold to Real. it works in soccer/basketball/handball/volleyball/waterpolo because they treat it as a (sort of) free market, like in every other business. if you have the money, you can buy whoever you want. it does create disparity between the rich and the poor so the poor have to find other ways to compete (better coaching, better scouting, better bang-per-buck  management, investing in youth academies etc.). how is that different from today? unless you're talking about the CBA with a salary cap? anyway, it could be restricted to one player and maybe it would help teams like Pittsburgh more than having to trade their best players for minor-leaguers, cheap 3rd-liners and unknown draft picks. it was just a thought... and the difference is...? anyway, I always thought that dumping players once you're out of the playoff race is smart business, but not in line with fair play i don't think this was a good idea, either. simple for who? R. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 28, 2004 18:34:45 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure he used the term Draconian to describe the salary cap of $31M as proposed by the league, not the salary cap in general. as for being biased, I don't see why he would be biased. you can say he doesn't know what he's talking about, but saying he's bised is a bit much, IMO. I say he is biased, because he gives one slanted view of a salary cap. He never gave one point in favour of a cap ...... there has to be at least one good thing about it, even if you are the most ardent critic. not true. 5 teams at the most can afford to buy Beckham without selling a good part of their squad. or at least they could at the time he had been sold to Real. I am no expert in soccer teams. And I will admit I threw the number 32 out there (exaggerated). I still feel there are about 10-20 teams that are rich enough in soccer to buy a player. In soccer you also have teams loaning players to teams to help the competitive balance. Birmingham has Forssel on loan from Chelsea. (I guess when a club picks up the salary in hockey (Nedved) it is similar, but other clubs frowned on this situation last year). But off the top of my head: Liverpool, AC Milan, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Manchester City, Tottenham, Juventus, Inter Milan, Manchester Utd. , and Birmingham City have all been involved in big name transfers (3 Million pounds or more) over the last 2 years. it works in soccer/basketball/handball/volleyball/waterpolo because they treat it as a (sort of) free market, like in every other business. if you have the money, you can buy whoever you want. it does create disparity between the rich and the poor so the poor have to find other ways to compete (better coaching, better scouting, better bang-per-buck management, investing in youth academies etc.). Like I said in soccer they are bought out to not only their own league but other leagues. When Beckham was sold they knew he wouldn't hurt them in the premiership, only in Champions League if they ever met .... no risk , high reward. In hockey you could only sell to a team you would have to compete with eventually. Teams with high payrolls are 3 times more likely (according to Bettman and a little calcualtion I did which showed it is actually slightly higher than 3) to make the playoffs. The "other ways" you suggest only work so far. The scouting you do is great and when the first contract is up you are forced to trade him anyway, coaches don't score goals, management can only spend so much, bang-for-buck is relative. Would you rather have a player making 3 million and scores 30 goals, or a player that scores 3 goals and you pay 300,000? Bang-for-buck is the same, but who is the guy you want on the ice in crucial situations? how is that different from today? unless you're talking about the CBA with a salary cap? I am talking about a CBA with a cap ..... but even if I wasn't the difference is that if it is just a bidding war than the lower teams can't compete. When it comes to player assests they have higher draft picks they can unload for a quality player. Do you think Montreal would have gotten Kovalev last year if it turned into an open auction for his services and the rich teams didn't have to give up a player to get him? and the difference is...? The difference is huge. Right now they unload their players at the trade deadline. If there was open auctions, then they wouldn't trade the guy. New York last season could have kept Kovalev, and waited until the season was over. Why help someone out for a Balej, when you can wait until just before the next season and unload him for 10-20 million to a team and recoup the money lost by keeping him, still make a profit, and have some left over to get another quality player instead of prospects. Simple for everybody. |
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Sept 29, 2004 4:46:49 GMT -5
I say he is biased, because he gives one slanted view of a salary cap. He never gave one point in favour of a cap ...... there has to be at least one good thing about it, even if you are the most ardent critic. but why would he? we all know what it is and we all know what it's for. the point is to show that salary cap isn't necessarily the best solution for ALL parties involved. he listed what he thought were the negative sides of the cap. and he did say one good thing about the cap: Yes, it does protect owners in advance from making really stupid decisions.  you never said one negative thing about the cap that i can remember. you only list what you think are the positive effects. are you biased? 3M pounds is peanuts in today's soccer, at least when it comes to better teams. but only few teams can afford the Beckhams of this world (Real paid close to 25M pounds). IIRC, only Real, Barcelona and initially Inter were bidding for his services. in NHL, you can trade a player only to a team you would have to compete with eventually so i don't see any difference there. the only difference I see is that now you have a choice to accept in return either players, picks or cash or a combination of the three. it's just another option that can allow teams to do what they deem is best for them. the question is which one you can afford? and we have seen that biggest salary doesn't necessarily mean biggest point production. Naslund for $5.65M or Jagr for $11M? or Holik for $9M? Guerin? Tkachuk? Weight? Roenick? Amonte? who knows? I guess it would depend on the situation. the Rangers, i assume, would still rather go after good prospects/high draft picks than cash unless it was a really obscene amount. Pittsburgh or Phoenix might go after cash which helps them more than prospects/draft picks which they might have enough of and that they would eventually have to sign (and pay) or release. the cash they could obtain by trading, say, Jagr and Straka, could possibly let them keep Lang and Kovalev. a salary cap would significantly restrict the flexibility of teams when it comes to trading. it would also be much harder for a team to rebuild. and yes, it would level somewhat the playing field for all the teams but I'm convinced it could be done in other ways too. and what's wrong with that? it allows the cash-strapped teams like Pittsburgh to get the best value for their players instead of prospects/picks and 3rd/4th liners. anyway, Kovalev wouldn't cost as much in the offseason because his value is at its highest at the trading deadline. and by trading him at the deadline, a team saves money by not having to pay him for the rest of the season so deals would still be made at the deadline, IMO. not for the players... R. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 30, 2004 21:55:14 GMT -5
you never said one negative thing about the cap that i can remember. you only list what you think are the positive effects. are you biased? Err .. yeah .... where have you been? Actually I am biased about saving hockey. Not band aid solutions that cause strike every 10 years. A cap will work 100% of the time. Since the cap in the NFL there has been no work stoppages. I don't mention any negatives about the cap, because I see none. The players see the loss of income , $500,000 on average per player. I will have to work a long time to gross that. To me that is not a negative, nor a positive, that is just a pay cut (which I had to take in April as well) The owners will stay solid, financially viable, not grostequely rich like the 60s-70s (comparitively to the players) .... less franchises folding, less franchises moving, easier to expand back into Canada ..... all pluses. From the fans point of view I do not see how it is harder to rebuild. It is harder to sign an elite player (yes), but not harder to rebuild for the good GMs. There would be 30 competitive teams and every game would be worth watching. (Thats where the NFL succeeds ..... they get good TV contracts because every game means something (product of shirter 16 game schedule as well), and every game has the potential to be competitive) 3M pounds is peanuts in today's soccer, at least when it comes to better teams. but only few teams can afford the Beckhams of this world (Real paid close to 25M pounds). IIRC, only Real, Barcelona and initially Inter were bidding for his services. Relativity, my dear Watson, relativity (spoken in my best German accent). 3M ponds may be peanuts in today's soccer, but that was my point, there are richer and far more soccer teams in the world than hockey teams. 3 Million pounds is roughly 6.6 Million Canadian dollars. That is not peanuts in today's NHL. But if you want to delve into it a bit further. In England this year alone, 360 million ponds was spent on transfers. That's 792 million Canadian dollars. It works in soccer because there are so many rich teams that can afford the contracts. In hockey you only have 4-5. Beckham was bought for 24.5 Million pounds I believe. Other players who were bought for that much (say 20 million pounds or more) were: Corvalto - 30M ponds - Chelsea Drogba - 36 Million ponds - Chelsea Rooney - 30 million pounds - Man. U Cisse - 21 million pounds - Liverpool Eto'o - 24 million ponds - Barcelona Samuel - 22 million pounds - Real Madrid Woodgate - 20 Million pounds - Real Madrid Luiz Fabiana - 20 million pounds - Porto That's just last year and there were 7 more teams that bought player for over 15 million pounds. So again I say there are more teams and leagues for the teams to shop their players around ...... in hockey there is only one league. in NHL, you can trade a player only to a team you would have to compete with eventually so i don't see any difference there. the only difference I see is that now you have a choice to accept in return either players, picks or cash or a combination of the three. it's just another option that can allow teams to do what they deem is best for them. Right now trades aren't made because of the interdivision scenarios. Boston would never trade Thornton to Toronto or Montreal or Ottawa , but if you are just talking about putting money into Jacobs hands, then it would be easier for the rich teams Toronto to give him 10-15 million and throw the competitve balance off in an even bigger way. Right now they would have to give up Sundin to get him in a trade or alot of can't miss prospects (which they don't have). So given the chance to keep Sundin and get Thornton without giving up a roster spot would make them salivate and make them stupid. a salary cap would significantly restrict the flexibility of teams when it comes to trading. it would also be much harder for a team to rebuild. and yes, it would level somewhat the playing field for all the teams but I'm convinced it could be done in other ways too. A Lot of fans complain that they can't identify with the teams any more because of all the player movements. And isn't that what the owners need, less flexibility when it comes to trading. Every year at the deadline every veteran wants to be traded to a contender for one last shot before they retire. So the rich owners load up on talent and then end up resign some to groteseque contracts. Less trading is fine by me. I don't think there woudl be less trades, I just think there would be fairer trades. No more Bonk for a third, or Nedved for free. It would be 3 million player for 3 million player and your scouts and GMs will have to show their skills. anyway, Kovalev wouldn't cost as much in the offseason because his value is at its highest at the trading deadline. and by trading him at the deadline, a team saves money by not having to pay him for the rest of the season so deals would still be made at the deadline, IMO. I submit Kovalev's highest trade value was after the playoffs. If there was no lock-out, Kovalev would have been the first UFA to sign or "sold under your transfer scenario". He played so well in the playoffs and continued it in the World Cup that it will be hard for a small market team to compete for his services without a cap. The circle of life. The owners had there day way back when, the players had their days for the last 10 years, now it is time for the owners again. You can't expect owners to lose money all the time and the game to survive. All other solutions I have heard would work in the short term. But that is what got them into this mess, short term solutions that the players find loop holes in. With the cap it is open and shut, and it will work long term. |
|
have you seen this sentence:
management, investing in youth academies etc.).