My thoughts on the NHL's situation

Theres been a lot of talk lately about Hockey not being a major sport in the United States. Gary Bettman gets a lot of crap for bringing hockey to places it isn't supposed to belong.

I disagree. Hockey is thoroughly entrenched as the 4th sport in the United States, behind Football (1), Baseball (2), and Basketball (3). These three sports have a few key advantages over hockey:

1) Grass roots players. Theres a lot more kids playing the above three sports than hockey. Part of it is rink availability, part of it is culture.

2) The Media is on their side. Hockey is not a big draw, because it is not very TV friendly. Therefore, the media tends to ignore hockey when it can.

3) The big teams win. This is huge.

I'd like to focus on #3 first. Who can you blame for hockey's bad TV contract? I blame the Rangers. Well, not just the Rangers, but our big market teams in general. The NHL cannot afford to have LA, Chicago, and New York out of the playoffs year after year. The New York Media is the greatest equalizer in sports reporting. If you want to create a superstar in the NHL today, he's going to have to come out of New York.

Now, about the grassroots movement in hockey. Gary Bettman has done an excellent job in expanding hockey to the outer limits of the United States. Ice Rinks and kids hockey teams are darting up in Texas, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, California, Arizona, and plenty of other places. By placing pro teams in these markets, hockey's seeds have been planted. It worked in New Jersey, I know that first hand (it doesn't help that we have three teams eating up our market, but it seems like a new ice rink opens every year in Northern Jersey).

The Rangers can win over the media and we win over the people. In short, Gary Bettman's long term plan will work, and in the short term we will improve only if the big market teams can improve.

I never understood the need to "expand the market". The only thing it has done is taking teams out of places where they have huge audiences and putting them in places where no one cares.

The NHL doesn't need to expand their markets, they need to contract it. Bring the hockey back to cities that care.

Theres been a lot of talk lately about Hockey not being a major sport in the United States. Gary Bettman gets a lot of crap for bringing hockey to places it isn't supposed to belong.

I disagree. Hockey is thoroughly entrenched as the 4th sport in the United States, behind Football (1), Baseball (2), and Basketball (3). These three sports have a few key advantages over hockey:

1) Grass roots players. Theres a lot more kids playing the above three sports than hockey. Part of it is rink availability, part of it is culture.

2) The Media is on their side. Hockey is not a big draw, because it is not very TV friendly. Therefore, the media tends to ignore hockey when it can.

3) The big teams win. This is huge.

I'd like to focus on #3 first. Who can you blame for hockey's bad TV contract? I blame the Rangers. Well, not just the Rangers, but our big market teams in general. The NHL cannot afford to have LA, Chicago, and New York out of the playoffs year after year. The New York Media is the greatest equalizer in sports reporting. If you want to create a superstar in the NHL today, he's going to have to come out of New York.

Now, about the grassroots movement in hockey. Gary Bettman has done an excellent job in expanding hockey to the outer limits of the United States. Ice Rinks and kids hockey teams are darting up in Texas, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, California, Arizona, and plenty of other places. By placing pro teams in these markets, hockey's seeds have been planted. It worked in New Jersey, I know that first hand (it doesn't help that we have three teams eating up our market, but it seems like a new ice rink opens every year in Northern Jersey).

The Rangers can win over the media and we win over the people. In short, Gary Bettman's long term plan will work, and in the short term we will improve only if the big market teams can improve.

I agree that they need marquee teams to be successful. This is why a salary cap is bad for hockey. It creates total parity.

The concept of 30 equal teams isnt Utopia, its Hell. There is a lot of second guessing over what they have achieved in the NFL. Many are rethinking their views on parity.

Its funny that what is being suggested that Bettmans palns for cost certainty will help the big markets win more, and that the lack of their winning is part of the problem. I sometimes fear you could be right. While at the same time, many are complaining that this CBA is unfair to small markets as they cant win. I think what DownFromNJ is suggesting is correct. The large markets are disadvantaged because they are pressured to spend and buy marquee names rather than build. Maybe Wirtz is on the right track. His cheapness will soon be rewarded.


As for all the talk of hockey being outdrawn by tiddlywinkls or what ever, I think you have to note these are talking about nationally. Within the markets themselves, they are still doing quite well.

I never understood the need to "expand the market". The only thing it has done is taking teams out of places where they have huge audiences and putting them in places where no one cares.

The NHL doesn't need to expand their markets, they need to contract it. Bring the hockey back to cities that care.


"Expand the market" has nothing to do with taking teams out of places where they have huge audiences. Adding new teams (expanding) puts teams in other markets.

What does take teams out of places where they have huge audience is rising player salaries and the fans in that place being unable to support the rising salaries. If you take 1 team out of the NHL or 10 teams out of the NHL, places like Winnipeg, Quebec, or Hartford are not going to get teams back as long as the player salaries are as high as they are now.

The Rangers can win over the media and we win over the people. In short, Gary Bettman's long term plan will work, and in the short term we will improve only if the big market teams can improve.

I think this is the biggest irony of all. The best thing for the business of the NHL would be successful teams in the big US markets. That's what they need to improve the TV deal and media footprint. The fact that teams like Ottawa, Tampa and Calgary can be successful under this CBA is very bad for business.

The best thing for the business of hockey is to have big market dynasties with the fans convinced the league is fair. Kind of like the NBA.

Tom

The fact that teams like Ottawa, Tampa and Calgary can be successful under this CBA is very bad for business.



this is the irony of th debate here at HF. The NHL wants to change the CBA so that the big markets have a better chance against the small markets, yet the fans think its the other way around.

Under this CBA, OTT can keep all its players if it chooses to. If it does keep all its players, it will continue to be a dominant team. Under a capped CBA, OTT will not be able to keep all its players and will not continue to be a dominant team.

How does this help a team like NYR ? Well clearly they are unable to catch up to OTT by spending their way to success, so now they can catch up by forcing OTT down to the pack AND NYR gets to pocket an extra 40m or so per season.

No wonder the NHL is going with the scorched earth policy, there is so much to win and the scenario is like bizarro world, where they have convinced the masses that the results will be turn out to be good for the fans of small markets, when in fact its the exact opposite.

DR

Expanding the market is incredibly important for the NHL's future. In a decade, we'll be seeing drafted players coming out of Texas, New Jersey, the D.C. area, etc. In two decades, we'll be seeing players come out of Atlanta and Tennessee.

I don't think the current CBA gives an advantage to small market teams. I think it keeps the playing field even, with an edge to richer teams. There is a reason Detroit and Colorado win consistantly, and New York loses. Detroit and Colorado are managed well, and New York has Glen Sathar. If the Rangers managed their assets well, they should be as unstoppable as Detroit.

Hockey isn't baseball. You can't buy a victory. Money helps retain players that you wisely developed and drafted. That is the problem that Tampa, Ottawa, Calgary, and other talented young teams are running in to. Under a perfect system, those new UFAs would go to New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Toronto, Chicago, etc. However, without sufficient young player bases, these teams end up failing. Either that, or the big market teams refuse to spend, putting themselves at a similar level to the small market teams (example: Boston, Chicago).

Money helps retain players that you wisely developed and drafted. That is the problem that Tampa, Ottawa, Calgary, and other talented young teams are running in to. .

as an anti cap person, this is the one area that I can agree with. however, a cap isnt the solution to the problem. if there is only so much money from the team to pay those players, then they need to make smarter decisions.

like not giving Toni Lydman a contract for over 2m per season when he had no leverage.

dr

as an anti cap person, this is the one area that I can agree with. however, a cap isnt the solution to the problem. if there is only so much money from the team to pay those players, then they need to make smarter decisions.

like not giving Toni Lydman a contract for over 2m per season when he had no leverage.

dr

No leverage. Because he is not 31 years old and about to become a free agent, right?

The team offered him a contract over $2M per season to avoid arbitration where they probably feel that he would be awarded even more, and/or need to go through the same thing the next year. Or are you saying that they should have taken their chances in arbitration, and walk away if the rulling was anywhere near this $2M per season level, thus starting the dismantling of the Calgary stanley cup contending team how many seasons after they were in the finals? Oh, wait. If they simply make a wise decision drafting, they would have a D man just as good as him waiting in the wings, since good d-men are so easy to come by...

Seems to me he had a lot of leverage.

Expanding the market is incredibly important for the NHL's future.

No. It is incredibly important for the business of the NHL. If the league remains small time in the US, it remains small time in the US. Big deal. The owners can make less and the players can make less. It is not in the fan's best interest for the owners and players to make more.

I don't think the current CBA gives an advantage to small market teams. I think it keeps the playing field even, with an edge to richer teams.

Note the bait and switch here. We are not talking small market versus large market any more. We are suddenly talking rich versus poor. Colorado and Detroit and New Jersey may be rich but they are not big market. They are not big market enough to attract US TV or a US media footprint.

These teams earned their success. Calgary is every bit as good iof a market as Denver. If they keep winning they will be rich too. That is an advantage, but it is good that this advantage exists. It is a reward for doing well. It encourages teams to try to do well.

The NHL wants all teams to do well. They want all teams to have a chance to win with the big markets - not the rich teams - having a big enough advantage that there is always at least one giant TV market in the Stanley Cup Final. They want guaranteed profits for the incompetent, and larger TV revenues and a bigger footprint that will benefit everybody.

That's best for the business of hockey. The remarkable thing is they have managed to convince most fans that what's good for the business of hockey is also good for the game and the fan.

Tom

No. It is incredibly important for the business of the NHL. If the league remains small time in the US, it remains small time in the US. Big deal. The owners can make less and the players can make less. It is not in the fan's best interest for the owners and players to make more.

Canada cannot support the NHL in it's present state. Sorry, I hate to break it to you. The United States is the richest country in the world, and has 9 times the population of Canada. If the NHL could tap into the United States like the other sports leagues, it would become huge.

It is in the fan's interest. I want to see North American players coming out of places besides Canada, Minnesota, Michigan, and New England. Remember when we opened up Europe to the NHL? Think of all the talent we got out of Europe. The same can happen in America.

People say that expansion thinned the talent base. I disagree. There are so many talented hockey players out there. More teams means more talented players from Europe can come over and get better.

In the United States, High School teams are training star football, basketball, and baseball players. Imagine those resources put into hockey. Its more than anything Canada can offer.




Note the bait and switch here. We are not talking small market versus large market any more. We are suddenly talking rich versus poor. Colorado and Detroit and New Jersey may be rich but they are not big market. They are not big market enough to attract US TV or a US media footprint.

I agree. However, theres nothing on the ice that puts a team like Detroit over a team like the Rangers. They have similar bankrolls, they play by the same rules. Theres no excuse for the big market teams not to succeed.




These teams earned their success. Calgary is every bit as good iof a market as Denver. If they keep winning they will be rich too. That is an advantage, but it is good that this advantage exists. It is a reward for doing well. It encourages teams to try to do well.

A Canadian market will never be as rich as Colorado, Detroit, New York, Philly, etc. America is simply richer. A Canadian team needs to sell something along the lines of 20% more tickets to raise the money of an American team. American TV networks have more money, as do American consumers. I'm not anti-Canadian (I'm rooting for Canada at the world cup. I have two team Canada jersies), but its just fact.



That's best for the business of hockey. The remarkable thing is they have managed to convince most fans that what's good for the business of hockey is also good for the game and the fan.


Hockey is a business. In fact, its a multi-billion dollar business. Get used to it. Money makes the world go round.

Canada cannot support the NHL in it's present state.

I don't care. So the NHL goes back to being what it was in the 1980's. Fine by me.

It is in the fan's interest. I want to see North American players coming out of places besides Canada, Minnesota, Michigan, and New England. Remember when we opened up Europe to the NHL? Think of all the talent we got out of Europe. The same can happen in America.

I could care less. There is lots of talent.

In the United States, High School teams are training star football, basketball, and baseball players. Imagine those resources put into hockey. Its more than anything Canada can offer.

So? All it would mean is more expensive hockey. It isn't like Canadians will stop watching or going to the games if the league stays Mickey Mouse in the United States. I see no downside. Hockey survives in Europe. It would survive in Canada too. I don't care whether it does well in the United States or not. Why should I?

A Canadian market will never be as rich as Colorado, Detroit, New York, Philly, etc. America is simply richer.

A Canadian market that is icing a winner will be richer by far than an American team that ices a loser. That's all that matters.

Hockey is a business. In fact, its a multi-billion dollar business. Get used to it. Money makes the world go round.

It makes the world go around for the owners and players. It does not make the world go around for the fans.

Tom

A Canadian market that is icing a winner will be richer by far than an American team that ices a loser. That's all that matters.

No, it wouldn't.

California and New York are each richer than all of Canada. New York City is 1/3 the population of Canada. California has 14 million more people than Canada. Canadian teams cannot make anywhere near the potential profit that the Rangers, Kings, Blackhawks, etc can make. Hell, New Jersey is potentially more profitable than any Canadian market.

Hell, New Jersey is potentially more profitable than any Canadian market.

Interesting claim.

Last year New Jersey was the defending Stanley Cup champion and has a lesser attendance than *ANY* Canadian franchise

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2004

How is your claim consistent with this fact?

Nice story.

New Jersey also made more money than *half* the Canadian Franchises.

Hell, New Jersey is potentially more profitable than any Canadian market.




Interesting claim.

Last year New Jersey was the defending Stanley Cup champion and has a lesser attendance than *ANY* Canadian franchise

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2004

How is your claim consistent with this fact?





Nice story.

New Jersey also made more money than *half* the Canadian Franchises.

I have no idea if your final fact is true or not (although it might be). Do you have a source for it?

Even if it is true, New Jersey was the defending Stanley cup champions last year. Their financial position was about as good as it can possibly be, since there isnt any room to improve on the ice. If New Jersey is a legit NHL market they better have made huge money last year.

However, you claim that they failed to make as much money as some of the Canadian NHL franchises (I think that is what your claim that they made more money than *half* the Canadian franchises means).

How is New Jersey potentially more profitable than any Canadian NHL franchise when when even in a year when they are the defending cup champs they fail to make as much money as several Canadian teams?

No leverage. Because he is not 31 years old and about to become a free agent, right?

The team offered him a contract over $2M per season to avoid arbitration where they probably feel that he would be awarded even more, and/or need to go through the same thing the next year. Or are you saying that they should have taken their chances in arbitration, and walk away if the rulling was anywhere near this $2M per season level, thus starting the dismantling of the Calgary stanley cup contending team how many seasons after they were in the finals? Oh, wait. If they simply make a wise decision drafting, they would have a D man just as good as him waiting in the wings, since good d-men are so easy to come by...

Seems to me he had a lot of leverage.

Lydman wouldnt have arbitration rights 2 years ago when he signed the contract. also, what basis would have Lydman been able to command that much $ from an arbitrator ? he has done nothing outstanding in his career, so i cant imagine the Flames had much risk of a large arbitration award, even if he was eleginbe.

dr

Lydman wouldnt have arbitration rights 2 years ago when he signed the contract. also, what basis would have Lydman been able to command that much $ from an arbitrator ? he has done nothing outstanding in his career, so i cant imagine the Flames had much risk of a large arbitration award, even if he was eleginbe.

dr

August 11, 2003

"I am happy to have worked it out and avoid arbitration," said Lydman, who turns 26 next month. "It was important to me to have a longer term deal rather than the one year that would have resulted from arbitration. I wanted to remain in Calgary."

http://www.all-sports.com/cgi-bin/showstory.cgi?story_id=43621

The original topic for this thread is a lot of the backing to my idea for a CBA resolution. By seperating the big markets from the small markets, you might be able to at least draw more attention to the big markets side of the league, and thus create more overall interest in the league.

Face the facts, it would draw more attention from the media if you had Detroit versus New York in the finals than if you had Phoenix versus Tampa Bay. The ratings would be larger, and the overall exposure would be greater.

That's why I say you take all the big market teams, throw them in a division/conference/league, whatever you want to call it. You have them compete amongst each other without a cap largely until the Cup final where they would face a small market team. Now I know that is where the logic is flawed, because then you don't have two large markets in the finals. As it is now, how many of the big markets have gone to the finals the past 10 years? This would insure that at least 10 out of 10 Finals have one of the bigger market teams.

On the flip side, you have the small market teams who are able to survive comparitively with a cap in place at very least allowing all the teams the chance to be competitive in their group of small market teams.

It's similar to the Tier system, and it's based on the economics and popularity of the league.

I don't think the current CBA gives an advantage to small market teams. I think it keeps the playing field even, with an edge to richer teams. There is a reason Detroit and Colorado win consistantly, and New York loses. Detroit and Colorado are managed well, and New York has Glen Sathar. If the Rangers managed their assets well, they should be as unstoppable as Detroit.


Thank you. I wish everyone would realize this.

If you have good management, you'll make good moves and have a good team, regardless of payroll. Some teams need to look at themselves in the mirror and take responsibility for making bad moves, instead of blaming Detroit or Colorado.

August 11, 2003

"I am happy to have worked it out and avoid arbitration," said Lydman, who turns 26 next month. "It was important to me to have a longer term deal rather than the one year that would have resulted from arbitration. I wanted to remain in Calgary."

http://www.all-sports.com/cgi-bin/showstory.cgi?story_id=43621


ok ... he was elegible. .... still no reason to give him a contract for that amount AND at the same time cry poverty.

what had he done to be worth over 2m per season ?

dr

The original topic for this thread is a lot of the backing to my idea for a CBA resolution. By seperating the big markets from the small markets, you might be able to at least draw more attention to the big markets side of the league, and thus create more overall interest in the league.

Face the facts, it would draw more attention from the media if you had Detroit versus New York in the finals than if you had Phoenix versus Tampa Bay. The ratings would be larger, and the overall exposure would be greater.

That's why I say you take all the big market teams, throw them in a division/conference/league, whatever you want to call it. You have them compete amongst each other without a cap largely until the Cup final where they would face a small market team. Now I know that is where the logic is flawed, because then you don't have two large markets in the finals. As it is now, how many of the big markets have gone to the finals the past 10 years? This would insure that at least 10 out of 10 Finals have one of the bigger market teams.

On the flip side, you have the small market teams who are able to survive comparitively with a cap in place at very least allowing all the teams the chance to be competitive in their group of small market teams.

It's similar to the Tier system, and it's based on the economics and popularity of the league.


Its not really that far fetched. There's alot of smaller Division 1 schools with no chance of winning a national title, but they're still out there. And the competitive imbalance in college football is much greater than in hockey.

Maybe even something like how the Superbowl was created. The AFL and NFL had seperate championships, the Super Bowl was more or less an exhibition. And beleive it or not, after a few years, the AFL was seen as equals. You could have a Stanley Cup series as the SuperBowl between the two leagues.

ok ... he was elegible. .... still no reason to give him a contract for that amount AND at the same time cry poverty.

what had he done to be worth over 2m per season ?

dr

August 11, 2003

CALGARY, Alberta (Ticker) - The Calgary Flames on Monday re-signed Toni Lydman, who led their defensemen in scoring last season, to a multi-year contract.

"Toni has a big offensive side to his game and makes our team better," Flames general manager and coach Darryl Sutter said. "He will play in our group of top four defensemen that I consider to be the best young defense corps in hockey."

http://www.all-sports.com/cgi-bin/showstory.cgi?story_id=43621

August 11, 2003

CALGARY, Alberta (Ticker) - The Calgary Flames on Monday re-signed Toni Lydman, who led their defensemen in scoring last season, to a multi-year contract.

"Toni has a big offensive side to his game and makes our team better," Flames general manager and coach Darryl Sutter said. "He will play in our group of top four defensemen that I consider to be the best young defense corps in hockey."

http://www.all-sports.com/cgi-bin/showstory.cgi?story_id=43621

What would you expect Sutter to say?

No, it wouldn't.

California and New York are each richer than all of Canada. New York City is 1/3 the population of Canada. California has 14 million more people than Canada. Canadian teams cannot make anywhere near the potential profit that the Rangers, Kings, Blackhawks, etc can make. Hell, New Jersey is potentially more profitable than any Canadian market.

So how many hockey fans does California have? Does ten times the population translate into ten times the revenue? Do the Kings have ten times the number of tickets to sell?

Vancouver is selling out every single ticket at higher than average prices even after you convert the Canadian dollar to US funds. In addition to the National TV packages, the Canucks have a local TV deal that draws better ratings than the deal in Toronto. Heck, a Vancouver Canuck game draws three times more viewers in British Columbia than ESPN gets on a National broadcast in the US. They have 17 games they sell via pay per view. The subscriber base is now nearly 25,000 per game at $10 a pop. The pay per view games play in pubs and in movie theaters with the Canucks taking a piece of the action.

Vancouver may not be Los Angeles, but we do have corporate sponsors who want to make deals with the Canucks. There is no competition from basketball or baseball or big time football. Heck, the lottery corporation gives them $3 million a year.

They published the King's books through a fan, remember? If you don't believe the Canucks are blowing away Los Angeles in revenues - the Kings have to pay money to get the games on the radio! - then you are nuts.

Tom

I have no idea if your final fact is true or not (although it might be). Do you have a source for it?

Unfortunately, a Virus forced me to format my hard drive, so my old bookmarks are erased. But lets look at this logically.

The Devils have a higher payroll than Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton. Calgary and Edmonton are on NHL welfare and Ottawa was recently bankrupt. Who brings in more money? The Devils. I'm sure that Montreal and Toronto bring in a lot more revenue, and so does probably Vancouver.



So how many hockey fans does California have? Does ten times the population translate into ten times the revenue? Do the Kings have ten times the number of tickets to sell?

Ten times the population translates into ten times the potential revenue. As Hockey catches on, and it is catching on, you'll see the percentage of hockey fans in the United States grow.

There are already many, many more hockey fans in the US than in Canada. 24 teams vs 6 teams.




How is New Jersey potentially more profitable than any Canadian NHL franchise when when even in a year when they are the defending cup champs they fail to make as much money as several Canadian teams?

New Jersey is a market of 9 million. Figure 5.5 million of the market goes to the Devils (3.5 million to Flyers and Rangers). New Jersey also recently surpassed Connecticut as the richest state per-capita. So, we have a potential market of 5.5 million of the richest Americans.

Thats a lot more money than even Toronto can draw upon.All the NHL needs to do is tap into it. And the Canadian dollar isn't getting any better.

I agree that they need marquee teams to be successful. This is why a salary cap is bad for hockey. It creates total parity.

:joker: This one reason is better than all the reasons for a cap. ha. :joker:

No leverage. Because he is not 31 years old and about to become a free agent, right?

The team offered him a contract over $2M per season to avoid arbitration where they probably feel that he would be awarded even more, and/or need to go through the same thing the next year. Or are you saying that they should have taken their chances in arbitration, and walk away if the rulling was anywhere near this $2M per season level, thus starting the dismantling of the Calgary stanley cup contending team how many seasons after they were in the finals? Oh, wait. If they simply make a wise decision drafting, they would have a D man just as good as him waiting in the wings, since good d-men are so easy to come by...

Seems to me he had a lot of leverage.

:yo: That is the correct answer! :yo:

A Canadian market that is icing a winner will be richer by far than an American team that ices a loser. That's all that matters.
Tom

An American team that is icing a winner will be richer by far than a Canadian team that ices a winner. That's all that matters.

You have to realise, if New York iced a dynasty... wow. Thats a lot of money.

New York already probably makes more cash than everyone but Toronto in Canada with a draft lottery team. Rangers merchandise sales are through the roof, and they sell out the garden most games. TV ratings are huge too.

And I'm a Devils fan. I hate the Rags :)

Lydman wouldnt have arbitration rights 2 years ago when he signed the contract. also, what basis would have Lydman been able to command that much $ from an arbitrator ? he has done nothing outstanding in his career, so i cant imagine the Flames had much risk of a large arbitration award, even if he was eleginbe.
dr

as an anti cap person, this is the one area that I can agree with. however, a cap isnt the solution to the problem. if there is only so much money from the team to pay those players, then they need to make smarter decisions.

like not giving Toni Lydman a contract for over 2m per season when he had no leverage.

dr

This is why your points don't hold water. The New York Rangers could pay Lydman 5m per season and they would still have more money to pay players than Calgary. Calgary can budget all they want and it won't make a sufficient difference.

Thank you. I wish everyone would realize this.

If you have good management, you'll make good moves and have a good team, regardless of payroll. Some teams need to look at themselves in the mirror and take responsibility for making bad moves, instead of blaming Detroit or Colorado.

If Calgary grew the same team as Detroit has through the draft, Calgary wouldn't be as competitive because they wouldn't be able to keep players like Lidstrom at like $10m a year. Good management WILL NOT make a sufficient difference. And if a large market team has an equally good management to a small market team, then the large market team will win out any day.

ok ... he was elegible. .... still no reason to give him a contract for that amount AND at the same time cry poverty.

what had he done to be worth over 2m per season ?

dr

Nothing. But since a larger market opposition team would be ready to throw him $2m Calgary had to step up and do the same or lose the player. Then Calgary would be less competitive and the fans would lose out.

An American team that is icing a winner will be richer by far than a Canadian team that ices a winner. That's all that matters.

This simply isn't true. A winner in one of the mega markets like Toronto, New York or Chicago will generate more than a winner in a smaller market team (Canadian or American), but it is a gate driven league.

If prices are the same (after currency conversion) and the team sells out, where is all the extra cash for the American team? How many American teams can turn $30-35 million in broadcast revenues liike Vancouver? Why are corporate sponsors lining up for the number one sport in Vancouver? Don't jammed luxury boxes pay in Canada? Where does Colorado get revenues Vancouver won't have if they start winning some playoff games? Out of thin air?

All the teams - even a team in Edmonton - can generate revenues to support a winner's payroll. The hard part is becoming a winner. Look at Ottawa. If Ottawa can support a $50 million payroll, anybody can.

They are doing it by selling a heck of a lot of tickets at high prices and with corporate sponsors and a tidy broadcast package. They can't generate broadcast revenues like Vancouver, but they sure don't have to bribe a radio station to carry their games like Los Angeles does. Ottawa can afford a great team. That's all that matters.



Ten times the population translates into ten times the potential revenue. As Hockey catches on, and it is catching on, you'll see the percentage of hockey fans in the United States grow.

It does not. That's ridiculous. Nobody can sell ten times the number of tickets Vancouver is selling right now. Would a winner in New York generate $300 million in broadcast revenues? Get a grip.

Besides which, potential means dick. I've heard this song about hockey in the US forever. Yawn. Wake me when it happens. I'd much rather own a team in Vancouver than in all but a handful of American markets.

Tom

If prices are the same (after currency conversion) and the team sells out, where is all the extra cash for the American team? How many American teams can turn $30-35 million in broadcast revenues liike Vancouver? Why are corporate sponsors lining up for the number one sport in Vancouver? Don't jammed luxury boxes pay in Canada? Where does Colorado get revenues Vancouver won't have if they start winning some playoff games? Out of thin air?

After currency conversion? Hate to break it to you, but the currency conversion makes Canadian clubs lose a ton of money. You don't pay 130 dollars Canadian for an American equivilant to an 80 dollar seat do you?

I don't care how you care to spin it, American clubs draw bigger corporate sponsorships than Canadian clubs. American have more money, its a fact of life.

It may be a gate driven league, but teams still make tons of money off TV and merchandise. Calgary and Edmonton may sell out every night, but they still can't support a big money franchise.



It does not. That's ridiculous. Nobody can sell ten times the number of tickets Vancouver is selling right now. Would a winner in New York generate $300 million in broadcast revenues? Get a grip.

Merchanchise and TV contracts account for a large portion of a team's revenue.

The Canucks sold 18,631 tickets per game last year.
Source: http://www.kenn.com/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl_van_attendance.html

The Rangers sold 18,081 tickets per game last year. It takes about 1.3 Canadian dollars to equal one American dollar. The Rangers may sell slightly less tickets, but they make 30% more off those tickets. Same with merchandise sales.

The Devils sell ~15,000 tickets per game on average. A Canadian club would have to sell ~19,500 tickets per game to match that. Only Toronto and Montreal sell that many tickets. Detroit sells 20,000 tickets per year. A Canadian club would have to sell 26,000 tickets to match that.

But this is all getting away from my original point:





This simply isn't true. A winner in one of the mega markets like Toronto, New York or Chicago will generate more than a winner in a smaller market team (Canadian or American), but it is a gate driven league.

The NHL does not have to be a gate driven league. Bettman's strategy is changing this, which all goes back to my original point.

If Calgary grew the same team as Detroit has through the draft, Calgary wouldn't be as competitive because they wouldn't be able to keep players like Lidstrom at like $10m a year. Good management WILL NOT make a sufficient difference. And if a large market team has an equally good management to a small market team, then the large market team will win out any day.

Is Detroit well managed? Is Calgary? Who won the series between them?

Lets say Calgary drafted two guys who became as good as Lidstrom, had enough money to sign both(as salaries will be lower with a cap, right?), but only had enough cap room for one. Now we're back where we started. Calgary can't keep the players they developed for financial reasons.

. American have more money, its a fact of life.
.

just for teh record, the corridor between Calgary and Edmonton ( along Highway 2) is amongst the wealthiest per capita region in all of North America.

Its called "OIL MONEY" and Alberta is gushing. The owners of CGY collectivly have more money than any ownership group in the NHL.

dr

After currency conversion? Hate to break it to you, but the currency conversion makes Canadian clubs lose a ton of money. You don't pay 130 dollars Canadian for an American equivilant to an 80 dollar seat do you?

Uh, yes. The average ticket price in Vancouver was a little more than that the NHL average after currency conversion. About $55 US a ticket. This currency conversion was such a bogus issue. It mattered for the first year or two when the Canadian dollar plunged to 62 cents American. The response from the Canadian teams was to moan and groan about how they have to pay American dollars out in payroll and they raised prices to compensate. Vancouverites have paid slightly more than the NHl average for prices for as long as I have been a fan.

Note that in the last year, the Canadian dollar has zoomed to 75 cents. Funny the Canucks didn't drop prices to compensate.

I don't care how you care to spin it, American clubs draw bigger corporate sponsorships than Canadian clubs. American have more money, its a fact of life.


Prove it. Why do you think the Vancouver rink is called GM Place? Even American companies like to sponsor hockey teams in Canada. It is excellent business. Forty-five per cent of Canadians call hockey their favourite sport. Four per cent of Americans do.

And guess what? Canadians have a little money. They even buy cars! GM advertises up here! If you were GM and you could spend $25 million naming a hockey rink would you spend that money in New Jersey or Vancouver?

It's a no-brainer.

It may be a gate driven league, but teams still make tons of money off TV and merchandise. Calgary and Edmonton may sell out every night, but they still can't support a big money franchise.

Merchandising money is shared. Broadcast money? It is mostly local. Revenues depend on eyeballs on the screen on both sides of the border. If you were McDonald's, would you advertise to 50,000 Devil's fans or 750,000 Vancouver fans? Why?

What kind of broadcast deal does New Jersey have?

Calgary and Edmonton both draw really well because prices are low. They wil go up with a winner. They don't do what Vancouver does in broadcast, but they will do better than most American markets. The Oilers are starting pay per view too.

Explain Ottawa. Calgary would do every bit as well. Edmonton, maybe not, but if not, Edmonton is the only Canadian city in this boat. Calgary is a great hockey town, and there is tons of money in the oil patch.

Bettman doesn't want it to be a gate driven league but that's what it is. And it's a damned good thing for the fan. To be a TV driven league we'd need New York Chicago in every Stanley Cup Final.

Tom

Is Detroit well managed? Is Calgary? Who won the series between them?

Lets say Calgary drafted two guys who became as good as Lidstrom, had enough money to sign both(as salaries will be lower with a cap, right?), but only had enough cap room for one. Now we're back where we started. Calgary can't keep the players they developed for financial reasons.

That's being short-sighted. Compare the last 8 years between the two teams and you will understand what Bettman says. The larger market teams can compete consistently, while other teams are there one year and out of the playoffs the next.

That's being short-sighted. Compare the last 8 years between the two teams and you will understand what Bettman says. The larger market teams can compete consistently, while other teams are there one year and out of the playoffs the next.

look at the last 12 years of drafting and you will see CGY doesnt deserve the success that DET has had, whether they could afford it or not.

dr

Lets say Calgary drafted two guys who became as good as Lidstrom, had enough money to sign both(as salaries will be lower with a cap, right?), but only had enough cap room for one. Now we're back where we started. Calgary can't keep the players they developed for financial reasons.

:lol lol :lol But Calgary would be on an even standing with the other teams in the league. No team would be stacking themselves while teams like Calgary suffer.

:lol lol :lol But Calgary would be on an even standing with the other teams in the league. No team would be stacking themselves while teams like Calgary suffer.

and thats a good thing ? so CGY, in this example, does a great job drafting and another team does a lousy job, but that lousy team is allowed to stay even with CGY ?

teams that draft poorly dont deserve the same success as teams that draft well. why should we let the poorly managed teams catch up to the well run teams ?

dr

just for teh record, the corridor between Calgary and Edmonton ( along Highway 2) is amongst the wealthiest per capita region in all of North America.


And while Ottawa has one of the highest average household incomes in North America, it is also one of the most affordable major cities in North America to live in.

Senators founder Bruce Firestone wrote that Ottawa was a much better hockey market then Tampa Bay despite half the population because of the wealth and the concentration of hockey fans.

and thats a good thing ? so CGY, in this example, does a great job drafting and another team does a lousy job, but that lousy team is allowed to stay even with CGY ?

teams that draft poorly dont deserve the same success as teams that draft well. why should we let the poorly managed teams catch up to the well run teams ?

dr

The point isn't that one team drafts better than another. The point is that even if they had both drafted equally, Detroit would have a salary advantage.

The current state of any given team in the NHL as far as how they drafted or what their standings were last year, or whatever, that is irrelevant. The point is, that if any two teams do equally well at drafting, trading, etc, the larger market team always has the advantage of having a higher payroll.

Pulling examples out of a hat isn't helping, cause we can do the same.

Let's just look at how things would be if both teams had the exact same players. Let's pretend with a hockey video game. If both teams have the exact same players and both the teams draft the exact same players, then both teams will be exactly even. We can duplicate that in a video game. But wait!! "Team A" only has a $30 million dollar budget while "Team B" has a $50 million dollar budget. Even though both teams have the same 20 players, one team will be able to continue to afford those 20 players, while another team will not. That is the reality of the NHL today, and that is why we need a cap. No matter what "Team A" does as far as spending smarter than "Team B" it will not make sufficient difference to allow "Team A" to hold on to all of those players. "Team A" will have to trade players away for second rate talent.

and thats a good thing ? so CGY, in this example, does a great job drafting and another team does a lousy job, but that lousy team is allowed to stay even with CGY ?
dr

No, that team wouldn't be able to stay even with Calgary under a cap, because they wouldn't be able to open up their large market payroll and sign free agent after free agent. They would have to suffer until they make better choices in the draft or make better trades.

Large market teams that draft poorly shouldn't be able to compete with a good drafting team like Calgary, and under a cap they wouldn't be. It's the present system of "Oh well, let's trade for Ray Bourque and Rob Blake and they'll put us over the top." A team like Calgary would never be able to do something like that. And in a cap, neither would Colorado.

You keep contradicting yourself. Getting a good team through the draft would be more important under a cap.

T_B, you just don't get it. I'm begining to think that you never will.

Heres the gist of what I'm trying to tell you.

The NHL has reached it's max in Canada. The NHL is just begining to grow in the United States. The United States is infinitely larger and richer than Canada. US teams can pump more money into the NHL than Canada can. The NHL has made a smart long term business decision and is putting hockey in places it traditionally never was. By doing this, they are expanding their market from the ground up. Currently the NHL cannot make much money off TV contracts because it cannot keep up with Baseball, Football, and Basketball. That is changing and will continue to change as the grass roots effort continues. In addition, hockey will continue to develope in non-traditional markets, and the number of fans in the United States will continue to rise every year.

T_B, you just don't get it. I'm begining to think that you never will.

Heres the gist of what I'm trying to tell you.

The NHL has reached it's max in Canada. The NHL is just begining to grow in the United States. The United States is infinitely larger and richer than Canada. US teams can pump more money into the NHL than Canada can. The NHL has made a smart long term business decision and is putting hockey in places it traditionally never was. By doing this, they are expanding their market from the ground up. Currently the NHL cannot make much money off TV contracts because it cannot keep up with Baseball, Football, and Basketball. That is changing and will continue to change as the grass roots effort continues. In addition, hockey will continue to develope in non-traditional markets, and the number of fans in the United States will continue to rise every year.

while i see what you're saying i also agree w/ tom here, no matter how big hockey gets here in the US, it'll never be as big as it is in canada and in many markets, will never draw as well, maybe in 10 - 15 years yes, but present day, not even close, hell even 10-15 years is cutting it close, probably be more than that, the nhl cannot make big tv revenue here because it's not as big of a sport, plain and simple, whether it'll change or not still has yet to be seen, and it'll all determine on what happens over the next few years with the cba. frankly if the financial aspect of the league gets taken care of and leveled out more you could see 2 more teams pop back up in canada IMO, it doesnt' matter how many markets the nhl puts in non traditional places here in the US, if the places don't support the team, then what's it matter how many teams we have down south, what matters is how many fans can be drawn in those non traditional markets, if the teams don't get fan support then they don't get the revenue generated by merchandise/ticket sales, therefore have less to work with, that can only last so long before the franchise folds, and THAT is what's gotta be taken care of

Pulling examples out of a hat isn't helping, cause we can do the same.

Well, let's see you pull real examples out of the hat then. If there really was a competitive balance problem in the NHL you would be able to show it by using real examples. If you want to show that there is no competitive balance issue in the NHL you use real examples. Ottawa, Tampa, Calgary, Vancouver, Colorado.

Let's just look at how things would be if both teams had the exact same players. Let's pretend with a hockey video game. If both teams have the exact same players and both the teams draft the exact same players, then both teams will be exactly even. We can duplicate that in a video game. But wait!! "Team A" only has a $30 million dollar budget while "Team B" has a $50 million dollar budget.

So why does Team A have a $30 million budget and Team B have a $50 million budget? If the teams are both good, both will have good revenues and both will have a $50 million budget. If they both suck, they will both have a $30 million budget. Unless, of course, one of the teams decides they will try to buy a winner like the Rangers. If Team B is the Rangers they will spend the money and still suck.

Even the hypotheticals can't show that the small markets in the NHL are disadvantaged.

Tom

[QUOTE=DownFromNJ]The NHL has made a smart long term business decision [QUOTE]

ok, good point. so then they should shut up about the losses when its really an investment in their long term business.

i agree with you and this whole cap issue is a sham.

dr

The NHL has reached it's max in Canada. The NHL is just begining to grow in the United States. The United States is infinitely larger and richer than Canada. US teams can pump more money into the NHL than Canada can. The NHL has made a smart long term business decision and is putting hockey in places it traditionally never was. By doing this, they are expanding their market from the ground up. Currently the NHL cannot make much money off TV contracts because it cannot keep up with Baseball, Football, and Basketball. That is changing and will continue to change as the grass roots effort continues. In addition, hockey will continue to develope in non-traditional markets, and the number of fans in the United States will continue to rise every year.

I don't think you will ever get it either. Why on earth do you care about any of this crap if you are a hockey fan?

If any of that happens - Hah! As if. - it means higher franchise values, higher ticket prices, higher salaries for the players, and even more commercials interrupting the game. Why do you want any of that?

Give me one good reason why any of us should care.

Who cares whether hockey keeps up with baseball, basketball or football? Who cares whether hockey goes to non-traditional areas? Americans like the NFL and Survivor and Republicans all of which to me are incredibly stupid things to like, but hey, different strokes, right? Canadians like the NHL, and most Americans don't. Americans like the NFL among other things I think are silly. Fine by me.

Tom

So why does Team A have a $30 million budget and Team B have a $50 million budget? If the teams are both good, both will have good revenues and both will have a $50 million budget. If they both suck, they will both have a $30 million budget.

:lol lol :lol Because one team represents Edmonton and the other team represents Detroit. That's why. Edmonton will NEVER NEVER EVER EVER have the revenue of Detroit. They are the $30 million budget. Detroit can throw $50 million around and think nothing of it.

Unless, of course, one of the teams decides they will try to buy a winner like the Rangers. If Team B is the Rangers they will spend the money and still suck. Even the hypotheticals can't show that the small markets in the NHL are disadvantaged.

Tom

:lol Why would New York have to suck? They did suck, but they didn't have to. If they'd been able to sign a player like Joe Sakic, I bet they wouldn't have sucked. Look at Toronto and Philly. They are totally throwing money around bringing in players to push them over the top. They made it to the 2nd and 3rd rounds of the playoffs and have been consistently successful for several years in the playoffs and regular season. Detroit too brings in top players for big money to keep them competitive. Don't even go to the Anaheim, Carolina, and Calgary route. Anaheim and Carolina missed the playoffs the very next season. I bet Calgary will too.

It's unbelieveable that someone can sit here and say that a team who has a $30 million dollar budget can compete on even terms with a team with a $50 million dollar budget, or if Edmonton plays as well as Detroit, that they will suddenly have an extra $20 million to play with. Give it up!! Even if New York and Edmonton drafted all their players, Edmonton wouldn't be able to keep them all while New York could.

And you are also giving one example where a team will ALWAYS suck if they buy players like New York has. Good grief !! Not every team that buys players will be guaranteed to suck.

: Not every team that buys players will be guaranteed to suck.

typically, the players that are available to be bought are on the downside of their career and their bang for buck quotient is quite low.

dr

typically, the players that are available to be bought are on the downside of their career and their bang for buck quotient is quite low.

dr

But i've answered that argument as well. If both teams have drafted all their players, the small market team will not be able to keep them all, while the large market team will.

But i've answered that argument as well. If both teams have drafted all their players, the small market team will not be able to keep them all, while the large market team will.

well we disagree that its an issue. the only example i can see where a team in a small market has drafted well is OTT. they seem to have had no trouble keeping their players.

dont bring up the bankruptcy, that occured because Bryden put no money into the investment and had leveraged it all on financing and it fell apart. now that there is no huge interest to pay, the team is doing just fine.

so tell me a team that has had a collection of stars that they drafted they couldnt keep ?

PIT ? poor ownership decisions. they could have invested in a new rink, like VAN did and they didnt. now he pays the price. at one point his team was the most popular in the world with the worlds best player.

EDM ? Peter Puck pocketed every penny that team made and SOLD Wayne for 15million bucks. Why should we feel sorry that decision ?

CGY ? Gee, lets feel bad they dealt Nieuwendyk and Fleury and only have Regehr and Iginla to show for it.

so .... what small market team has drafted well and not been able to keep the team together ?

COL ? Surely, Denver isnt considered a huge market are they ? They have kept their team together.

NJD ? Surely, East Rutherford isnt a big market is it ?

So again, show me a small market that has drafted well and not been able to keep their team together.

DR

:lol lol :lol Because one team represents Edmonton and the other team represents Detroit. That's why. Edmonton will NEVER NEVER EVER EVER have the revenue of Detroit. They are the $30 million budget. Detroit can throw $50 million around and think nothing of it.

Then get rid of Edmonton. If Ottawa can do it, then Edmonton and perhaps one or two other teams are not NHL markets. But I think Edmonton revenues would go way up plenty with a winner. They would sell every ticket at much higher prices. The broadcast revenues and pay per view would get higher. And of course, the 150 playoff games Detroit has enjoyed over the past decade would help the Oilers a lot too. They would have a big payroll with a winner or they are an AHL team.

The Red Wings revenue is dropping. In case you had not noticed they have not been winning a lot of playoff games lately. They are yesterday's team, going downhill fast. When they are missing the playoffs, they won't be drawing and they won't be spending big bucks.

would New York have to suck? They did suck, but they didn't have to. If they'd been able to sign a player like Joe Sakic, I bet they wouldn't have sucked.


They tried to sign Sakic because small market Colorado wasn't supposed to be able to afford to keep all their stars. Colorado matched. Under this CBA free agents are old so they could not bid for Sakic or Iginla or Bertuzzi. The Rangers have bought or acquired the most famous,best players who were available. Every year, people figured they would make the playoffs for sure. The media applauded every signing. Every year they surprised eveyone by sucking big time. Then - and only then - did everyone decide it was because the Rangers spent stupidly.

Toronto and Philly.

Toronto last won since 1967. Philly hasn't won since 1976. I don't think either team is going anywhere, but if one of them does win, it will be the first team to win built on free agents.

Even if New York and Edmonton drafted all their players, Edmonton wouldn't be able to keep them all while New York could.

Ottawa is keeping all their players. Vancouver is keeping all of theirs. Tampa is not auctioning off Richards and LeCavalier. Why wouldn't Edmonton if they were good? Saying what Edmonton would do is a bunk argument. It is another hypothetical. Why can't you find a real world example? Find an Edmonton or a team like Edmonton except winning (Tampa, Vancouver or Ottawa) who sold out to sink back to mediocrity. It doesn't happen.

And you are also giving one example where a team will ALWAYS suck if they buy players like New York has. Good grief !! Not every team that buys players will be guaranteed to suck.

Name one that hasn't sucked. Trying to build a winning team by signing free agents is a stupid thing to do. Give a real world example.

Tom

Then get rid of Edmonton. If Ottawa can do it, then Edmonton and perhaps one or two other teams are not NHL markets. But I think Edmonton revenues would go way up plenty with a winner. They would sell every ticket at much higher prices. The broadcast revenues and pay per view would get higher. And of course, the 150 playoff games Detroit has enjoyed over the past decade would help the Oilers a lot too. They would have a big payroll with a winner or they are an AHL team.

The Red Wings revenue is dropping. In case you had not noticed they have not been winning a lot of playoff games lately. They are yesterday's team, going downhill fast. When they are missing the playoffs, they won't be drawing and they won't be spending big bucks.



They tried to sign Sakic because small market Colorado wasn't supposed to be able to afford to keep all their stars. Colorado matched. Under this CBA free agents are old so they could not bid for Sakic or Iginla or Bertuzzi. The Rangers have bought or acquired the most famous,best players who were available. Every year, people figured they would make the playoffs for sure. The media applauded every signing. Every year they surprised eveyone by sucking big time. Then - and only then - did everyone decide it was because the Rangers spent stupidly.



Toronto last won since 1967. Philly hasn't won since 1976. I don't think either team is going anywhere, but if one of them does win, it will be the first team to win built on free agents.



Ottawa is keeping all their players. Vancouver is keeping all of theirs. Tampa is not auctioning off Richards and LeCavalier. Why wouldn't Edmonton if they were good? Saying what Edmonton would do is a bunk argument. It is another hypothetical. Why can't you find a real world example? Find an Edmonton or a team like Edmonton except winning (Tampa, Vancouver or Ottawa) who sold out to sink back to mediocrity. It doesn't happen.



Name one that hasn't sucked. Trying to build a winning team by signing free agents is a stupid thing to do. Give a real world example.

Tom

while they didn't buy their whole team, detroit's last cup run we pretty much were able to obtain two of the biggest name UFA's that year, started w/ the hasek trade, then comes robitaille, hull, olausson was a nice addition as well, how many people were claiming that detroit bought the cup that year?... only reason i bring that up for your example

I don't care. So the NHL goes back to being what it was in the 1980's. Fine by me.



I could care less. There is lots of talent.



So? All it would mean is more expensive hockey. It isn't like Canadians will stop watching or going to the games if the league stays Mickey Mouse in the United States. I see no downside. Hockey survives in Europe. It would survive in Canada too. I don't care whether it does well in the United States or not. Why should I?



A Canadian market that is icing a winner will be richer by far than an American team that ices a loser. That's all that matters.



It makes the world go around for the owners and players. It does not make the world go around for the fans.

Tom

In these statements, I sense bias. One of the four letter words not condusive to objectivity. Not exclusive to business related matters but a relevant indicator nonetheless.

But since we are talking business; tsk, tsk. Not a good idea to show your hand like that. Moss, Berland, Tahoe, Preston, et al; they would be disappointed. The stripes are evident. Credibility, reliability is tenuous at best.

I ***king hate when I feel it's necessary to make a point this way. It shouldn't come to this.

:lol lol :lol Because one team represents Edmonton and the other team represents Detroit. That's why. Edmonton will NEVER NEVER EVER EVER have the revenue of Detroit. They are the $30 million budget. Detroit can throw $50 million around and think nothing of it.



:lol Why would New York have to suck? They did suck, but they didn't have to. If they'd been able to sign a player like Joe Sakic, I bet they wouldn't have sucked. Look at Toronto and Philly. They are totally throwing money around bringing in players to push them over the top. They made it to the 2nd and 3rd rounds of the playoffs and have been consistently successful for several years in the playoffs and regular season. Detroit too brings in top players for big money to keep them competitive. Don't even go to the Anaheim, Carolina, and Calgary route. Anaheim and Carolina missed the playoffs the very next season. I bet Calgary will too.

It's unbelieveable that someone can sit here and say that a team who has a $30 million dollar budget can compete on even terms with a team with a $50 million dollar budget, or if Edmonton plays as well as Detroit, that they will suddenly have an extra $20 million to play with. Give it up!! Even if New York and Edmonton drafted all their players, Edmonton wouldn't be able to keep them all while New York could.

And you are also giving one example where a team will ALWAYS suck if they buy players like New York has. Good grief !! Not every team that buys players will be guaranteed to suck.


But under a cap, every team will have the same budget, and teams that draft well are eventully going to be punished. Teams that don't draft well are going to be the ones who have the cap room to sign away superstars. I fail to see how this helps.

Ottawa is keeping all their players. Vancouver is keeping all of theirs. Tampa is not auctioning off Richards and LeCavalier. Why wouldn't Edmonton if they were good? Saying what Edmonton would do is a bunk argument. It is another hypothetical. Why can't you find a real world example? Find an Edmonton or a team like Edmonton except winning (Tampa, Vancouver or Ottawa) who sold out to sink back to mediocrity. It doesn't happen I don't think you will ever get it either. Why on earth do you care about any of this crap if you are a hockey fan?

Because I want my lower ticket prices. Thats what this all boils down to. Tickets are insanely expensive for a reason. The NHL is making no money anywhere else. My lower bowl tickets at the Continental Airlines Arena cost 80 bucks a pop. That is a direct result of the NHL's lack of TV revenue.

More fans = More TV revenue = Lower ticket prices.
More fans = More Hockey players = Better talent (I hate the term better product).
More fans = More hockey.

Thats what it boils down to. More, better, cheaper hockey.


I'm a fan of hockey, not a fan of Canada or the United States.


Ottawa is keeping all their players. Vancouver is keeping all of theirs. Tampa is not auctioning off Richards and LeCavalier. Why wouldn't Edmonton if they were good? Saying what Edmonton would do is a bunk argument. It is another hypothetical. Why can't you find a real world example? Find an Edmonton or a team like Edmonton except winning (Tampa, Vancouver or Ottawa) who sold out to sink back to mediocrity. It doesn't happen

Ottawa is keeping their players for now. Vancouver is keeping theirs, for no. Tampa is not auctioning off Richards or LeCavalier yet. What happens when Hossa and Jovo and Richards and Lecavalier hit UFA age? They go where the money is, or the team can choose to keep one or two.

I'm going to use the Devils as an example, because I know them best. The Devils built up one of the better cores in the league for a decade (Niedermayer, Brodeur, Stevens, Elias, Madden). The Devils have had big name UFAs like Mogilny, Holik, Niewendyk (never could spell his name), etc leave. Why did they leave? Both Mogilny and Niewy wanted to stay. However, Lou couldn't pay them. He could afford to pay them for a few years, at a reduced rate. But once they found success, Lou couldn't compete with the Leafs' and the Rangers' offers. 9 million a year for Holik? You can have him.

The same thing will happen to Tampa, Calgary, San Jose, etc, who have even less money to draw from than New Jersey. Their teams will stick around for awhile, but they will be forced to rebuild when their big name players hit UFA age. Tampa already had to lose Stillman.

while they didn't buy their whole team, detroit's last cup run we pretty much were able to obtain two of the biggest name UFA's that year, started w/ the hasek trade, then comes robitaille, hull, olausson was a nice addition as well, how many people were claiming that detroit bought the cup that year?... only reason i bring that up for your example

and who did Detroit outbid for those two UFA's?

We gave up our 7th leading all time playoff scorer (Kozlov) and a 1st rounder for Hasek.

Olausson we took out of retirement.

Because I want my lower ticket prices. Thats what this all boils down to. Tickets are insanely expensive for a reason.

True. The reason is that the fans will pay the insanely expensive price.

More fans = More TV revenue = Lower ticket prices.

More fans = more demand for tickets = higher ticket prices.

Every time. That's the point. Hockey is much better for the fan if the owners have to scramble for every nickel.

In Vancouver after Messier, the Canucks were very expensive and very lousy. The fans bailed. The team started losing money. What did they do? They started to give away tickets. There were half price deals. They gutted the team to the cheers of the fans who felt it deserved to be gutted. Payroll was slashed.

When the team came back, so did the fans. The price deals disappeared. Tickets went up. Games that were previously on free television went pay per view. TV revenues went through the roof, but that did not mean lower prices.

Good hockey = more fans = more revenue from all streams = higher payroll.
Lousy hockey = fewer fans = less revenue across the board = lower payroll.

I'm going to use the Devils as an example, because I know them best. The Devils built up one of the better cores in the league for a decade (Niedermayer, Brodeur, Stevens, Elias, Madden). The Devils have had big name UFAs like Mogilny, Holik, Niewendyk (never could spell his name), etc leave.

And this is a big deal? Colorado and New Jersey have both dumped way more talent than Edmonton because they produce so much talent. What both teams do is make sure they have a steady stream of young players coming into their lineup. This is a good thing, it is smart management.

It really is hard to feel sorry for the Devils about any of these players. They decide Holik is not worth the money and let him go. Result? Rangers miss playoffs. Devils win Cup. The alternative is to keep all these guys which puts them on the Dallas or Detroit treadmill. Suddenly they wake up very expensive and very old. Losing these guys cost the Devils exactly nothing. Or were they supposed to win more than three Cups in the past decade?

Tom

Every time. That's the point. Hockey is much better for the fan if the owners have to scramble for every nickel.

Maybe for the NHL fan, but for a hockey fan as a whole, we want owners to be making money. More fans means we'll have more alternative minor hockey coming up. In the US, more colleges will continue to create high-powered hockey programs, resulting in more schools competing against Minnesota, BU, etc. I want to see Duke recruiting hockey players. I want to see a major junior league in the US. I want more minor league developement teams (like baseball). And above all, I want professional hockey players to come out of these programs and leagues and go on to play hockey in the NHL.

Less money in the NHL = no growth of hockey.

Maybe for the NHL fan, but for a hockey fan as a whole, we want owners to be making money.

Man, this is really a stretch. The owners having to scramble for money is good fior the NHL fan but bad for hockey. Actually, it works the other way. Hockey at the grass roots helps the NHL. The NHL actually hurts minor hockey because it is perceived to be gratuitously violent.

More fans means we'll have more alternative minor hockey coming up. In the US, more colleges will continue to create high-powered hockey programs, resulting in more schools competing against Minnesota, BU, etc. I want to see Duke recruiting hockey players.

Why? Why don't they do it? Why didn't they do it when the Rangers won a Cup and hockey popularity peaked in the US? Nothing changed. Hockey will always be at the bottom of the sports pecking order in the US. ESPN claims eating contests draw better ratings, remember? That's fine by me. It's none of my business and it doesn't affect me a bit. Canadians like hockey, Americans like eating contests.

We should cater to non-fans? Why? Where is the benefit in that for the fans? Change hockey so non-fans like it? If you really want to do that clean up the gratuitous violence. Eliminate fighting. Appeal to non-fans and ignore the people who pay for hockey the way it is.

I want to see a major junior league in the US. I want more minor league developement teams (like baseball). And above all, I want professional hockey players to come out of these programs and leagues and go on to play hockey in the NHL.

Less money in the NHL = no growth of hockey.

So what? Growth is not always good.

There is an extensive minor league hockey system. There is the AHL, ECHL, and CHL. Hockey is growing in popularity all over the world except in the United States. Hockey can grow in lots of places - it will grow in lots of places. But if it doesn't fly in the United States, so what? The NHL stays the way it is or gets smaller.

Big deal. It will not be any worse for the fan and it might turn turn out better.

Tom

More fans = More TV revenue = Lower ticket prices.
More fans = More Hockey players = Better talent (I hate the term better product).
More fans = More hockey

If I were you, I would revise that statement. Go to the big markets & the huge fans markets that are not considered big markets economically wise.

In Toronto ,they have LEAFS, more revenus than almost 95% other can have & the tickets are HIGHER than ever & will continue to rise because the demand for having those tickets are HIGHER than EVER.

Same thing apply in Montreal where they don't have the same kind of revenues that TORONTO is having but TICKETS PRICE are higher & higher while the $ spend on players is always the same between 42-48M$.

So what? Growth is not always good.

There is an extensive minor league hockey system. There is the AHL, ECHL, and CHL. Hockey is growing in popularity all over the world except in the United States. Hockey can grow in lots of places - it will grow in lots of places. But if it doesn't fly in the United States, so what? The NHL stays the way it is or gets smaller.

Big deal. It will not be any worse for the fan and it might turn turn out better.

Growth isn't always a good thing, that's true. But in this case it is. Just because you don't believe hockey won't fly in the States doesn't mean too much to some of us. As someone who never grew up in or lived near anything resembling a hockey environment, perhaps I have a better appreciation for what the game means. I don't take it for granted, or take it as some right that I should have. Growth may not always be beneficial to the game, at times it can be a hinderance. But in the long run, it has shown time and again that growth is a positive. If you prefer the game to stay a certain way or only be for a specific group of people, then I can understand why you regard the possible growth of hockey in that way. Personally, it sickens me as a fan to think that way but to each his own. I want this sport to be as big as it can be and reach as many people as it possibly can. Realistically I know that won't happen but it doesn't keep me from thinking that way.

"Hockey is growing in popularity all over the world except in the United States"

I believe the people in Atlanta and Nashville will take serious exception to that. In the five and six years (respectively) the NHL has been in these towns, the growth in popularity and participation has been extraordinary. Not to the levels that some believe they should be at, but that's part of the problem. Once again, too many people take it for granted that the support should be relatively instant. It doesn't work that way, it never has. It takes time for a new sport to establish itself, to become a part of the sporting culture of that city. That takes about a generation, maybe a tad less depending on where. So in another 10 or 15 years, you will start to see players coming from such places as Atlanta and Nashville. Unfortunately too many people want instant results, don't have the patience to see this through (or don't want teams in this region for other reasons, but I'll skip that one). You'd really have to spin a good yarn to convince me that is a bad thing for the sport, business or otherwise.

Hell, its not just going on in Atlanta and Nashville.

I'm a senior in High School in Ramsey, New Jersey. My mother is Canadian (huge hockey fan, formerly Bruins now Devils fan), and she and my father both went to UNH (Big hockey school). So, I was raised a hockey fan. I caught on quickly (we had season tickets at age 8). Of course, my friends were slower to catch on.

Over the past half a dozen years, people have grown more and more aware of the Devils. At school, our varsity hockey games outdraw everything but football. In fact, they outdraw everything even though the rink we play at is 15 minutes away. Our team winning the county championship was bigger than the Field Hockey, Baseball, or Soccer successes, though the Football team winning the State Championship was beyond everything else.

Hockey is catching on, pure and simple. Our hockey team did very well my Freshman year. We actually went farther in the playoffs than we did this season. I was at most of the home games, and we had maybe three cars full of non-parents at the games. Thats it. We filled the stands every single game I was at this year.

Now, we even have one player getting calls from recruiters from some D1 schools. He's a goalie, and pretty good at it. He's not going to be professional or anything, but its a start for New Jersey Hockey.

Growth isn't always a good thing, that's true. But in this case it is. Just because you don't believe hockey won't fly in the States doesn't mean too much to some of us.

I did not say this. I said I'm from Missouri. I did not object to the location of the latest exapnsion franchises. I think hockey probably can sell anywhere. But - and it is a very big but - I'm not in favour of doing anything to the game to make it more attractive to US TV or to the fans in Nashville or Atlanta.

This started because Downfrom NJ tried to make this case:

"Who can you blame for hockey's bad TV contract? I blame the Rangers. Well, not just the Rangers, but our big market teams in general. The NHL cannot afford to have LA, Chicago, and New York out of the playoffs year after year. The New York Media is the greatest equalizer in sports reporting. If you want to create a superstar in the NHL today, he's going to have to come out of New York."

This is absolutely true. It is probably part of the agenda being advanced by the NHL owners. They want a great Ranger team. They want the Hawks to be good. They don't want to have to build a great team in Los Angeles from the ground up. They want an NFL-NBA type system at least in part because they can't sell Tampa-Calgary or Nashville-Ottawa is a Stanley Cup Final.

To that, I say too bad. The NHL should not implement a shootout because it is good for TV. They should not eliminate fighting because they think it would make the game more salable in the United States. I have no problems if the NHL wants to place teams in Florida or Atlanta or Nashville. I do have problems if after they do that we have a bunch of whining about how the game is structured and how it has to change to keep the Nashvilles and Atlantas competitive. There may or may not be good reasons to make any or all of those changes, but growing the game in the United States is not good enough. Not by a mile.

Growth may not always be beneficial to the game, at times it can be a hinderance. But in the long run, it has shown time and again that growth is a positive.

How? It has shown time and again that growth is not good. For hockey fans it has meant higher prices, more lousy teams and a smaller chance to win. It has been great for the players - more jobs at higher rates of pay - and it has been great for the owners - more than half a billion in expansion fees - but there has not been one single benefit for the fan. None.

It takes time for a new sport to establish itself, to become a part of the sporting culture of that city. That takes about a generation, maybe a tad less depending on where. So in another 10 or 15 years, you will start to see players coming from such places as Atlanta and Nashville.

I doubt we will see players coming from Atlanta or Nashville, but I don't think that matters any way. I agree with this point. This means that 10 or 15 years from now hockey may actually sell as a TV sport in the United States. That's fine, although even then ratings will depend on which cities win.

If it happens it happens. If it doesn't, I don't care. It is not our problem. If the game grows in the US, it grows, and fans everywhere will pay more because you always have to pay more for popular sports than not so popular ones.

But don't try to tell me we should do something because if it is not done, "the game can't grow." If Nashville can't generate the revenue Detroit can generate, too bad for Nashville. Unless they cap Detroit's payroll, the game can't grow. Unless we eliminate Bertuzzi incidents, the game can't grow. Unless fans think the team can win, the game can't grow. Unless we get a good team in New York, the game can't grow.

To all of those arguments, I say "Good! It is better for the fan if the game does not grow!"

Tom

I do have problems if after they do that we have a bunch of whining about how the game is structured and how it has to change to keep the Nashvilles and Atlantas competitive.


The NHL is not implementing changes to keep the Nashvilles and Atlantas competitive. It is attempting to implement changes to keep the NHL alive. Its a business, you seem to forget that. The NHL is a business.


How? It has shown time and again that growth is not good. For hockey fans it has meant higher prices, more lousy teams and a smaller chance to win. It has been great for the players - more jobs at higher rates of pay - and it has been great for the owners - more than half a billion in expansion fees - but there has not been one single benefit for the fan. None.

No benefit? Maybe no benefit to the Canadian fans, who have more hockey than I can dream of. It definately has benefited the hockey fans south of the border. You sound like a fan jealous that Tampa beat Montreal. Did I pin that right? Your upset that a team from some place you never associated with hockey beat your team. Or maybe a Calgary fan.


Nope, got it wrong again. Your just a Canadian. Your angry that an American team won this year. In fact, an American expansion team.

Americans control hockey, don't forget it. If the league split today into an American league and a Canadian league, the players would go to America. Why? Because its just one big business.

How? It has shown time and again that growth is not good. For hockey fans it has meant higher prices, more lousy teams and a smaller chance to win. It has been great for the players - more jobs at higher rates of pay - and it has been great for the owners - more than half a billion in expansion fees - but there has not been one single benefit for the fan. None.



Are you trying to say that if we still had the original six teams, fans would still be able to afford tickets? That prices would not continue to rise? If hockey had survived with just the six original teams, it's posible that tickets would be less expensive than they are today, but that also be because it was such a fringe sport, no one would be following it except in those six cities.

I can see that growth has brought in more teams. I don't know about lousy teams. Some will argue that any team today is much more talented than any team from 20 years ago due to the training and generally higher level of fitness.

Smaller chance to win? Yes true, so what? More fans get to enjoy the sport.

No single benefit for the fan? Let's see... More fans than ever can watch the game live than when there were only 6 teams. I think that benefits the fans...

Expansion fees went to the owners to cover losses incurred in runing an NHL team. I think that would benefit the fans...

But what have the fans got for the increase in player salaries? Are the players playing harder when their salaries go up by $1M or $2M? What do us fans (I sometimes wonder if you are really a fan sometimes...) get from players getting more money to satisfy their egos?

Expansion fees went to the owners to cover losses incurred in runing an NHL team.

lol ... the owners really have you brainwashed man.

lol ...

dr

lol ... the owners really have you brainwashed man.

lol ...

dr

Yeah your right... I'm just a brairwashed fool... right... At least I'm not walking around pretending that things don't really happen. I don't refuse to see things because they don't agree with my narrow view of how things work.


"owners and GM's just need to make smarter decisions and everything will just be perfect..." Like you really understand all the inns and outs of how to manage a professional hockey team to decide that the people that do run these teams can't make smarter decisions than you would...

Come up with an extremely narrow philosophy, then ignore anything that doesn't support it... then mock everyone elses opinion...

lol...

The NHL is not implementing changes to keep the Nashvilles and Atlantas competitive. It is attempting to implement changes to keep the NHL alive.

Don't you realize how stupid this sounds? Keep the NHL alive? Please. The NHL is not going to die no matter what.

You sound like a fan jealous that Tampa beat Montreal. Did I pin that right? Your upset that a team from some place you never associated with hockey beat your team. Or maybe a Calgary fan.

Neither. Vancouver. I was delighted to see Tampa win this year. Another one of the owner's position collapsed. Don't you remember the mantra that small markets can't win? That only a big payroll team like Detroit or Toronto or Washington had a chance? I've been saying all along that the big budget teams would all come to the end of the road soon enough, and we would get a new generation of winners, a new generation of rich teams and a new generation of big spenders.

I'm very happy to see the guard changing. Assuming the CBA does not change, I expect Tampa to be very strong for the next several years.

Tom

Yeah your right... I'm just a brairwashed fool... right... At least I'm not walking around pretending that things don't really happen. I don't refuse to see things because they don't agree with my narrow view of how things work.


"owners and GM's just need to make smarter decisions and everything will just be perfect..." Like you really understand all the inns and outs of how to manage a professional hockey team to decide that the people that do run these teams can't make smarter decisions than you would...

Come up with an extremely narrow philosophy, then ignore anything that doesn't support it... then mock everyone elses opinion...

lol...

the owners have been making a fortune off the NHL for decades and expansion lined their pockets with 100's of more millions. yet you think they HAD to expand to cover losses ?

lol

dr

the owners have been making a fortune off the NHL for decades and expansion lined their pockets with 100's of more millions. yet you think they HAD to expand to cover losses ?

lol

dr

For a number of teams yes. I'm sure some teams were more than willing to take the extra profits, the same teams that are driving up salaries now. The rest of the teams were covering losses...

the owners have been making a fortune off the NHL for decades and expansion lined their pockets with 100's of more millions. yet you think they HAD to expand to cover losses ?

Never mind the chumps who put up the half billion dollars! Were they sucked in or what? They bought into a league that is dying! They saw the books, they crunched the numbers and they ponied up a fortune to cover the losses of the existing owners just so they can lose hundreds of millions themselves!

How many impossible things does a guy have to believe to accept the owner's version as reality? How many impossible things does a guy have to believe to think this labour dispute is about giving the Buffalo Sabres a better chance to win?

To each his own, I guess.

Tom

Never mind the chumps who put up the half billion dollars! Were they sucked in or what? They bought into a league that is dying! They saw the books, they crunched the numbers and they ponied up a fortune to cover the losses of the existing owners just so they can lose hundreds of millions themselves!

How many impossible things does a guy have to believe to accept the owner's version as reality? How many impossible things does a guy have to believe to think this labour dispute is about giving the Buffalo Sabres a better chance to win?

To each his own, I guess.

Tom

tom tom tom ... they had a promise from bettman to fix it all up in 2004. hey, thats good enough to make the investment.

dr

I did not say this. I said I'm from Missouri. I did not object to the location of the latest exapnsion franchises. I think hockey probably can sell anywhere. But - and it is a very big but - I'm not in favour of doing anything to the game to make it more attractive to US TV or to the fans in Nashville or Atlanta.

I just don't understand that sentiment, doesn't make any sense to me. But I'm not gonna push it. You feel one way, I feel another. And we're likely not gonna change each other's mind.

"Who can you blame for hockey's bad TV contract? I blame the Rangers. Well, not just the Rangers, but our big market teams in general. The NHL cannot afford to have LA, Chicago, and New York out of the playoffs year after year. The New York Media is the greatest equalizer in sports reporting. If you want to create a superstar in the NHL today, he's going to have to come out of New York."

This is absolutely true. It is probably part of the agenda being advanced by the NHL owners. They want a great Ranger team. They want the Hawks to be good. They don't want to have to build a great team in Los Angeles from the ground up. They want an NFL-NBA type system at least in part because they can't sell Tampa-Calgary or Nashville-Ottawa is a Stanley Cup Final.

Not gonna argue with that. For financial purposes, for exposure purposes; you're right. Though I'm not about believing any sort of agenda or conspiracy theory. Too many different personalities in too many different situations; the possibility they could work together towards that goal is a minute one at best. And without a hint of it thus far, no. Too many curious eyes watching for that to happen.

I doubt we will see players coming from Atlanta or Nashville, but I don't think that matters any way. I agree with this point. This means that 10 or 15 years from now hockey may actually sell as a TV sport in the United States. That's fine, although even then ratings will depend on which cities win.

I live in Atlanta, my brother just recently moved to Nashville (he is actually good friends with the guy in charge of all the booking at the Gaylord Entertainment Center, lucky *******). So I have a good view of how hockey is growing in these two cities. Rec leagues sprouting up everywhere, not nearly as many as a Canadian city mind you but most around here are just getting used to this. Every year more and more participants. Even UGA and Georgia Tech have hockey programs. There's an ECHL team a mile down the road from the Thrashers practice facility. In Nashville I know there has been a boom in the number of people playing the game, and actually drawing some attention to it despite the entire state being centered around University of Tennessee football. And Atlanta is very much a fair-weather sports town; a couple years of decent success by the Thrashers will spark a big growth and have even more people starting up in the sport.

It's actually exciting to see this happening. People just discovering their passion for the game. A world apart from places where the sport has been around for decades, and where some people have taken such things for granted. I won't say that you'll see a rash of players coming from these cities in the next 15 or so years, can't see what the future might bring to help or hinder that. But the foundation is there now, more and more people are now a part of the sport and are raising kids in that enviornment. Of course the warm weather will hurt this growth but we already knew that. But don't be surprised if a few players come from this area in the near future.

But don't try to tell me we should do something because if it is not done, "the game can't grow." If Nashville can't generate the revenue Detroit can generate, too bad for Nashville. Unless they cap Detroit's payroll, the game can't grow. Unless we eliminate Bertuzzi incidents, the game can't grow. Unless fans think the team can win, the game can't grow. Unless we get a good team in New York, the game can't grow.

To all of those arguments, I say "Good! It is better for the fan if the game does not grow!"

I agree, it is better for the fan's wallet if the game doesn't grow. But it's the reality that we live in right now. You can't go back and change the past to put the game back to when you thought it was better. You either accept what is the reality now and deal with that, or you become bitter harkening back to days that will never be again.

Growth and change are gonna happen, no matter how much we may dislike it. Sometimes it will help, sometimes it will hurt. Such is life, we are quite powerless to change that. So accepting what is has to be better than trying to form some sort of perfect ideals about what the game "should" be. It's a nice pipe-dream, I'll admit it. But it's nothing more, so I prefer to deal with the realities no matter how much I don't like it.

But I guess how we view it is a personal thing, and one not likely to change.

Not gonna argue with that. For financial purposes, for exposure purposes; you're right. Though I'm not about believing any sort of agenda or conspiracy theory. Too many different personalities in too many different situations; the possibility they could work together towards that goal is a minute one at best. And without a hint of it thus far, no. Too many curious eyes watching for that to happen.

I don't really think it is a priority item like cost certainty is, but everybody still remembers the Fox TV contract. That looked like a great deal when Vancouver-New York in the SCF blew the socks off the ratings charts on both sides of the border. There hasn't been a good TV matchup since. We've had 12 different teams make the Final Four in the past three years without New York, Chicago or Los Angeles involved.

Nobody has to consciously drive the league in that direction. No agenda or conspiracy is required. The invisible hand makes it happen. It is in everyone's interest. The biggest competitive issue is not imbalance. Everyone has pretty much the same chance to build a great team and that's fair. The problem is that a great team is great for the life of the core and that will usually run for about a decade.

To me it is easy to see the three teams that will most likely dominate the East for the next ten years: Tampa, Ottawa and Atlanta. There are more possibilities in the West, but I'd pick San Jose, Vancouver, and, believe it or not, Nashville. Suppose four of those six teams win 10 Cups in the next 10 years and dominate like Detroit, Dallas, Colorado and New Jersey dominated the last decade.

Nobody except those teams thinks that is a very good idea and even those teams recognize it is not good for the league's bottom line. None of the teams that dominated the last decade are particularly large markets, but they aren't small hockey markets either. Suppose all the giants of the next decade come from small markets.

I think all 30 owners realize this is a real possibility even if they don't say one word about it. It will factor into their decisions as individuals, and that self interest would drive the league away from the existing system and towards a system that would generate the most money.

The priority is cost certainty. Brian Burke made this very clear the other night when he was defending the ownership position. It doesn't have to be a cap of any sort, he said. They could just add a hold back on the salary with money being kicked back to the owners if the player share exceeded XX%. (This is one ownership model I would support if the alternative is a lockout. Guarantee the profits and otherwise leave everything else the same. I don't care what the players make and I don't care what the owners make.)

But a far better system for the owners involves the combination of earlier free agency (so money spent on players is spent on guys who are still in their primes) and a high salary cap. As long as the cap is substantially above what most markets can afford to spend without winner's revenues, the few mega markets will be the only teams able to build by buying. They will be able to afford to spend to the cap even with the loser and buy good players to boot. It will not rule out small market winners but they will have to build the same way teams are built today.

So I have a good view of how hockey is growing in these two cities. Rec leagues sprouting up everywhere, not nearly as many as a Canadian city mind you but most around here are just getting used to this.

I'm sure, but it will take decades to catch up. The most talented youngsters won't get the great competition, it's way harder to get ice and the kid can't play pickup hockey on the local pond or in a tennis court that has been frozen or a backyard rink Dad built. The Canadian Minor Hockey system is a factory designed to produce NHL players. Talented kids are identified by about age 11 and streamed into elite programs that involve perhaps 100 games a year.

It will take a long time - if ever - before a Georgia boy has anywhere near the opportunity to get good enough.

I agree, it is better for the fan's wallet if the game doesn't grow. But it's the reality that we live in right now. You can't go back and change the past to put the game back to when you thought it was better. You either accept what is the reality now and deal with that, or you become bitter harkening back to days that will never be again.

I agree with this. I accept a 30 team NHL. I'm a guy who decided the move from Quebec and Winnipeg had to happen. I don't have to like it but if teams up here can't compete with an American market trying to stop the move is like trying to reverse gravity. I opposed expansion for several reason but not the cities involved. If hockey is going to expand in the US it has to go where the population is growing.

But there is a difference between accepting change and growth - sometimes reluctantly, sometimes not - and actively supporting it when it is not in my interest. If the Rangers, Hawks and Kings all suck it is evidence the league is fair. If that means a lousy TV contract, so be it. Good. The only way to rectify that is to tilt the league towards the big markets. That isn't change or growth that any fan should support.

Tom

I'm sure, but it will take decades to catch up. The most talented youngsters won't get the great competition, it's way harder to get ice and the kid can't play pickup hockey on the local pond or in a tennis court that has been frozen or a backyard rink Dad built. The Canadian Minor Hockey system is a factory designed to produce NHL players. Talented kids are identified by about age 11 and streamed into elite programs that involve perhaps 100 games a year.

It will take a long time - if ever - before a Georgia boy has anywhere near the opportunity to get good enough.

I have to agree somewhat. However, America has one great system to help all of this. The NCAA D1 schools are an excellent developement program, and will recruit High School players from pretty much anywhere. If there was a kid with NHL talent playing in High School somewhere in Georgia, maybe a scout would hear about it from one of the lesser D1 schools like UNH or PC or BC or something and check him out.

Of course, thats all hypothetical.

I'm sure, but it will take decades to catch up. The most talented youngsters won't get the great competition, it's way harder to get ice and the kid can't play pickup hockey on the local pond or in a tennis court that has been frozen or a backyard rink Dad built. The Canadian Minor Hockey system is a factory designed to produce NHL players. Talented kids are identified by about age 11 and streamed into elite programs that involve perhaps 100 games a year.

It will take a long time - if ever - before a Georgia boy has anywhere near the opportunity to get good enough.

Of course it will take decades to catch up. That happens when you start decades behind. I'm not saying you'll see a ton of players come from this area. Granted, outside ice and lack of competition will hurt. We can't do anything out outdoor rink, and competition will take a while to build. That's why it will be 10 or 15 years before you even start to see anyone from here. But Atlanta does has an advantage; a big city with lots of money. That's why the success of the Thrashers factors in so much. They get better, they'll draw more support and interest (like I said, this is a fair-weather city). If the greedy SOBs in this town sniff a profit, rinks will start popping up like beer tents at a concert. More opportunities will be there, it's just going to take time.

I've lived here long enough to know how this town operates. That's why I feel it's a decent possibility, just not anytime soon. It also helps that nearly half of the 4M people living in metro Atlanta are from the northern US and grew up around decent hockey environments. Many just need the spark; when they get that, the opportunities to play will increase rather quickly. We are a babe in the woods here, patience is the key. But the ability to grow is better than those outside of the city know of.

I agree with this. I accept a 30 team NHL. I'm a guy who decided the move from Quebec and Winnipeg had to happen. I don't have to like it but if teams up here can't compete with an American market trying to stop the move is like trying to reverse gravity. I opposed expansion for several reason but not the cities involved. If hockey is going to expand in the US it has to go where the population is growing.

But there is a difference between accepting change and growth - sometimes reluctantly, sometimes not - and actively supporting it when it is not in my interest. If the Rangers, Hawks and Kings all suck it is evidence the league is fair. If that means a lousy TV contract, so be it. Good. The only way to rectify that is to tilt the league towards the big markets. That isn't change or growth that any fan should support.

In many ways, I do agree. The league shouldn't be titled in any direction. Financial concerns shouldn't be the prime motivation. That of course isn't the case. I'd love it if we could change that, and I won't to much of anything to help that cause. But the reality is that the fans en masse won't react in such a way, they won't lead a revolt against the system so to speak. I'd be nice to see, but it won't happen. So personally, I put such ideas in the back of my head and don't let them interfere with my thought process while mulling over the issues we discuss here. The harsh realitites and lack of information I run into make it difficult enough to try and put together coherent and logic thought on these matters, to have what I consider a pipe-dream in the mix clouds the issue way too much.

Obviously we see this differently. I do understand where you're coming from though.

Is Detroit well managed? Is Calgary? Who won the series between them?


That is such a shallow way of looking at things. Clearly Detroit has been the better team for a long time. Calgary will not be able to afford such a long period of consistent success. I bet they will miss the playoffs this year if there is one. Every other team lately has: Anaheim, Carolina, Florida, etc. Don't tell me they are better than Detroit.

If you are pro Luxury Tax, then you are on my side of things.

look at the last 12 years of drafting and you will see CGY doesnt deserve the success that DET has had, whether they could afford it or not.

dr

Even if CGY did have the same success as DET they couldn't afford to keep the players they drafted, so what's the point of your argument?

Then get rid of Edmonton.
Tom

That's real nice. :amazed:

That's a lovely solution. Get rid of the small markets so we can keep paying certain players huge contracts. Great. But then less players have NHL jobs and so the Union has failed in what it's trying to do.

This from an NHLPA fan and Current CBA Lover.

Even if CGY did have the same success as DET they couldn't afford to keep the players they drafted, so what's the point of your argument?

You're very close to understanding whats wrong with a cap. No team will be able to afford the good players they draft. There are two different meanings of afford.

That is such a shallow way of looking at things. Clearly Detroit has been the better team for a long time. Calgary will not be able to afford such a long period of consistent success. I bet they will miss the playoffs this year if there is one. Every other team lately has: Anaheim, Carolina, Florida, etc. Don't tell me they are better than Detroit.

If you are pro Luxury Tax, then you are on my side of things.

you said if two well managed teams met, the team with the bigger budget wil always win out. Well, as a Detroit fan, i wish you were right the last couple of years.

If you are pro Luxury Tax, then you are on my side of things.

I would think if you are pro luxury tax, you are on the players' side of things. I can see why the players would want a luxury tax, they at least make just as much as before, but I cant see how a luxury tax will save the owners $300Mil dollars, it will just shify where it is spent and give some teams an opportunity to spend they might'nt have had

You're very close to understanding whats wrong with a cap. No team will be able to afford the good players they draft. There are two different meanings of afford.

with a cap though, players will either be more inclined to taking what they can get, or they'll be on the next plane for europe if they want to play THAT badly, it might take a few years for everything to come in line, but it would happen

with a cap though, players will either be more inclined to taking what they can get, or they'll be on the next plane for europe if they want to play THAT badly, it might take a few years for everything to come in line, but it would happen

But you have to remember too, since salaries will be so much lower, it won't be a matter of a team having enogh money to sign a FA, its just an issue of cap space. Lets say Atlanta had $3 million in cap space and Heatly was a FA. How much would he be willing to give up to stay in Atlanta? If another team with $5 million in cap room wants him, he's going to leave.

I also want to add that this proposed system of total 100% equality in talent, management , etc (which is the only way a salary cap is fair) is something Karl Marx would advocate. And if you know anything about true communisim, you know the only place it can ever work is on paper.