The Line Has Been Drawn. Choose Your Side!

NHLPA side - No Cap or Luxury tax. 100% Open Market, but a few concessions on Rookie salary etc.

NHL Owners side - Cap or Luxury Tax. Nothing but!

I want to see the numbers on both sides.

What will it be? :dunno:

Tough call, but I am inclined to side with the owners...there are very valid arguements for both sides... but at the end of the day, I see the owner as the guy with all the risk of running a business like this that can make a little money, or lose alot.

Neither.

I'll vote with the players, who actually seem like they care about starting the season on time and are bringing somthing to the table.


I could care less who "wins" the upcoming CBA. I just want the season to start on time :banghead: :banghead: .

I swear its the last time Ill agree with Wirtz

Neither.

Sorry I forgot to add that option.

Both sides are to blame for this one. On one hand the players want to keep getting the same amount of money as they have been for the past few years. The only problem is that as we all know, players' salaries take up about 75% of the teams' operating costs. In any business model, a 75% labor cost is pretty much certain death over time. The players have to realize that.
On the other hand, however, the owners share equal blame. They were the ones that decided to give outrageous contracts to players like Martin Lapointe. So they are obviously far from being innocent victims. But now they want to try to control costs of players' salaries? Sounds like a rancher closing the gate after the horses have run away.
I agree that there needs to be some form of cost control. But why not do a luxury tax like Major League Baseball? In that model, if a team goes over the "cap", like, let's say...hmmm...who would be a good team...OK, OK, the Rangers. If the Rangers go over the cap amount, then the amount they go over goes into a general fund to be distributed amongst the other teams that are below the cap.
But the bottom line is that there are now only seven days to get a deal done. So quit with the f---ing posturing, sit down and work this thing out!! :teach:

.... the players want to keep getting the same amount of money as they have been for the past few years.

please dont lie, it does nothing to strengthen your point.

the players dont care if they get more or less than previous years, they simply dont want to be paid in a salary cap enviroment.

dr

please dont lie, it does nothing to strengthen your point.

the players dont care if they get more or less than previous years, they simply dont want to be paid in a salary cap enviroment.

dr

You're right dr, because the players offered a paycut.

What I can't understand is if they players don't mind making less, why they can't make less under a cap? Seems like this is only a temporary offer from the NHLPA, cause they know the salaries would start going up again soon.

You're right dr, because the players offered a paycut.

What I can't understand is if they players don't mind making less, why they can't make less under a cap? Seems like this is only a temporary offer from the NHLPA, cause they know the salaries would start going up again soon.

because once a CAP is in place, it will never be replaced in their opinion. also, because they dont want to be tied to how the owners accounting and i dont blame them.

dr

they know the salaries would start going up again soon.

this is what i dont get. if the salaries will just go up, doesnt that mean thats where they should be ?

i mean, the owners sure seem convinced that player salaries must come down, so why would they just allow them to increase again unless they could afford it ?

dr

I'll vote with the players, who actually seem like they care about starting the season on time and are bringing somthing to the table.


I could care less who "wins" the upcoming CBA. I just want the season to start on time :banghead: :banghead: .


Totally agree.



Also, no one held a gun to these owners' heads and told them to give $9 million dollars to Bill Guerin and $11 million to Keith Tkachuk...

Totally agree.



Also, no one held a gun to these owners' heads and told them to give $9 million dollars to Bill Guerin and $11 million to Keith Tkachuk...

said players would just sit out and the fans would tear up their season tickets if they didn't resign said players...its a no win situation for the fans/owners when a player holds the owner/gm ransom...**** 'em all

Totally agree.



Also, no one held a gun to these owners' heads and told them to give $9 million dollars to Bill Guerin and $11 million to Keith Tkachuk...
gkj, that is a slippery slope. Here is more of an issue that that, which I have posted before.

1. You are the GM of NYR. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% or your budget. You sign him for $7 million dollars.

2. You are the GM of Pittsburgh. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% of your budget. You offer him $4 million dollars. He holds out because he wants what the other 40 goal scorers make.

3. You are the agent of a RFA 40 goal scorer for Pittsburgh. You file for arbitration and use the NYR player as comparable. You are awarded $7 million dollars.

The system is flawed. The system must be fixed. Pittsburgh either goes bankrupt or can't afford to field a competitive team. The league needs to standardize on a system that makes sense.

And the players ARE at fault. The NHL has a pie. They want to give the players around 55-60% of that pie. They don't care how the players want to divide their pie, as long as the owners get to keep enough pie so that the plane tickets, arena staff, coaches, scouts, can be bought....and for (Insert swearword here) sakes maybe, just maybe, a team could profit just a wee bit for being a multi million dollar corporation.

gkj, that is a slippery slope. Here is more of an issue that that, which I have posted before.

1. You are the GM of NYR. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% or your budget. You sign him for $7 million dollars.

2. You are the GM of Pittsburgh. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% of your budget. You offer him $4 million dollars. He holds out because he wants what the other 40 goal scorers make.

3. You are the agent of a RFA 40 goal scorer for Pittsburgh. You file for arbitration and use the NYR player as comparable. You are awarded $7 million dollars.

The system is flawed. The system must be fixed. Pittsburgh either goes bankrupt or can't afford to field a competitive team. The league needs to standardize on a system that makes sense.

And the players ARE at fault. The NHL has a pie. They want to give the players around 55-60% of that pie. They don't care how the players want to divide their pie, as long as the owners get to keep enough pie so that the plane tickets, arena staff, coaches, scouts, can be bought....and for (Insert swearword here) sakes maybe, just maybe, a team could profit just a wee bit for being a multi million dollar corporation.Excelent points made... The one thing that stands out when agents and players compare their stats to the guy next to them when wanting a raise in salary, is that once they make their case and get handed more money... then go out and have a miserable season(no motivation once big contract signed) you don't see the owners going to the agents and have them wanting to pay this guy less, because some rookie or sophomore got the same #of goals and assists as his overpaid client! Does it only work one way for the PA??? If the player gets better he gets richer, if he starts to stink, well he still gets richer :dunno: I think the system is flawed and both parties are to blame. the boys should put their EGOS aside and do what is right for the GAME and it's FANS!!!! :teach:

gkj, that is a slippery slope. Here is more of an issue that that, which I have posted before.

1. You are the GM of NYR. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% or your budget. You sign him for $7 million dollars.

2. You are the GM of Pittsburgh. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% of your budget. You offer him $4 million dollars. He holds out because he wants what the other 40 goal scorers make.

Once again, no one held a gun to the owners' head and told them to give these guys that money

3. You are the agent of a RFA 40 goal scorer for Pittsburgh. You file for arbitration and use the NYR player as comparable. You are awarded $7 million dollars.



The system is flawed. The system must be fixed. Pittsburgh either goes bankrupt or can't afford to field a competitive team. The league needs to standardize on a system that makes sense.

Sure the system is flawed. Sure there should be cost certanty. I agree with those, but to say the only way they will agree to anything is if there is a $31 million dollar payroll is absurd. $45-50 would be a bit more reasonable.

This isn't because of the salaries. They have one of the lowest payrolls in the league. No one comes to see them play, and no one pays for concessions, parking, apparel, etc. You think they can't afford to field a competitive team because Dick Tarnstrom is making too much money? Maybe its because they don't have any source of revenue, thus they have a ****** product no one wants to see. However, Minnesota, Nashville and Calgary didn't do too bad a season or two ago with a low payroll.

And just because there is a low salary cap doesn't mean some (self-centered) players won't ask for $7 million dollars, even though their team would be at whatever the cap is (which if the owners were smart, they would realize that a luxury tax might be the better way to go anyways)

gkj, that is a slippery slope. Here is more of an issue that that, which I have posted before.

1. You are the GM of NYR. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% or your budget. You sign him for $7 million dollars.

2. You are the GM of Pittsburgh. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% of your budget. You offer him $4 million dollars. He holds out because he wants what the other 40 goal scorers make.

3. You are the agent of a RFA 40 goal scorer for Pittsburgh. You file for arbitration and use the NYR player as comparable. You are awarded $7 million dollars.

The system is flawed. The system must be fixed. Pittsburgh either goes bankrupt or can't afford to field a competitive team. The league needs to standardize on a system that makes sense.

And the players ARE at fault. The NHL has a pie. They want to give the players around 55-60% of that pie. They don't care how the players want to divide their pie, as long as the owners get to keep enough pie so that the plane tickets, arena staff, coaches, scouts, can be bought....and for (Insert swearword here) sakes maybe, just maybe, a team could profit just a wee bit for being a multi million dollar corporation.

This post is BANG ON! Cheers GB! I realize that the owners have created the problem by giving out to much money, but the real problem is the system which establishes the market place. Teams like Boston, and Tampa Bay are looked at as cheap, because they walked away from players who were awarded hefty pay raises by the flawed system. I think it is great to see them walk away, and if more teams would do that it never would have gotten to this stand off now. But, there will always be a deep pocket owner who is willing to take that over valued player, and thus the solution to the problem is scrapped at the infancy stage.

Once again, no one held a gun to the owners' head and told them to give these guys that money







Sure the system is flawed. Sure there should be cost certanty. I agree with those, but to say the only way they will agree to anything is if there is a $31 million dollar payroll is absurd. $45-50 would be a bit more reasonable.

This isn't because of the salaries. They have one of the lowest payrolls in the league. No one comes to see them play, and no one pays for concessions, parking, apparel, etc. You think they can't afford to field a competitive team because Dick Tarnstrom is making too much money? Maybe its because they don't have any source of revenue, thus they have a ****** product no one wants to see. However, Minnesota, Nashville and Calgary didn't do too bad a season or two ago with a low payroll.

And just because there is a low salary cap doesn't mean some (self-centered) players won't ask for $7 million dollars, even though their team would be at whatever the cap is (which if the owners were smart, they would realize that a luxury tax might be the better way to go anyways)

Unfortunately for the fans, regardless of what and if there is a cap or tax, the ticket prices will not decrease and so if you are a Leafs fan, and your teams owners are making a bundle the way the league is run now, then you cut down the payroll by 10-15 million in the form of a tax then the fans still get screwed, because the tickets will still start at $50 for the cheapies, going up to the $200 plus level. I just can't get my head around it.

gkj, that is a slippery slope. Here is more of an issue that that, which I have posted before.

1. You are the GM of NYR. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% or your budget. You sign him for $7 million dollars.

2. You are the GM of Pittsburgh. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% of your budget. You offer him $4 million dollars. He holds out because he wants what the other 40 goal scorers make.

3. You are the agent of a RFA 40 goal scorer for Pittsburgh. You file for arbitration and use the NYR player as comparable. You are awarded $7 million dollars.

The system is flawed. The system must be fixed. Pittsburgh either goes bankrupt or can't afford to field a competitive team. The league needs to standardize on a system that makes sense.

And the players ARE at fault. The NHL has a pie. They want to give the players around 55-60% of that pie. They don't care how the players want to divide their pie, as long as the owners get to keep enough pie so that the plane tickets, arena staff, coaches, scouts, can be bought....and for (Insert swearword here) sakes maybe, just maybe, a team could profit just a wee bit for being a multi million dollar corporation.

best post i've seen in awhile on this subject, good job

your post
gkj, I can agree with most every post you have ever put on these boards, but to continue supporting the players just totally disregards my post.

1. I don't necessarily agree with the cap number. Easy math...$1.2 billion is approximately 60% of revenue. That would deduce $40 million as an easy figure with inflationary increase or as revenue increases.

2. You are overlooking the obvious. If I am the Rangers, I am not doing anything wrong when you look at my franchise. I am still profitable. My building is still full. You can't take individual teams and have them build their franchises based on how another team is going to feel. That totally circumnavigates human nature. People want to be given a set of parameters and rules to compete by, where everyone has a similar structure.

The gun to the head is asking teams with lower revenue streams to either lose money or not be competitive. The gun to the head is an arbitration system that only benefits one side. The gun to the head is the lack of the penalty to hold outs. The gun to the head is that a $2 BILLION dollar organization had losses of $300 million dolllars.

I tell you, if I was a business owner with those losses on that revenue stream, heads would be rolling, and if it was a union that caused those losses, I WOULD BREAK IT. I totally agree with unions. I have no problem in fair business practice. But not at the expense of losing my business.

If you can tell me that if the NHL decided to take the entire pool of money $1.2 Billion dollars and HANDED it to the players that they would be hard done by.

Their ridiculous excuse that they don't want cost certainty....Go To H. E. Double hockeys sticks. What is wrong with "If we make money, you make money, the more revenue you create, the more you get."

The only thing capping the players salaries is their ability to help the NHL promote the game and increase revenue streams. No, ****** it, they are saying to the owners of $100 million dollar business that they don't give a four wing whether or not they have to take millions of dollars out of their other businesses or net worth so they can be spoon fed large "Guaranteed" contracts.

Fine. No cap. No guaranteed contracts. Status quo. Jagr, sorry, you are cut.

gkj, that is a slippery slope. Here is more of an issue that that, which I have posted before.

1. You are the GM of NYR. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% or your budget. You sign him for $7 million dollars.


No you do not sign him for that amount. You sign him for the market rate. You pay him what his bargaining power enables him to get.


2. You are the GM of Pittsburgh. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% of your budget. You offer him $4 million dollars. He holds out because he wants what the other 40 goal scorers make.


Once again a team does not pay a player based upon a percentage of their budget.


3. You are the agent of a RFA 40 goal scorer for Pittsburgh. You file for arbitration and use the NYR player as comparable. You are awarded $7 million dollars.


Name one real life example of anything that even remotely resembles this fantasyland notion.


The system is flawed. The system must be fixed. Pittsburgh either goes bankrupt or can't afford to field a competitive team. The league needs to standardize on a system that makes sense.


The current system is not flawed. Right now young players are cheap and old players tend to be expensive. Just because Pittsburgh has to have a young team right does not mean it cannot be a good team.


And the players ARE at fault. The NHL has a pie. They want to give the players around 55-60% of that pie. They don't care how the players want to divide their pie, as long as the owners get to keep enough pie so that the plane tickets, arena staff, coaches, scouts, can be bought....and for (Insert swearword here) sakes maybe, just maybe, a team could profit just a wee bit for being a multi million dollar corporation.

If the owners can't run their businesses profitably maybe they should get out and let someone who can try and run it.

Why should the players agree to a system where the owners are guaranteed a profit? Last time I checked North America had a capitalist economy. If the owners want a socialist system maybe they should move their teams to Sweden.

The current system is not flawed.
I would get into a big debate with you, but if you can't agree with the NHLPA on this point, then we don't have anything to discuss.

. You are the GM of NYR. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% or your budget. You sign him for $7 million dollars.

2. You are the GM of Pittsburgh. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% of your budget. You offer him $4 million dollars. He holds out because he wants what the other 40 goal scorers make.

3. You are the agent of a RFA 40 goal scorer for Pittsburgh. You file for arbitration and use the NYR player as comparable. You are awarded $7 million dollars.

The system is flawed. The system must be fixed. Pittsburgh either goes bankrupt or can't afford to field a competitive team.



What if Pittsburgh set the market first? Every year there is a new crop of comparables, not always at the same rate as last year. Just because one player took the comparable higher one year, doesnt mean it will affect the next years crop.

And which player has NYR ever signed that has been used as a comparable anyway? When you think in the abstract it sounds like this could happen, but in reality it doesnt.

And in Pittsburghs case as you have outlined, are you suggesting a wise team building decision for Pittsburgh, Wash, or NYR in the next few years is to go out on the free agent market and purchase $4mil 40 goal scorer? I would call that a very bad decision. Very unwise. Only being made out of fear the owner wont be able to make money and will sell the team. That like Mario now, they cant make money while rebuilding.

I think there is a definite lack of respect for how hard it is to build a great team. And a lack of clear thinking on how money isnt an advantage in that process. Fans seem to think if there is an easy way for everyone to buy a team, all the teams will be great and make money.

I think there is a definite lack of respect for how hard it is to build a great team. And a lack of clear thinking on how money isnt an advantage in that process.

Money may not be the #1 prerequisite in building a great team, but it sure is damn important when it comes to keeping that team intact.

this is the reality. Keith Tkachuk makes 11mm per year, $134,146.00 per game based on an 82 game schedule. Based on him playing 25 minutes a game he would make $$2,236.00 per minute or $55,894.00 for 25 minutes. All I gotta say is WOW no one is worth that much money

No you do not sign him for that amount. You sign him for the market rate. You pay him what his bargaining power enables him to get.



Once again a team does not pay a player based upon a percentage of their budget.



Name one real life example of anything that even remotely resembles this fantasyland notion.



The current system is not flawed. Right now young players are cheap and old players tend to be expensive. Just because Pittsburgh has to have a young team right does not mean it cannot be a good team.



If the owners can't run their businesses profitably maybe they should get out and let someone who can try and run it.

Why should the players agree to a system where the owners are guaranteed a profit? Last time I checked North America had a capitalist economy. If the owners want a socialist system maybe they should move their teams to Sweden.

in the free market of the nhl today i'd ask you to find teams that aren't in the red and compare and contrast what they've done with the teams that are in the red, with so many teams claiming they lost money, i'd be interested in what has happened all around, if it turned out not to be the players' salaries, then point proven, case closed and all those who say it aint the nhlpa who have put the league in this spot they're in now would have won your argument

if the players' salaries are shown to be the problem, then obviously something needs to be done about it, just what has been debated over countless threads here

this is the reality. Keith Tkachuk makes 11mm per year, $134,146.00 per game based on an 82 game schedule. Based on him playing 25 minutes a game he would make $$2,236.00 per minute or $55,894.00 for 25 minutes. All I gotta say is WOW no one is worth that much money

Its amazing some owner thought it was a good investment at one time eh? What was he thinking?

Didnt they steal that player from some poor struggling small market team? And now they are complaining the system is unfair? Good one. I suppose they wont be able to help themselves now but to offer Palffy a $12mil contract. How can they compete otherwise.

Neither.

:handclap:

Right now I'm sick of both of them. Enough of this BS, get a deal done...

Tough call, but I am inclined to side with the owners...there are very valid arguements for both sides... but at the end of the day, I see the owner as the guy with all the risk of running a business like this that can make a little money, or lose alot.
:teach:

Money may not be the #1 prerequisite in building a great team, but it sure is damn important when it comes to keeping that team intact.

Well said Digger!!

Seriously, all this talk of money of the trees in the forest. The owners of these teams or ownership groups, don't care if players make $10 mil a year, so long as they, the owners can make some green. Players don't want a cap, because its the lazy way out of paying players at a "real" market rate.

Reality Time: Most players don't care about a CAP; however, the "superstar"-paid players, Lawyers, and most importantly AGENTS don't want a cap.
Now for the Owners: Most owners/ownership groups have multiple ventures in thier home city or entire region....Owning a Hockey team is only 10-30% of thier ownership portfolio. Look at SVSE (Silicon Valley Sports & Entertainment). They own the rights to concerts at HP Pavilion, the SJ Sharks, the SJ Stealth, rights to the Seibel Open, etc, etc, etc. They claim SJ lost $10MIL, and maybe as a business unit they did, but those losses offset the profits held in other areas of thier ownership portfolio. They wouldn't stay in business or even get in business if they weren't able to sustain a profit.

Those 2 points made; some-type of CAP system needs to be installed in order for the league to continue. As I don't doubt most teams are ok, there are others that could fold. They should be moved to cities with larger fan-bases and "better" hockey potential. If people won't pay to see Mario play, then...well...they lose.

Unfortunately for the owners and the players, if they continue to dig the hole any deeper, we may see the rise of another league (WHA*cough*cough*). That league would have an immediate following should things get nastier.

Sadly, both the players and the owners aren't learning the lesson of the 1990's. Baseball's fiasco should be a stiff wake-up call to anyone at the bargaining table, get a deal done, even if it is just an extension.

I am siding with the owners, of course. As a hockey fan, it is in my best interests to do so.

this is what i dont get. if the salaries will just go up, doesnt that mean thats where they should be ?

i mean, the owners sure seem convinced that player salaries must come down, so why would they just allow them to increase again unless they could afford it ?

dr

We've been through this dr. New York can spend $5 million on a $3 million dollar player and for New York that is a good value. It's not a good value for teams like Calgary though. Then, because the New York player is making so much, other players expect more.

gkj, that is a slippery slope. Here is more of an issue that that, which I have posted before.

1. You are the GM of NYR. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% or your budget. You sign him for $7 million dollars.

2. You are the GM of Pittsburgh. A 40 goal scorer is worth 10% of your budget. You offer him $4 million dollars. He holds out because he wants what the other 40 goal scorers make.

3. You are the agent of a RFA 40 goal scorer for Pittsburgh. You file for arbitration and use the NYR player as comparable. You are awarded $7 million dollars.

The system is flawed. The system must be fixed. Pittsburgh either goes bankrupt or can't afford to field a competitive team. The league needs to standardize on a system that makes sense.

And the players ARE at fault. The NHL has a pie. They want to give the players around 55-60% of that pie. They don't care how the players want to divide their pie, as long as the owners get to keep enough pie so that the plane tickets, arena staff, coaches, scouts, can be bought....and for (Insert swearword here) sakes maybe, just maybe, a team could profit just a wee bit for being a multi million dollar corporation.

Very well worded. 100% correct.

Once again, no one held a gun to the owners' head and told them to give these guys that money


There is no sense arguing with these NHLPA fans. They just don't get it. You give a clear answer explaining fully the reason why one owner has to pay so much to a player, yet they come up with answers like this. It's the only thing more insane than the current CBA.

Look, kim johnsson. If you were GM of the New York Rangers, it would be your job to improve your team. You have a $60 million dollar budget. Calgary has a $30 million dollar budget. Calgary has a player that you know would improve your team. He is a UFA waiting to resign with Calgary, or take another bid. Wait, now Detroit is interested. They have a $50 million dollar budget. Calgary makes the first offer $4 million. That's the minimum the greedy player will sign for. But since Detroit wants the guy too, and they have a bigger budget, they can out-bid Calgary. They offer $5 million. Now you as the New York GM will get fired if you don't improve your team. Are you going to offer $4 million too and not get the player? Of course not. You have a bigger budget, you have fans and a boss to impress. You are going to grab that player and not let him get away. So make a $6 million dollar offer, and he's yours.

That's the gun to the head kim. You need to improve your team. You get fired if you don't. Too a team with a big budget, spending more is smart because you can afford to, and it pleases the fans. It's not a crime if you can pay a little more to keep your job and get a good player. Problem is, teams like Pittsburgh and Calgary and Edmonton can't afford to outbid the bigger teams. They will always have to settle for second rate players and will only win with great effort or by fluke.

Now please NHLPA fans, let's not hear the "no one forced the GMs to pay that much" argument anymore.

This post is BANG ON! Cheers GB! I realize that the owners have created the problem by giving out to much money, but the real problem is the system which establishes the market place. Teams like Boston, and Tampa Bay are looked at as cheap, because they walked away from players who were awarded hefty pay raises by the flawed system. I think it is great to see them walk away, and if more teams would do that it never would have gotten to this stand off now. But, there will always be a deep pocket owner who is willing to take that over valued player, and thus the solution to the problem is scrapped at the infancy stage.


I think this answer is even better.

If every single team had the exact same players, coaches, management, scouts, etc over the last 10 years, if every team was the same in every possible way, according to NHLPA fans, then we would have perfect equality in the league. No teams would be poorly run by unfit GMs, because every team would have the same GM. No team could have outdrafted another, because each team drafted the same.

So what would the difference be? Only one difference would exist. Give every team a different budget based on their respective revenues. Let's say every team was exactly like the Colorado Avalanche. Lots of great players for sure. Now small market teams wouldn't be able to keep all of the players they drafted. They just don't have the money to do so. So Calgary may have to give up their Joe Sakic and so might Edmonton have to give up their Joe Sakic. Now New York and Detroit can each sign another Joe Sakic. Those large market cities would be able to sign and pay more good players than the small market teams would. Therefore, the large market teams would have more success than the small market teams.

What is the difference? Not management, not scouts, not any other circumstance, except that one team makes more revenue than another.

As far as i'm concerned, that is the final argument.

Money may not be the #1 prerequisite in building a great team, but it sure is damn important when it comes to keeping that team intact.

And adding those big name free agents for the cup run like Colorado and Detroit and Toronto have done so many times.

this is the reality. Keith Tkachuk makes 11mm per year, $134,146.00 per game based on an 82 game schedule. Based on him playing 25 minutes a game he would make $$2,236.00 per minute or $55,894.00 for 25 minutes. All I gotta say is WOW no one is worth that much money


Nope, but maybe New York was offering $10 million so St. Louis had to pay up or lose him. If they lost him they would be less competitive and the fans would be peeved.

in the free market of the nhl today i'd ask you to find teams that aren't in the red and compare and contrast what they've done with the teams that are in the red, with so many teams claiming they lost money, i'd be interested in what has happened all around, if it turned out not to be the players' salaries, then point proven, case closed and all those who say it aint the nhlpa who have put the league in this spot they're in now would have won your argument

if the players' salaries are shown to be the problem, then obviously something needs to be done about it, just what has been debated over countless threads here

It doesn't matter what the problem is. One team can afford better players than another. End of story.

Nope, but maybe New York was offering $10 million so St. Louis had to pay up or lose him. If they lost him they would be less competitive and the fans would be peeved.


Just like when New Jersey lost Holik, replaced him with cheaper players and won the cup the following year. If you dont want to pay player X 6 million a year there is nothing stopping a team from signing 3 players worth that same total.


There is no sense arguing with these NHLPA fans.


And the same can be said with you on the owners side. You people think business men should be guaranteed a profit. You think players should have to give back money that was giving to them in a fair bargaining practice. It's not upon the players to save the owners from themselves, it's upon the man writing the paycheck to balance his own budget.

It doesn't matter what the problem is. One team can afford better players than another. End of story.

You are making 15,000$/year
Your neighbour is making 50,000$/year

You can't afford a plasma TV & your neighbour can. End of story.

How old are you ?

Don't choose either side because there is no line.

Don't buy into it. Choose your own side: they both are willing to turn their backs on the fans to get what they want.

This is is a three-dimensional problem fought on a two-dimensional surface.

They both need to voluntarily submit to a form of short-term arbitration by a mutually approved judiciary body.

Why? For the fans and for the longterm interest of the game!

And the same can be said with you on the owners side. You people think business men should be guaranteed a profit. You think players should have to give back money that was giving to them in a fair bargaining practice. It's not upon the players to save the owners from themselves, it's upon the man writing the paycheck to balance his own budget.

I couldn't care less about owners making money. All I care about is every team having an equal budget, so that the talent of scouts, GMs, coaches, etc will be the deciding factor, not that one team can spend more than another. I don't care how the league gets there either. If they want to share revenue i'm all for it. But that's a big concession. I think the players should agree to a salary cap, and the owners should agree to revenue sharing. Then both sides have compromised and we can start the season.

And adding those big name free agents for the cup run like Colorado and Detroit and Toronto have done so many times.

Colorado won cups with their core players, they add a few free agents but if you look carefully they made HUGE TRADES that made them give up a LOT OF FUTURE in order that today in 2004, they are very thin in prospect.

Can you tell me if it's a normal cycle that a team like Colorado was a power house for a few years & they will soon be in a HURTFULL rebuilding mode when Forsberg-Sakic-Blake will be gone ?

Detroit won cups with their core players, they add a few free agents but if you look carefully they made HUGE TRADES that made them give up a LOT OF FUTURE in order that today in 2004, they are very thin in prospect.

Can you tell me if it's a normal cycle that a team like Detriut was a power house for a few years & they will soon be in a HURTFULL rebuilding mode when Lidstrom-Yzerman & others will be gone ?

Toronto got a lot of money, they made more playoffs series than anyone in the last X years but they still are looking for 1 cup since 1967 !!! They hired very old UFA's & they have nothing in term of youth to trade for. (Technically they have some like Colaiacovo - Stajan) . Now is money so much a concern to you that makes you think that other teams then Toronto can't go to the cup without the same resources ?

I couldn't care less about owners making money. All I care about is every team having an equal budget, so that the talent of scouts, GMs, coaches, etc will be the deciding factor, not that one team can spend more than another. I don't care how the league gets there either. If they want to share revenue i'm all for it. But that's a big concession. I think the players should agree to a salary cap, and the owners should agree to revenue sharing. Then both sides have compromised and we can start the season.

that's the thing you don't understand. You have 2 GM's from the same franchise

Andre Savard & Bob Gainey. One was awful with the financial aspect of the game but he had a lot of instinct to draft. The result was that with the money Andre Savard had, he was stuck with a lot of overpaid players while you have Bob Gainey on the other side where he continue the work of Mr.Savard but succeed in the financial department & now he's got room to buy a Alex Kovalev while Mr.Savard couldn't.

Is Montreal not competitive enough because Toronto spend 20,000,000$ ? They don't even know what to do with the 20,000,000$+ that they spend to still overpay their players ? (Please TO fans, I'm not into creating a MTL-TOR war).

The Cincinnati Bengals are in the same playing field of the New England Patriots how come they struggle for more than a decade & that suddenly they are progressing ?

Was it because of MONEY ? or because of good management.

Think outside the players to find your cause on why your (put your team) is suffering because of the CBA.

You are making 15,000$/year
Your neighbour is making 50,000$/year

You can't afford a plasma TV & your neighbour can. End of story.

How old are you ?

My age is not important, nor is yours.

If my neighbour has a better job then he should get more.

If another player scores more goals then you he should get more.

If one hockey team can't compete consistently at the level of another team, then for the sake of the NHL's survival as a 30 team league, something needs to be done.

You are making 15,000$/year
Your neighbour is making 50,000$/year

You can't afford a plasma TV & your neighbour can. End of story.

How old are you ?

My age is not important, nor is yours.

If my neighbour has a better job then he should get paid more.

If another player scores more goals then you should get paid more.

If one hockey team can't compete consistently at the level of another team, then for the sake of the NHL's survival as a 30 team league, something needs to be done.

My age is not important, nor is yours.

If my neighbour has a better job then he should get more.

If another player scores more goals then you he should get more.

If one hockey team can't compete consistently at the level of another team, then for the sake of the NHL's survival as a 30 team league, something needs to be done.

Well your age matter to help me understand which experience you have or if you still dreaming of a perfect work.

All team in the NHL can compete. You saw TB compete over TOR , MINNY over NYR.

Again you related the competitivity to players when you should go where (put your team) has done to help you believe they will be competitive.

If another player scores more goals then you should get paid more.

That's why John Leclair was paid 9M$ back then.

Also is the salary of a player all related to goals ? Bobby Holik is paid 9M$ for his defensive ability.

Martin Lapointe & Michael Peca are paid 5M$ for his leadership


If my neighbour has a better job then he should get paid more.

The same thing apply in hockey, a GM feel that player A worth is better than player B because the GM's think player A will bring more to the team than Player B.

Colorado won cups with their core players, they add a few free agents but if you look carefully they made HUGE TRADES that made them give up a LOT OF FUTURE in order that today in 2004, they are very thin in prospect.

Can you tell me if it's a normal cycle that a team like Colorado was a power house for a few years & they will soon be in a HURTFULL rebuilding mode when Forsberg-Sakic-Blake will be gone ?

Detroit won cups with their core players, they add a few free agents but if you look carefully they made HUGE TRADES that made them give up a LOT OF FUTURE in order that today in 2004, they are very thin in prospect.

Can you tell me if it's a normal cycle that a team like Detriut was a power house for a few years & they will soon be in a HURTFULL rebuilding mode when Lidstrom-Yzerman & others will be gone ?

Toronto got a lot of money, they made more playoffs series than anyone in the last X years but they still are looking for 1 cup since 1967 !!! They hired very old UFA's & they have nothing in term of youth to trade for. (Technically they have some like Colaiacovo - Stajan) . Now is money so much a concern to you that makes you think that other teams then Toronto can't go to the cup without the same resources ?

I think you underestimate the importance of those "few free agents."

Calgary could never add players like Chris Chelios, Brett Hull, Rob Blake, Ray Bourque, Derian Hatcher, Brett Hull, Dominik Hasek, etc like Detroit and Colorado can. That's a problem that needs to be addressed.

You are a Habs fan. What if Kovalev was offered $6 million by Detroit to play for them this year. It's a real possibility. It won't likely happen due to the owners clamping down on salary this year, but any other year it could happen. Then Montreal is a worse team for it. Montreal can't pay $6 million for Kovalev. Kovalev would leave and get the better contract, and a better chance to win the cup. I certainly can't blame him if he left for that but myself, as a fan would be hurting because of it.

Why in the world do you NOT want to give Montreal the same budget as Detroit or New York? Why should teams with big budgets be able to outbid us for our best players? Why shouldn't we have an even playing field?

I just can't understand why people do not want every team to have an equal chance financially. When the budgets are all the same, then it is the talent of the management and scouts that makes the difference.

The same thing apply in hockey, a GM feel that player A worth is better than player B because the GM's think player A will bring more to the team than Player B.

I don't know why I keep coming back here to argue. It's making me sick.

Both the Detroit GM and the Calgary GM feel that player A's worth is better than player B's worth because player A will bring more to the team than player B.

But Calgary can only offer player A $2 million because they only have a $30 million budget. Detroit has a $50 million dollar budget, so Detroit can offer player A $3.5 million. Where is player A going to go? Who suffers because of it? (Hint: Calgary). Why anyone would defend such an imbalanced situation is beyond me.

I know the league isn't perfect. I know it's not a perfect world. But the owners and players have the opportunity to help save hockey in Canada and other small markets by creating an equal opportunity league for every team and fan. We already know what happened to Quebec City and Winnipeg. The same danger exists for Edmonton and Calgary. Why let that happen? Canada is where the majority of the best players in the world have come from. We invented hockey for heaven's sakes. Let's keep hockey here and give the Alberta teams a chance to survive.

But the owners and players have the opportunity to help save hockey in Canada and other small markets by creating an equal opportunity league for every team and fan. We already know what happened to Quebec City and Winnipeg. The same danger exists for Edmonton and Calgary. Why let that happen? Canada is where the majority of the best players in the world have come from. We invented hockey for heaven's sakes. Let's keep hockey here and give the Alberta teams a chance to survive.

Quebec City would have DIED anyway with a CAP because they wouldn't have a new arena. The Colisee never gave them enough revenue to compete even under a hard cap.

The danger in Edmonton & Calgary & Montreal & almost 3/4 of the teams is that if you have a BAD MANAGEMENT STAFF & ACCOUNTANT STAFF, you are at risk to lose a lot of money.

I think you underestimate the importance of those "few free agents."

Calgary could never add players like Chris Chelios, Brett Hull, Rob Blake, Ray Bourque, Derian Hatcher, Brett Hull, Dominik Hasek, etc like Detroit and Colorado can. That's a problem that needs to be addressed.

You are a Habs fan. What if Kovalev was offered $6 million by Detroit to play for them this year. It's a real possibility. It won't likely happen due to the owners clamping down on salary this year, but any other year it could happen. Then Montreal is a worse team for it. Montreal can't pay $6 million for Kovalev. Kovalev would leave and get the better contract, and a better chance to win the cup. I certainly can't blame him if he left for that but myself, as a fan would be hurting because of it.

Why in the world do you NOT want to give Montreal the same budget as Detroit or New York? Why should teams with big budgets be able to outbid us for our best players? Why shouldn't we have an even playing field?

I just can't understand why people do not want every team to have an equal chance financially. When the budgets are all the same, then it is the talent of the management and scouts that makes the difference.

Why is that important ? It doesn't adress the reason why the OWNERS want a cap ?

The owners want a cap because they are saying they lose money. But even if they lose money that doesn't mean it's related to the CBA which a lot of teams is exactly that it's not due to the CBA. Stop fixating on not having Chelios. Detroit can have it if they want, I don't care. They sign Robyn Regehr for a FAIR PRICE !!

By the way ?

Why Robyn Regehr sign for cheap ? was it because he does not have any leverage to quit Calgary until he's 31 ? Do you think it's unfair to Robyn Regehr that he CAN'T GET his TRUE VALUE because he's stuck with the FLAMES ???

Quebec City would have DIED anyway with a CAP because they wouldn't have a new arena. The Colisee never gave them enough revenue to compete even under a hard cap.

The danger in Edmonton & Calgary & Montreal & almost 3/4 of the teams is that if you have a BAD MANAGEMENT STAFF & ACCOUNTANT STAFF, you are at risk to lose a lot of money.

If they had gotten a cap way sooner Quebec would be fine.

Why is that important ? It doesn't adress the reason why the OWNERS want a cap ?

The owners want a cap because they are saying they lose money. But even if they lose money that doesn't mean it's related to the CBA which a lot of teams is exactly that it's not due to the CBA. Stop fixating on not having Chelios. Detroit can have it if they want, I don't care. They sign Robyn Regehr for a FAIR PRICE !!


I don't care why owners want a cap. I want a system where all 30 teams are equally competitive financially.

If a salary cap is all that bad, why haven't the NFL and NBA scrapped them? All a salary cap means is that you can't go over X amount of dollars on player payroll. It doesn't mean you have to spend that cap amount, it means you can spend up to X amount of dollars. If the league were maybe to throw in an exemption (AKA the Larry Bird rule from when the NBA introduced a salary cap) of several million dollars so a team can resign a player they otherwise couldn't with a cap, then perhaps something could be worked out. Unfortunately, the NHLPA wants no kind of cap whatsoever. They want a luxury tax, much like what Major League Baseball has. I'm sure the Rangers would love to have to be shelling out a luxury tax, especially since they've tried to do what the Yankees have, without much success. One of the big problems is the fact that a fifth of the NHL is Canadian-based, and the Canadian $ is weaker than the US $. The NHL has tried to balance that inequity, but those plans never really got too far. A salary cap can bring parity to the league, but even with that, you'll still have teams that would not be to successful (Who in the NHL would be the league's version or the LA Clippers?). The owners have tried in good faith to negotiate a new CBA, but the NHLPA has been very close minded and stubborn (They've presented 2 proposals in 11 months, while the owners have presented more than 6).

If a salary cap is all that bad, why haven't the NFL and NBA scrapped them? All a salary cap means is that you can't go over X amount of dollars on player payroll. It doesn't mean you have to spend that cap amount, it means you can spend up to X amount of dollars.

The owners have tried in good faith to negotiate a new CBA, but the NHLPA has been very close minded and stubborn (They've presented 2 proposals in 11 months, while the owners have presented more than 6).

Lets see what happens when the next NFL CBA is due. And their have a new lower TV contract. It will be interesting. After the NFLPA has been called a bunch of cowards for their last negotiation.

Its not a contest to see who can come up with the most ideas.

Because to get a salary cap you will have to break the union. If they are weak and replaceable like the NFL players union, you can enforce a cap unheard of in the normal businessworld. But you dont have to. Even Bettman has said this. He said he doesnt need a hard cap to solve his problems.

So given that to get it, you have to lockout the players and wait who knows how long for someone to give in, or achieve the same objectives another way, which do you propose.

Besides the effects of a cap are much more pernicious than you make them out. It is not just a simple fair thing. It forces mass movement, league mediocrity, a diminishment of great competition, the marquee matchups and great teams that casual fans like to follow. It alters the team building concept.

A cap may be good in a league designed for gambling like the NFL, but even their fans are finding the artificial parity they created not as satisfying as they thought.





Calgary could never add players like Chris Chelios, Brett Hull, Rob Blake, Ray Bourque, Derian Hatcher, Brett Hull, Dominik Hasek, etc like Detroit and Colorado can. That's a problem that needs to be addressed



Calgary never developed a team like Detroit or Colorado that they could add those players to. No Calgary cant go out and buy a team to beat the teams that Colorado and Detroit largely developed slowly over years themselves. No team can. Many have tried, all have failed. This is a good thing.

Its a good thing they cant buy a team to compete against Colorado and Detroit. There is only one way to have a team than can beat them - you must develop one yourself - cheaply and patiently. Like everyone else - regardles of how much money they have.

If Calgary did do that, and had a 1st place team, and Detroit was missing the playoffs, I think you would find the team with the crazy rich owner would suddenly be different.

Why do you care if Calgary is competitive financially with Detroit, when they can beat them on the ice?

Owners All The Way Baby! Let's Have a Cap Or Tax!

Owners All The Way Baby! Let's Have a Cap Or Tax!

Oh yeah! :banana: