CBA news

This is from USA Today:

NHL report: Teams combined to lose almost $300M last year
NEW YORK (AP) — NHL teams posted record losses of nearly $300 million last season, according to figures distributed to owners this summer.
That was an increase of 35% from the $218 million in operating losses incurred by the league last year.

The losses are blamed on soaring player salaries. Without a salary cap, the NHL spent 76% of $1.93 billion in revenue on players salaries and benefits. That is a greater percentage than in the NBA, NFL or major league baseball.

"This is a level at which no business can survive," Bill Daly, the NHL's chief legal officer, told The Wall Street Journal in an article about league finances. "The league will lose teams and players will lose jobs if we can't fix this."

The NHL would not comment further to The Associated Press.

The league will seek what commissioner Gary Bettman calls "cost certainty," in bargaining a new collective agreement with its players association. The current deal expires in September 2004 and there are expectations that negotiations will be stormy, possibly resulting in a strike or lockout.

The NHL locked out players for 103 days in 1994 and reportedly has assembled a $300 million war chest as it prepares for contract talks.

What the above article says to me is that a lockout is a certainty. Enjoy your NHL hockey this year as there will not be another season following this one, for at least 1 year. The questions are this:
1. How long will the $300m that the league has squireled away last? You gotta figure that Bettman put it together with the Canadian teams in mind. Do they have enough $$$ to prevent most of the Canadian teams as well as teams like Buffalo form folding?
2. Bettman is going to be a pitbull when it comes to the lockout. He really does seem certain that he is going to ram the under $40m cap down the players throat.

I say contract the teams that cannot afford to pay. The quality of both the game and the league will go up if there were 6 less teams in the league.

Contracting six teams isn't going to solve the problem, and you'll see Sather admit he made a mistake in trading for Lindros before you see the union agreeing to have 20% of their jobs eliminated.

The best thing that can come of all this would be for 4 or 6 teams to fold, correcting the problem Bettman and Co created by increasing the size of the league by 1/3 in just over a decade.

Contraction would increase the talent level significantly, would make for a much more evenly balanced NHL as you wouldn't have the dire situations of some of the economic situations of some teams being such a drain on the NHL as a whole and the surviving markets would prosper with less compitition for talent.

I hope a lockout can be avoided but if we are to have one possible contraction would be the only positive I see coming out of it.

And if the NHL really wants a cap in place then it will be a lock that the NHLPA requests the required UFA age to be lowered to that similar to the NBA and MLB where a guy can achieve that status early on.

We may see a flood of young talent become suddenly available under the new CBA if this is the case.That's why it's a great deal that we have guys like Lindros-AK-Carter-all 3 LWers all expiring at the end of the year.

Contracting six teams isn't going to solve the problem, and you'll see Sather admit he made a mistake in trading for Lindros before you see the union agreeing to have 20% of their jobs eliminated.


If teams can't afford to survive a yr long or maybe even longer lockout the NHLPA won't have a say about losing jobs unless they totally cave to Bettman's agenda.

The best thing that can come of all this would be for 4 or 6 teams to fold, correcting the problem Bettman and Co created by increasing the size of the league by 1/3 in just over a decade.

Contraction would increase the talent level significantly, would make for a much more evenly balanced NHL as you wouldn't have the dire situations of some of the economic situations of some teams being such a drain on the NHL as a whole and the surviving markets would prosper with less compitition for talent.

I hope a lockout can be avoided but if we are to have one possible contraction would be the only positive I see coming out of it.

And if the NHL really wants a cap in place then it will be a lock that the NHLPA requests the required UFA age to be lowered to that similar to the NBA and MLB where a guy can achieve that status early on.

We may see a flood of young talent become suddenly available under the new CBA if this is the case.That's why it's a great deal that we have guys like Lindros-AK-Carter-all 3 LWers all expiring at the end of the year.
as this would lose probably over 200 jobs for players between players on the current roster and other players, prospect affiliated w/ those teams.

I'm not seeing how contracting the league is going to force the hands of NHL GM's to exorcise a little fiscal resposibility.

I don't think people understand what a nightmare the new CBA is going to be as far as hammering out a fair CBA for all the teams.

The difference b/w the have's and have nots is just too great and your not going to see teams like the NYR's and Detroit Philly etc just turn around and write the welfare checks for all the Calagary's and Fla's and Buffalo's of the league.

And if the 2 sides dig in and sit out a year or longer teams will be faced with going under so unless one side caves to the others demands we may see involentary contraction due to the financial situation in some markets.

I'm not seeing how contracting the league is going to force the hands of NHL GM's to exorcise a little fiscal resposibility.


The contraction part has less to do with the fiscal sanity issue then it does with what I think is best for the NHL as a whole.

Rather then having a handful of sickly franchises dragging down the health of the entire league, removing these 6 will spread the talent significantly more throughout the remaining 24 teams, allowing them all to be well stocked with very good talent which will reulst in a NHL that has stronger teams which will allow for mostly all to be competitive, and I'm not talking about imposing this as they do know in allowing for all the clutching and grabbing and trapping to create an ATRIFICIAL parity.

The difference b/w the have's and have nots is just too great and your not going to see teams like the NYR's and Detroit Philly etc just turn around and write the welfare checks for all the Calagary's and Fla's and Buffalo's of the league.

Come on dude, that's not going to happen.

We're in the "stone throwing" phase of the argument now. No one's thinking about possible creative solutions to these problems, they're just posturing for their own interests.

Come on dude, that's not going to happen.

We're in the "stone throwing" phase of the argument now. No one's thinking about possible creative solutions to these problems, they're just posturing for their own interests.


I know that it's just posturing BUT if Bettman and Co are serious about trying to impose ANY sort of cap while not having the required huge central revenue source we can be in for a long stappage similar to that of the one Baseball went through in 94? was it.

The only reason the last BB CBA didn't go to strike was b/c the owners new the players weren't going to cave to a cap and saw the trouble they had the last strike and I just hope the NHL pays attention to what transpired there as they are in the most similar situation to what we see in the NHL where teams require on local TV deals and revenue as oppossed to the one huge TV deal to help put everybody on equal footing.

The contraction part has less to do with the fiscal sanity issue then it does with what I think is best for the NHL as a whole.

Rather then having a handful of sickly franchises dragging down the health of the entire league, removing these 6 will spread the talent significantly more throughout the remaining 24 teams, allowing them all to be well stocked with very good talent which will reulst in a NHL that has stronger teams which will allow for mostly all to be competitive, and I'm not talking about imposing this as they do know in allowing for all the clutching and grabbing and trapping to create an ATRIFICIAL parity.

---I'm not sure I'm seeing how contracting Buffalo, Calgary and Florida is going to get New Jersey, Anaheim and Ottawa to stop playing the defensive systems that they play.

The only reason the last BB CBA didn't go to strike was b/c the owners new the players weren't going to cave to a cap and saw the trouble they had the last strike
I am assuming that BB means baseball, yes? If so, I think that you are not giving the accurate reason that the strike did not happen. The fact of the matter was that the baseball CBA expired not long after 9/11. Baseball players knew that while most of the country may side with them in theory, not one US citizen was going to identify with players making $100m and crying poverty. When the bullpen catchers are making the league minimum of $200k, it's pretty hard for anyone to take the side of the players. In all previous baseball strikes, the public was almost always on the side of the plaeyrs. The last time was the first time that public opinion was against the players becuase no one was taking their crying about $$$ seriously.

This is from USA Today:

NHL report: Teams combined to lose almost $300M last year
NEW YORK (AP) — NHL teams posted record losses of nearly $300 million last season, according to figures distributed to owners this summer.
That was an increase of 35% from the $218 million in operating losses incurred by the league last year.

The losses are blamed on soaring player salaries. Without a salary cap, the NHL spent 76% of $1.93 billion in revenue on players salaries and benefits. That is a greater percentage than in the NBA, NFL or major league baseball.

"This is a level at which no business can survive," Bill Daly, the NHL's chief legal officer, told The Wall Street Journal in an article about league finances. "The league will lose teams and players will lose jobs if we can't fix this."

The NHL would not comment further to The Associated Press.

The league will seek what commissioner Gary Bettman calls "cost certainty," in bargaining a new collective agreement with its players association. The current deal expires in September 2004 and there are expectations that negotiations will be stormy, possibly resulting in a strike or lockout.

The NHL locked out players for 103 days in 1994 and reportedly has assembled a $300 million war chest as it prepares for contract talks.My bigest problem is that I feel an owner should be able to spend what ever they like on a team they own. I know it causes problems but that is just my opinion. :dunno:

Forget a cap of any kind, it's not going to solve all problems, as some infer.

Owners should instead concentrate on elimination (ideally) or at least the defanging of, arbitration, a process which is the antithesis of a salary cap, in that it artificially inflates salaries.

Bettman should tell Goodenow: "Fine, no cap of any kind. And, we'll even agree to lowering the UFA age to 28, as long as the player's original team has the right to match (like NBA). But you give up arbitration rights."

Players will come out of the deal with more liberal FA rights, teams will have the ability to retain roster continuity if they choose (by matching FA salary offers), and owners place a drag on runaway salaries, at the source of the problem - arbitration - which begins long before UFA status. Effectively, teams would have cost certainty with players, in whom they have invested time and money drafting and developing, through the majority of those players' 20s. Likewise, players would be paid much "fairer" market value, in that they wouldn't be able to "cash in" on an absurd arbitration award, based on just one or two good seasons.

Not naive enough to think NHLPA would accept that offer, but it is an alternative starting point.

***

I understand the logic behind ridding the league of weak (economically speaking) franchises, and 90s over-expansion was clearly misguided. However, it's worth noting that, far as I can tell, any pro sports league that has ever starting dissolving franchises en mass, within short time dissolved, itself. (See: ABA, WHA, USFL.)

---I'm not sure I'm seeing how contracting Buffalo, Calgary and Florida is going to get New Jersey, Anaheim and Ottawa to stop playing the defensive systems that they play.

i think you are being a little ignorant laches. lets say the NHL contracts pittsburgh,nashville,calgary and carolina. it will improve the league because those players will be dispersed to the remaining 26 teams to make those teams stronger. contraction will help in a way with the trap because no names that arent good enough to be in the league just clutch and grab the stars of the other team. look at the devils, you shouldnt be allowed to win a stanley cup when grant marshall and pascal rheameu are the big deadline deals. so those players wouldnt catch on with the other teams if they arent good enough and parity is restored cause every team would have at least 2-3 very good players.

look at the devils, you shouldnt be allowed to win a stanley cup when grant marshall and pascal rheameu are the big deadline deals. so those players wouldnt catch on with the other teams if they arent good enough and parity is restored cause every team would have at least 2-3 very good players.

No offense, but it is baffling how a few NYR fans still are trying to convince the world that NJD is not a superb team. They've appeared in three of the last four Finals!

Yes, the trap is boring. However, if the Rangers won a Cup playing it, I doubt we'd be hearing the same complaining.

In a league where the Hurricanes and Ducks have made the Finals the last two seasons, the "parity" line is dubious.

Which is it? Eliminate the trap so teams with "real" talent (I'm guessing that means high-priced, big name "stars" ;) ), can win? Or, so that there is "parity"?

does anyone else find it a little ironic that the league is reporting losses for the EXACT amount of $$ that they put aside for their 'war chest'??

of course we all know that gary bettman and the owners would never do something to deceive the fans by, oh lets say, taking $300 mil worth of profits and putting it into a 'war chest' and then reporting a $300 mil loss since those profits are now gone

i think you are being a little ignorant laches. lets say the NHL contracts pittsburgh,nashville,calgary and carolina. it will improve the league because those players will be dispersed to the remaining 26 teams to make those teams stronger. contraction will help in a way with the trap because no names that arent good enough to be in the league just clutch and grab the stars of the other team. look at the devils, you shouldnt be allowed to win a stanley cup when grant marshall and pascal rheameu are the big deadline deals. so those players wouldnt catch on with the other teams if they arent good enough and parity is restored cause every team would have at least 2-3 very good players.
You couldn't be further off the mark. Remove 6 teams and instead of having hacks clutch n' grab, it will be superior players that are doing the clutching and grabbing. You think that contraction will make it any easier to play agains the trap the Devs employ? Seems to me that a defense that has Stevens, White, and Neidermeyer on it is off to a good start. The way that a defensive minded coach employs the trap has little if anything to do with his personnel. Lemaire would not change his approach if you suplant his playes with more talented players. Nor would Burns.
As for this statement:
"look at the devils, you shouldnt be allowed to win a stanley cup when grant marshall and pascal rheameu are the big deadline deals."

It's about as ridiculous as it gets. You shouln't be allowed to win the 'Cup? Guess the Rangers should not have been allowed to win the Cup after they dealt for Mattuae, Noonan, and MacT. I would LOVE for the Rangers to have Grant Marshall on the 3rd line next to Holik.
The Devs are an elite team. Just becuase Fat Lou did not see the need to acquire a big name at the deadline, does not mean that they do not "deserve" to win the Cup.

---I'm not sure I'm seeing how contracting Buffalo, Calgary and Florida is going to get New Jersey, Anaheim and Ottawa to stop playing the defensive systems that they play.

the reason is that it would increase the talent level in the league...some teams play defense-first because it wins but other teams play defense-first because that is the only way they can survive. the dilusion of talent due to overexpansion has put a number of guys in the nhl who shouldn't be in the nhl and as a result they are forced to clutch and grab to keep up...

but if you eliminate 5 teams, you would then remove the 115 worst players in the league...just imagine if you could get rid of every 4th line and every 3rd pair defensemen and then replace them with top 9 forwards and top 4 dmen how much it would increase the talent level...and atleast in theory as each of the surviving teams gets more and more talent they won't be forced to clutch and grab to survive

I think talk of contraction might be oversimplifying the problem.

While reducing the number of teams may not be a bad thing, it does little to solve the major problem which is fiscal responsibility. Because of the looming lockout, owners have been forced to cut salaries on their own and the result is the players are saying, see we told you so. The owners CAN maintain fiscal sanity simply be policing themselves. They point to some major salary cuts this year as proof. But the owners know that, once the dust clears and a new CBA is signed, they'll go back to their old ways. And the cycle of having teams on the financial ropes will continue.

The bottom line is that the owners are simply not capable of controlling themselves and the result will be a lengthy work stoppage followed, eventually, by some sort of cap.

No offense, but it is baffling how a few NYR fans still are trying to convince the world that NJD is not a superb team. They've appeared in three of the last four Finals!

Yes, the trap is boring. However, if the Rangers won a Cup playing it, I doubt we'd be hearing the same complaining.

In a league where the Hurricanes and Ducks have made the Finals the last two seasons, the "parity" line is total bunk.

So which is it? Eliminate the trap so teams with "real" talent (I'm guessing that means high-priced, big name "stars" ;) ), can win? Or, so that there is "parity"?

Grant Marshall and Pascal Rheameu aren't worthy NHL players, but Purinton and Petrovicky are, I'm guessing?

PS - How does the fact that NJD didn't go out and acquire big names (like Anson Carter and Alex Kovalev) at the deadline means in any way whatsoever that they shouldn't have won the Cup? Did it occur to you that perhaps their team was already set heading into the playoffs?

There are some NYI fans to this day who suggest that NYR's '94 Cup was just the result of Smith "acquiring the entire Edmonton dynasty team." Ridiculous.

That argument is hollow, as is the suggestion that the Devils are anything but a a superb, talented, albeit boring, team.

Sorry, reeks of petty jealousy.

i am not trying to convince the world the devils arent superb, they are, but it amazes me how they win with these guys. sure they play within a system but without that system they would be fringe players. i thought you guys would see the sarcasm in that statement, if the devils earned the cup then they deserve it, but it just baffles me how they suceed with the players on that team.



purinton is a 6th-7th defenseman. petrovicky is a 4th liner. but i bet if they played on the devils they would look like a top 4 defenseman and a top 6 foward because of the trap.


i guess the point i was trying to make was that, the players that suceed for the devils probably wouldnt have the same sucess with another team, so its essentially the trap which is keeping these fringe players in the league. look at minnesota, they have no names on their team but the play well because of the trap. if you eliminate the trap you help eliminate the average players from the league and make it that much better.



and show me anywhere in my post where i said they devils arent superb? i aint jealous if i never said it.

Forget a cap of any kind, it's not going to solve all problems, as some infer.

Owners should instead concentrate on elimination (ideally) or at least the defanging of, arbitration, a process which is the antithesis of a salary cap, in that it artificially inflates salaries.


Man you're good..

At the very least a good start for negotiating, both sides giving and taking...

does anyone else find it a little ironic that the league is reporting losses for the EXACT amount of $$ that they put aside for their 'war chest'??

of course we all know that gary bettman and the owners would never do something to deceive the fans by, oh lets say, taking $300 mil worth of profits and putting it into a 'war chest' and then reporting a $300 mil loss since those profits are now gone

I'm not gonna point out the obvious flaw in your mathematics there, but you may have a point.

I'm not gonna point out the obvious flaw in your mathematics there, but you may have a point.

I realize that 300-300 isn't -300...i should have clarified that i was thinking in terms of creating 'paper losses' by using projected profits...

when talking about making or losing $$ most automatically think of 0 as the breakeven point, but companies (or in this case the nhl) can use a projected profit as the breakeven point. for example lets say based on the prior years revenue they projected that the league should make $500 mil. $500 mil is now their breakeven point...so if they make only $200 mil, even though they made $200 mil, they fell short of the target by $300 mil and will consider that a $300 mil loss...its basically just twisting the numbers to make them say what you want them to say

i think you are being a little ignorant laches. lets say the NHL contracts pittsburgh,nashville,calgary and carolina. it will improve the league because those players will be dispersed to the remaining 26 teams to make those teams stronger. contraction will help in a way with the trap because no names that arent good enough to be in the league just clutch and grab the stars of the other team. look at the devils, you shouldnt be allowed to win a stanley cup when grant marshall and pascal rheameu are the big deadline deals. so those players wouldnt catch on with the other teams if they arent good enough and parity is restored cause every team would have at least 2-3 very good players.

---You're telling me that contracting four teams is going to force New Jersey, Dallas and Anaheim to stop playing defensive systems and you think I'm the one being ignorant?

And what the hell is this "you shouldnt be allowed to win a stanley cup when grant marshall and pascal rheameu are the big deadline deals" nonsense? That is perhaps the single dumbest statement ever to grace these boards. You should only be allowed to compete for the cup if you trade for a marquis player at the deadline? Okay....

All of this carping about defensive teams is really nothing more than Ranger fan bitterness. For whatever reason, some Ranger fans feel an overriding need to discredit teams who succeed while their team falls flat on its face. So rather than just accept the fact that the Devils are simply a bettter team, they spew this "they aren't reallly good, it's just because of their system" nonsense.

---You're telling me that contracting four teams is going to force New Jersey, Dallas and Anaheim to stop playing defensive systems and you think I'm the one being ignorant?

And what the hell is this "you shouldnt be allowed to win a stanley cup when grant marshall and pascal rheameu are the big deadline deals" nonsense? That is perhaps the single dumbest statement ever to grace these boards. You should only be allowed to compete for the cup if you trade for a marquis player at the deadline? Okay....

All of this carping about defensive teams is really nothing more than Ranger fan bitterness. For whatever reason, some Ranger fans feel an overriding need to discredit teams who succeed while their team falls flat on its face. So rather than just accept the fact that the Devils are simply a bettter team, they spew this "they aren't reallly good, it's just because of their system" nonsense.

look i am not going to start a flame war but once again let me explain my post, as i already did a few posts above yours.

i think you are ignorant cause you arent trying to think what the other person is trying to say and instead you just come back with this lame post saying contracting teams isnt going to stop the trap instead of thinking.


listen, i am not going to go through this all again, just READ my above post and that will explain everything. i swear some of you need to get a sense of humor.

Forget a cap of any kind, it's not going to solve all problems, as some infer.

Owners should instead concentrate on elimination (ideally) or at least the defanging of, arbitration, a process which is the antithesis of a salary cap, in that it artificially inflates salaries.

Bettman should tell Goodenow: "Fine, no cap of any kind. And, we'll even agree to lowering the UFA age to 28, as long as the player's original team has the right to match (like NBA). But you give up arbitration rights."

Players will come out of the deal with more liberal FA rights, teams will have the ability to retain roster continuity if they choose (by matching FA salary offers), and owners place a drag on runaway salaries, at the source of the problem - arbitration - which begins long before UFA status. Effectively, teams would have cost certainty with players, in whom they have invested time and money drafting and developing, through the majority of those players' 20s. Likewise, players would be paid much "fairer" market value, in that they wouldn't be able to "cash in" on an absurd arbitration award, based on just one or two good seasons.

Not naive enough to think NHLPA would accept that offer, but it is an alternative starting point.

***

I understand the logic behind ridding the league of weak (economically speaking) franchises, and 90s over-expansion was clearly misguided. However, it's worth noting that, far as I can tell, any pro sports league that has ever starting dissolving franchises en mass, within short time dissolved, itself. (See: ABA, WHA, USFL.)

Trotts, usually I agree with you, not on this one.

A hard cap may not solve all problems but it's a good start because it stops the large markets from bidding every year for every top player and spreads the top talent to all markets, which removes the expansion tags from a lot of places where the teams are very popular and draw well but get limited exposure and little marketing around the league.

There is a reason why the NBA Nets are on ESPN/ABC as opposed to the Knicks and why the same network has the Rangers as opposed to the Devils.

The NBA is marketed to the best teams and players, not the largest markets. The NHL has done such a poor job marketing it's young stars they cannot get any ratings unless they televise name veterans, which is why we get a steady diet of Roenick, Hull, Sakic and Leetch no matter where the teams are in the standings.

Contraction will not work because most of the remaning teams cannot afford to sign the top players released from those teams and payoff the contracts of the players they would want to buy out.

Most of the teams that fans think have revenue to share think in terms of baseball and the Yankees television contract and marketing and that is just not the case in the NHL.

Most hockey teams lose money. Even Msg reported losses of nine million last season from it's sports teams. Detroit plays in an old building and does not break even unless they reach the finals. All these teams with brand new building are losing money or barely breaking even with payroll less than the league average and good attendance at high prices. There is very little revenue to share and not enough to go around where it could make a difference.

No group of teams can spend enough with a luxury tax where it will reward smaller markets with enough money to add salary or make a competitive difference unless it's dollar for dollar and starts at the league payroll average and that's one Bettman will not win on.

Regarding Arbitration you make some good points but it is a process where a players production is decided on players numbers vs other players. Both sides give examples comparable to their situtation and both sides can compromise and in rare circumstances teams can walk away from an award. The arbitration market is esculating salaries a lot slower than unrestricted free agency each year but it is a problem.

How is a player's original team supposed to match an offer designed so that they cannot afford it when we are already seeing that teams in smaller markets with group IV players cannot match offers from large markets? The only thing that has saved small markets is the huge price in draft picks. The players and their agents know a better offer is coming from another place as Pittsburgh knew about Kasparaitis for a long time before trading him to Colorado. Under your system would Vancouver be able to match a ten million dollar offer for left wing Todd Bertuzzi based on his one 50 goal year?

A hard salary cap would make that much tougher because almost no team would have enough room in their cap. This helps Vancouver keep it's star player. Under the current system he will get a huge offer and leave the Canucks.

How many Ranger fans here think Dolan should offer Bertuzzi big money and get him at all costs if he keeps producing has he had when he becomes unrestricted?

How many think he is taking less to stay in Vancouver?

I know if I were a Ranger fan and a fifty goal left wing was available I would want him signed at any costs and demand it of Dolan to do all he could. To expect owners to police themselves and continue a drag on salaries and not get a star player is not going to happen if the right names come along so it has to be done for them.

I do not think the game should be shut down, I think in the absolute worst case senario the owners should get some replacement players and wait for players to start crossing because they will and always have in other sports and that forces the players association to give in and accept a hard cap with no luxury tax and no revenue sharing with the compromise of lowering the age for ufa.

Trotts, usually I agree with you, not on this one.

A hard cap may not solve all problems but it's a good start because it stops the large markets from bidding every year for every top player and spreads the top talent to all markets, which removes the expansion tags from a lot of places where the teams are very popular and draw well but get limited exposure and little marketing around the league.

There is a reason why the NBA Nets are on ESPN/ABC as opposed to the Knicks and why the same network has the Rangers as opposed to the Devils.

The NBA is marketed to the best teams and players, not the largest markets. The NHL has done such a poor job marketing it's young stars they cannot get any ratings unless they televise name veterans, which is why we get a steady diet of Roenick, Hull, Sakic and Leetch no matter where the teams are in the standings.

Contraction will not work because most of the remaning teams cannot afford to sign the top players released from those teams and payoff the contracts of the players they would want to buy out.

Most of the teams that fans think have revenue to share think in terms of baseball and the Yankees television contract and marketing and that is just not the case in the NHL.

Most hockey teams lose money. Even Msg reported losses of nine million last season from it's sports teams. Detroit plays in an old building and does not break even unless they reach the finals. All these teams with brand new building are losing money or barely breaking even with payroll less than the league average and good attendance at high prices. There is very little revenue to share and not enough to go around where it could make a difference.

No group of teams can spend enough with a luxury tax where it will reward smaller markets with enough money to add salary or make a competitive difference unless it's dollar for dollar and starts at the league payroll average and that's one Bettman will not win on.

Regarding Arbitration you make some good points but it is a process where a players production is decided on players numbers vs other players. Both sides give examples comparable to their situtation and both sides can compromise and in rare circumstances teams can walk away from an award. The arbitration market is esculating salaries a lot slower than unrestricted free agency each year but it is a problem.

How is a player's original team supposed to match an offer designed so that they cannot afford it when we are already seeing that teams in smaller markets with group IV players cannot match offers from large markets? The only thing that has saved small markets is the huge price in draft picks. The players and their agents know a better offer is coming from another place as Pittsburgh knew about Kasparaitis for a long time before trading him to Colorado. Under your system would Vancouver be able to match a ten million dollar offer for left wing Todd Bertuzzi based on his one 50 goal year?

A hard salary cap would make that much tougher because almost no team would have enough room in their cap. This helps Vancouver keep it's star player. Under the current system he will get a huge offer and leave the Canucks.

How many Ranger fans here think Dolan should offer Bertuzzi big money and get him at all costs if he keeps producing has he had when he becomes unrestricted?

How many think he is taking less to stay in Vancouver?

I know if I were a Ranger fan and a fifty goal left wing was available I would want him signed at any costs and demand it of Dolan to do all he could. To expect owners to police themselves and continue a drag on salaries and not get a star player is not going to happen if the right names come along so it has to be done for them.

I do not think the game should be shut down, I think in the absolute worst case senario the owners should get some replacement players and wait for players to start crossing because they will and always have in other sports and that forces the players association to give in and accept a hard cap with no luxury tax and no revenue sharing with the compromise of lowering the age for ufa.
How many people here wanted Jagr? not many, kthx

you have the Ranger fans all wrong, I hate it when Islander fans think they can speak for us or our team as if most could put aside their bias

(not Trottier, he's unbias when talking about the Rangers)

Trotts, usually I agree with you, not on this one.

A hard cap may not solve all problems but it's a good start because it stops the large markets from bidding every year for every top player and spreads the top talent to all markets, which removes the expansion tags from a lot of places where the teams are very popular and draw well but get limited exposure and little marketing around the league.

There is a reason why the NBA Nets are on ESPN/ABC as opposed to the Knicks and why the same network has the Rangers as opposed to the Devils.

The NBA is marketed to the best teams and players, not the largest markets. The NHL has done such a poor job marketing it's young stars they cannot get any ratings unless they televise name veterans, which is why we get a steady diet of Roenick, Hull, Sakic and Leetch no matter where the teams are in the standings.

Contraction will not work because most of the remaning teams cannot afford to sign the top players released from those teams and payoff the contracts of the players they would want to buy out.

Most of the teams that fans think have revenue to share think in terms of baseball and the Yankees television contract and marketing and that is just not the case in the NHL.

Most hockey teams lose money. Even Msg reported losses of nine million last season from it's sports teams. Detroit plays in an old building and does not break even unless they reach the finals. All these teams with brand new building are losing money or barely breaking even with payroll less than the league average and good attendance at high prices. There is very little revenue to share and not enough to go around where it could make a difference.

No group of teams can spend enough with a luxury tax where it will reward smaller markets with enough money to add salary or make a competitive difference unless it's dollar for dollar and starts at the league payroll average and that's one Bettman will not win on.

Regarding Arbitration you make some good points but it is a process where a players production is decided on players numbers vs other players. Both sides give examples comparable to their situtation and both sides can compromise and in rare circumstances teams can walk away from an award. The arbitration market is esculating salaries a lot slower than unrestricted free agency each year but it is a problem.

How is a player's original team supposed to match an offer designed so that they cannot afford it when we are already seeing that teams in smaller markets with group IV players cannot match offers from large markets? The only thing that has saved small markets is the huge price in draft picks. The players and their agents know a better offer is coming from another place as Pittsburgh knew about Kasparaitis for a long time before trading him to Colorado. Under your system would Vancouver be able to match a ten million dollar offer for left wing Todd Bertuzzi based on his one 50 goal year?

A hard salary cap would make that much tougher because almost no team would have enough room in their cap. This helps Vancouver keep it's star player. Under the current system he will get a huge offer and leave the Canucks.

How many Ranger fans here think Dolan should offer Bertuzzi big money and get him at all costs if he keeps producing has he had when he becomes unrestricted?

How many think he is taking less to stay in Vancouver?

I know if I were a Ranger fan and a fifty goal left wing was available I would want him signed at any costs and demand it of Dolan to do all he could. To expect owners to police themselves and continue a drag on salaries and not get a star player is not going to happen if the right names come along so it has to be done for them.

I do not think the game should be shut down, I think in the absolute worst case senario the owners should get some replacement players and wait for players to start crossing because they will and always have in other sports and that forces the players association to give in and accept a hard cap with no luxury tax and no revenue sharing with the compromise of lowering the age for ufa.
How many people here wanted Jagr? not many, kthx

you have the Ranger fans all wrong, I hate it when Islander fans think they can speak for us or our team as if most could put aside their bias

(not Trottier, he's unbias when talking about the Rangers)