NHL is Finally Going to have Talks

SirFWALGMan · #1 12-03-04, 11:06 AM

Hockey is a dieing sport. I would never watch it on TV unless it was the playoffs and my team was in it. I would go to a game because seeing all those guys hit each other live would be fun. I would want a seat near the glass (Plastic?)!

parskynhutch · #2 12-03-04, 11:12 AM

They're killing the sport....look how long it took baseball to recover from the strike in '94. The fan base will continue to decrease and if/when they get back up and running, a lot of the small market teams will continue to struggle and eventually die off. I totally side with the owners on this one. Players are making millions and still crying. The average player makes 1.9 million a season. The market may set their salaries, but if there's no more hockey they wont have any salaries to speak of! A salary cap would be good for the league. It would allow even the smaller market teams to be competitive. Look at the NFL, in my opinion, that's the best run league in all of pro sports.

Penguinfan · #3 12-03-04, 01:06 PM

Amazing that a few guys on a poker forum can figure that out but it eludes the players union, go figure. The big problem here is the 45-day arena rule which allows the arena to book events up to 45 days away from the current day. That mean that we could not have hockey till the mid/end of Janusry if they settled the lockout today, that does not leave much time. I think they will meet this week coming and just decide how to cancell the season, but hope is not lost I suppose.

eddo31 · #4 12-03-04, 05:01 PM

i dont know how you can side with the owners. the market is set by the owners, not the players. if the owners didnt make stupid decisions with a number of huge contracts, then we wouldnt be in this situation today. if they showed any modicum of financial restraint, then they wouldnt need a salary cap at all.

think about it this way. if you have a job with company A, and company B is willing to pay you five times as much as you make today, why wouldnt you? even if you know that the decision you make to take the extra money is bad for the team that you sign with, you would be an idiot not to do so.

around new england the bruins and jeremy jacobs have been ridiculed because they are basically very cheap when it comes to signing players. now, they look like the smart ones, because they always ran their business with the purpose of making a profit, and they didnt make any of these ridiculous contracts that have shut the game down today.

Penguinfan · #5 12-03-04, 06:17 PM

Your right, but only to a very certain point. There is always one or two owners who are willing to spend, spend, spend to get a winner. This practice doesn't always work in the NHL (Washington for example), but it does drive up the average salary when the superstars get those huge contracts, and that is something taken into consideration when other contracts are negotiated, so yes one or two owners can drive up the price for everyone else. If you think Steinbrenner is good for baseball then you must like going into every season where 4 or 5 teams have a legitimate shot to compete for a world series. Look at the NFL, every season some one new steps up and makes it interesting, look at my Steelers, 6-10 last year and going to the playoffs this year. The latter is good for everyones business where the former is good for the rich to get richer.

jillaj · #6 12-03-04, 06:43 PM

I guess the players have realized that they have ruined the NHL and are trying to save some face. They need to realize they cannot earn the same salaries as other sports. NHL isn't MLB or any other major sports league. This lockout or strike or whatever they want to call it killed the NHL. They will still have the die hard fans but not the ones who just watched it to follow a local team.

eddo31 · #7 12-03-04, 09:43 PM

part of he problem here is that the nhl expanded into so many markets that cant support a team, that there just arent enough owners who can afford to own a team. if there were only 16 teams, or 20 teams, then the owners would be significantly more qualified to support teams, and there would also only be teams in legitimate hockey markets. and all of the expansion problems have been caused by the owners, because they have been greedy for the expansion fees that come with it.

the one good thing that someone like steinbrenner does, is he creates accountability. he spends so that he can win, and that is the ultimate purpose of sports: to win. other owners, like pohlad in minny, dont necessarily play to win, they play to make money, and for that reason their teams never quite get there. i know that steinbrenners actions alone do cause the averag esalaries to rise, but the effect isnt quite as dramatic as the have nots would like you to believe.

Penguinfan · #8 12-03-04, 10:10 PM

You are exactly right and I agree with everything in that last post with the possible exception of the last part, I do think an owner or two here and there do price the smaller markets right out of business. The Pirates here in Pittsburgh are a good example of what you are talking about though. Owner Kevin McLatchey has no intention of putting a winning team on the field, only a profitable one, and that is very bad for everyone in MLB.

I also agree strongly that the NHL has too many teams, the state of Florida is a great example, no way they need 2 teams there.

eddo31 · #9 12-04-04, 01:06 AM

i kind of go back and forth on the issue of how owners should run their teams. owners like mcclatchey and pohlad run their teams like a business, and it is their right to do so, but it hurts them in the eyes of their fans. i agree that a couple of owners can ruin the whole situation, in either direction.

the only problem i have with most owners is that they made their own beds. they over-expanded, and they are the ones who sign the paychecks. i know that the market moves as a whole, and that there are situatons where small market owners get screwed, but for the most part owners are to blame for the bad contracts. it is often their own ego that makes them act the way that they do. take the a-rod contract for instance. texas was only bidding against themselves to get a-rod. boras told them that a-rod was worth 250 million over ten years, and thathe wouldnt take less. and even though no one else offered within 100 mil of that number, texas gave it to him! that i just one example, but i am sure there is one for every team like that. (manny for my sox, jason kendall for you, etc.)

parskynhutch · #10 12-04-04, 10:52 AM

Sure, if company B is willing to offer me a ridiculous sum of money to do my job and I take it, it will benefit me for a short period of time. However, as is the case now, company B will eventually not be able to sustain such a payroll. So eventually, company B folds and I'm out of a job. And with my new market price, company A tells me to go fuck myself, and companies C,D,E,and F, do the same. The point I'm trying to make is that the player's association is going about their arguments all wrong. They dont want a salary cap because, for the most part, that's where players make their money in the NHL. In the NFL and other sports, players make ridiculous amounts of money from bonuses, incentives, and especially ENDORSEMENTS. The NHL is not as popular in America compared to other sports. Therefore, the view of the players is that they want to make as much as they can from their salaries, and the owners have been complying. But now they've dug themselves into a hole. What if they never get back up and running? What if they resume operations and nobody comes to watch the game or buy the merchandise?? Hockey will die, and then none of these players will have anything. The guys playing in Europe and stuff right now aren't making nearly as much as they would in the NHL. Originally, I shared your view that if a team is willling to pay me x amount of money then its not my fault. But, now that I'm worried that the NHL will never come back, I've changed my tune. Think about it this way... The average NHLer makes 1.9 million dollars a year.....the average salary, for a decent job, would be about 50,000. You would have to work about 40 years to make an average NHLer salary! FUCK THEM, they get PAID TO PLAY SPORTS. I was a great hockey player when I was younger but knee injuries caused me to leave the game. I would have killed for the opportunity to play hockey for a living. Even if it was 30,000 a year to play in Alaska. What happened to the love of the game? 1.9 million a year could definately feed my family I dunno about yours.

Penguinfan · #11 12-04-04, 11:54 AM

Ego and love of money squashed it like a bug.

omahilo · #12 12-04-04, 01:58 PM

you know some cities shouldnt have teams when the Sabres and Senators couldnt even pay their players last year.

BlackCoffee · #13 12-05-04, 05:25 AM

Parity isnt a problem in hockey even with the discrepancy in salaries. Look at the finals.

1999: Dallas-Buffalo
2000: Dallas-New Jersey
2001: Colorado-New Jersey
2002: Detroit-Carolina
2003: New Jersey-Anahiem
2004: Tampa Bay- Calgary

That's pretty even.. no real dynasties except New Jersey and they're no excatly a rich team. If you watched hockey 20-30 years ago, you would have lived through 3 dynasties.. Montreal (76-79) Islanders (80-83) and Oilers (84,85,87,88,90).. How do you think people in places like Hartford and Winnipeg felt about 'parity' back then.

Sports is a different phenomenon in itself and is very hard to compare to regular business because there is only one prize. In the real world, Company A and Company B are not necessarily competing with each other.

Let's take your little corner coffee shop and Starbucks. If you work at the corner store and Starbuck hires you for 5X the amount.. you'd go, but the corner store wouldn't be hurting, they just hire someone else cheap and make their small profits every year.

The problem with sports in north america is that there's only one prize. All teams go for it and if one team spends more, then the other teams have to spend more also or cry foul. The salary cap only works in the NFL because they have a huge pool to split up from tv money. And even that's a questionable argument.. have you seen the NFL lately? there's 16 games a week and at least 10 of them are mediocre. If you weren't betting, you probably wouldn't be watching. There's alot of BAD teams.

I dont think a salary cap would work in hockey or baseball because it would really dilute the talent pool. It sort of works in basketball because each team only needs 1 or 2 superstars and the rest are grunts. Basketball games are terrible these days, there are no mid-range players.

Does anyone follow english soccer? That is a system that's 100% free market.
Players are owned by their teams and can be bought and sold to other teams. Plus there are many prizes.. the rich teams go for league and european success.. the mid teams go for UEFA Cup qualification, the bottom teams fight for survival from relegation, and the top teams in the lower division tries for promotion and so on. Plus knockout cup matches.

Think something like that would work in the NHL?

You could have Medicine Hat Play Guelph to make the next division

Or better yet, the New York Rangers get relegated!

BlackCoffee