NHL is Finally Going to have Talks

[GeoffM]

[Penguinfan]

I think saving the season is a lottery shot at this point.

[SirFWALGMan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.)

[drewjax]

In most sports playoffs are far superior to regular season. this is most true for hockey. regular season hockey is, well, an afterthought. And I grew up in boston watching the Bruins and it sort of a religion (apologies to Geoff M. and Daniel N. et.al.) but playoff hockey is absolutely amazing. people who dont watch it are missing something, or are potentially missing something lol.
anyway, I think whatever they work out, they should definately cut down the # of teams, and maybe the # of reg. season games. the playoffs take 2 months as it is. but more importantly, hockey doesnt translate very well to television. that is one of the main reasons football has become what it is, it seems it was made for tv (of course the game of football is the best sports ever invented but..)
I think the NHL should really try to be innovative with the way they cover it. they try to shoot the action like a football game, it doesnt work well for those who arent die hard fans. Now i'm going to say this and i am sure i will get killed, but, i think that superpuck thing a few years back wasnt a terrible idea. they just overdid it. you dont need a big bright light, and a tail on it. cmon. but somethig to help follow the play. I also think the best thing they should do is to follow the action with a skycam type of system that some of the nfl action has. think about it. the puck stays at ice level all the time, you wouldnt have to worry about it interfering with play (just maybe the view of spectators?) They have these nets up now to protect the fans, there are some things already there to be able to start attaching thing like cables etc. to. If you could follow the action, in close to real time speed, and get more of a feel for the speed, and the sounds of the game, hockey would be able to succeed in the long run.

phew, i hope this makes sense.
opinions?????

[parskynhutch]

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]

Ego and love of money squashed it like a bug.

[omahilo]

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

[BlackCoffee]

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

[Penguinfan]

The New York Rangers should be relegated reguardless

Yo do bring up some interesting points however. But as long as you have owners like Ted Leonsis and George Steinbrenner you need a salary cap to keep the small market teams alive. Yes it does water down the talent pool and yes there are games that are unwatchable, even on Monday Night sometimes, but without a salary cap you will have no NHL or at the very least will be watching the original 6 again and nothing else. It's a sport and a business, both sides need to realize that. Things are very different in America than England.

[BlackCoffee]

I dont know if it's that different in England. Man Utd is a huge team worth nearly a billion. Chelsea has a russian billionaire owner who's buying everybody and is now leading the league. The difference is that if you live in a small market, you can still cheer on your team against other small markets.

Even when the NHL had the original 6 teams, it was not balanced. Montreal and Detroit dominated, Toronto was next and then Boston.
Chicago and the Rangers sucked.. I think the Rangers missed the playoffs (4 teams) 10 years in row.. in a 6 team league!

I dont mind owners like Leonsis and Steinbrenner. They've proven that spending money doesnt work. The Yankees haven't won since 2000 and might not win again for another few years. Leonsis has taken the Capitals to 1 final and they have no future at all.. it's a dead team. I dont want the salary cap because I want rich owners to spend foolishly so i can laugh at them. ie. NY Rangers, Washington Capitals, toronto Maple Leafs, Baltimore Orioles, Chicago Cubs etc..

[GeoffM]

I think the biggest problem was created by Bettman when he expanded to 30 teams from 21 since the early 90s. Stupid, did it too quickly without his existing franchises being financially stable. The NFL is methodical at expanding slowly, once their newer teams get a foothold in the market and they are certain profit will be made (you'd have to be an idiot not to make a profit in the NFL though).

Some say it's the owners fault, some the players. I'll tell you one thing though, when you are told your employer is losing money, and you refuse to take a paycut, do you not get laid off in the real world? Guaranteed contracts are something the players would not budge on. If a guy scores 50 goals one season and triggers a $2 million bonus, and then the next season lays an egg and scores 10, does he pay back the money? NO. Can the team ditch him? NO. The owners have accepted the fact that it was their fault the salary situation has gotten out of hand, and now are asking for the players assistance to fix it.

However, I must say that I don't see the problem with the luxury tax the players are offering. If an owner (..cough...Rangers...cough..) wants to go over, fine, take the tax money and give it to a team losing lots, assuming they spend a certain minimum. Getting rid of teams is not an option because again, the PLAYERS would never allow it. 1 thing I don't agree with, however, is revenue sharing. An owner's profit is an owner's profit. I don't see that being implemented since teams like Toronto and Minnesota that make boatloads of cash won't want to give up a portion of that, and quite frankly I think it is unfair to expect them to.

The NFL is the best run league because of the TV deal and the salary cap. Players rarely jump ship like the other 3 major sports, there are rarely trades or free agent moves, etc. Any team (except the Bengals ) at the start of any given season can win the Super Bowl (or at least lose to New England on the way). Take S.D., I thought they would be last overall, but are comfortably atop their division. The Jets, another team that IMO suck, securing a playoff spot with 4 games left in the season.

People like Steinbrenner are bad for baseball, people like Cuban that don't care about a salary cap are bad for basketball, but you know, at least they pay their taxes and help smaller markets whilst winning tons of games.

[Penguinfan]

Any word on today's talks?

[GeoffM]

Players offered:

24% salary roll-back, saving somewhere between $500 and 600 million for owners instantly.

The problem is they only offered a 20% luxury tax on payrolls over $45 mill. Don't know if the owners will like this point. However, when you think about it, if they take that rollback and just use the contracts that come out of them, they could easily just use the new contracts as the standard for all future contracts. But the problem is owners are rich and have nothing better to do with their money.

I hope they take this. The Leafs will have a payroll in the $60 million range anyway, so bringing them down to $45 will allow them to spend about $13 million more, which means they could go after Glen Murray as has been rumoured, and perhaps even a guy like Demitra to stack our third line. I like this deal for the players and the owners if they can keep their wallets from jumping too much.

But I think the problem with this deal is that it will also allow the big spenders to spend more. Since their players are now worth less contract wise, they can elevate their payrolls further as mentioned above about the Leafs. I mean, when you think about it, just about every NHLer wants to play with the Leafs, so they will be able to stack their roster even further. Ditto for the Wings and Avs and Rangers, yadayadayada. This will, IMO, make smaller market teams unable to compete still, maybe even more than the current system.

[BlackCoffee]

I think smaller markets not being able to compete is a myth. Smaller teams beat bigger teams all the time. The big spenders such as the rangers, flyers , blues and leafs.. what have they done over the last 10 years? Look at New Jersey.. 3 cups and 5 finals in the 10 years of the last CBA. They're by no means a big spender.

There's no such thing as competitive balance. Every sports has good teams and bad teams. Even in the NFL, Teams are 11-1 and 1-11.

I think the players are giving alot back and as you said, the base salaries to work with will be lower (especialy for arbitration). You can't put in automatic fool-proof systems to protect the bonehead owners from themselves. This is like limit poker and no-limit poker . A salary cap is limit, that's no fun. Let the owner's go 'all-in' on their superstars and then we can all laugh at them when they finish last like the Rangers.

[Penguinfan]

Isn't the salary rollback idea just a temporary solution to a permenant problem? Will be anxious to see the owners counter offer, especially since the NHLPA said there is still some room to negotiate the previous offer.

[Tuff Luck]

What will happen if everything is sorted by the end of the year?

[Penguinfan]

I think they will have a season no matter how short it is, gotta give people a reason to come back next year.