mikey287 wrote:That's alright. Some people hate common sense and backing their arguments with facts...you can't be a propagandist without a little ambiguity and misplaced assumption, right?
c'mon mikey - i think the only misplaced assumption is saying that i haven't provided facts and common sense. you're usually much more thorough (which i honestly do appreciate and respect). just today alone i stated how the average NHL franchise has appreciated in value better than the average stock on the Dow (by more than double the margin at 19% for the Dow to 43% for NHL teams). that's ok...can't read every page.
I did kind of want to ignore this thread for a bit, but this was addressed to me, so it's not right to not at least acknowledge it.
Re: stock market. Relevance? Comparative to other sports? Numbers used? Help me out here, I really don't know what that means to the situation...
interstorm wrote:my position has always been that the owners and players should split 50/50 but that there doesn't need to be an immediate cut over to this figure. i believe a promise has been made to players (in the form of a contract) that the teams need to honor -- and by honor I mean the assumed dollar value, not a redefinition of it based on a lower HRR the owners themselves create.
In theory, I don't disagree. It should be noted though, that the very agreement that these contracts were negotiated under has expired with a known expiry date. Additionally, as per that very agreement in which the contracts were rendered, at no point does it promise 100% of that contract to be fulfilled. I'm not sure why all of a sudden now, does every cent need to be accounted for...when they played for 7 years in a fluctuating system.
interstorm wrote:as for common sense -- how in the world are we supposed to look at the minnesota wild, a team reporting to have "lost" 6 million this past year and went on the biggest player shopping spree in recent memory this off-season, and feel like the system isn't working for them. How in the world am I to think the NHL finances are broken because the Washington Capitals lose 7.5 million yet (according to CapGeek) have had the following cap space for the last 3 years (2011-2012) ZERO, (2010-2011) ZERO, (2009-2010) $3 Million. common sense -- it's right there!
Well, first of all, Craig Leipold isn't exactly smelling of roses at any given time. But the Wild's honeymoon is over and they need to start putting a team together that attracts fans. They bring home their prodigal son and a top-20 defenseman to do that. It's an investment...in a business...that has a ton of potential but isn't flourishing. Unfortunately, given the atypical split in revenues (57/43 vs. 50/50), inflationary spending becomes not only a product, but compulsory for survival. Eat or be eaten. You don't make friends with salad. I own a Mikko Koivu and a Pierre-Marc Bouchard jersey...but that's old news to Minnesota. That's not playoff spots to Minnesota. You make a deep playoff run and red ink turns to black. It's an advantage to the players that teams can't sit back - like the unrequited love that is Pittsburgh Pirates baseball - and profit off of being the farm team to a big market club. When the prisoners ran the prison...that is, when the players ran the league in the mid-90's through mid-00's, that's what happened. People complained that Minnesota was putting out a $22 million lineup against the $70 million Rangers and when the trade deadline came along, they sold off their assets to Detroit...now, Minnesota is in that "coin toss zone" of a playoff run making or breaking their bottom line and they are chastized for giving it a shot...
Which is it? Don't spend and pout and say the system is broken, we won't even try to better ourselves...or try and compete with the big dogs by any means necessary (including using Detroit's money against them) and hope for the best...full well knowing that the system should damn well be tweaked so a team like Minnesota doesn't have to sit there and bite their nails down to the second knuckle worrying if they'll win a playoff round or end up getting moved to Dallas again...that's too good of a hockey community to be forced into that. They don't need to be worth more than the Lakers (like the Leafs evidently are, according to Forbes...uh huh), but that should not be a team in the red before
investing into their team.
They are paying for the "lockout protection" http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_219 ... source=rss
...they are keeping employees on hand, though obviously event staff will suffer, they're trying to do it right...but they're damned if they do, damned if they don't...at least they'll go down swinging...
Washington is just a bad franchise. They invest in deep playoff runs and don't make them. How many playoff series have they won in 35 years? A dozen? They have an owner with deep pockets that can afford to eat a couple million a season...I don't know how the Capitals arena ownership/management is set-up...if Leonsis owns the whole thing, he can profit off the arena to offset the losses of the team. The Caps are a big market team, doing big market things...except winning stuff. I'm fine with that.
interstorm wrote:NHL franchises locking out players to get a cap and then spending the following years circumventing the cap while laying blame at the players is moral hazard. teams shouldn't spend that much - they should operate within a budget (not the cap - but a real financial budget). if most teams did this, dollars spent on players would be lower and NHL salaries would be lower. they have ALL THE TOOLS ALREADY to do what they say they need. if a team wants to make more profit -- sign less high priced players. now i will admit the range between the cap ceiling and floor is probably narrow -- but that is a totally different discussion.
I get it. But at the same time, it's not just owners vs. players. You can point a finger and go, "it was them!" but really that's too broad of a brush. The salary cap wasn't put in place to help the six or eight mega marts out there...it was to help the rest of the teams. So, look at who broke the rules first with contract circumvention and all that...wasn't it Philadelphia? Once that becomes normal behavior - like free agent bidding wars - it becomes a matter of survival.
You just lost your job and an ATM busts open in the middle of a convenience store you happen to be at and twenties are flying out everywhere and people are diving and jumping all around to collect as many as they can...you can stand there and watch them and think how morally wrong it would be for you to grab a twenty, you can wag your finger disapprovingly at those grabbling about...but in the mean time, you're not getting any money...you aren't surviving...eventually, you're gonna have to bend down and touch Andrew Jackson's face...
Many teams do operate on a budget, they do. And you note, quite correctly, that the Upper Limit and Lower Limit are too close for comfort. But eliminating 22 teams from the bidding war doesn't really solve any problems...now you're just hurting both the owners and the players. You have unhealthy franchises that have to spend below the poverty line just to get near breaking even...meanwhile, the on-ice product suffers, they lose a lot, and they become weaker. Atrophy sets in...nothing looks worse for the league than relocation and contraction. From a players standpoint, you have a burgeoning international league in the KHL now - so while their salary cap per team is roughly half of our current set-up, they might set themselves up to keep a lot of European talent within the next decade if things go according to plan. Meanwhile, you have players that now really only have 6 or 8 teams that are spending major bucks, so their market value goes down unnecessarily...so they suffer. Why the players don't want 30 healthy franchises, I can't answer...it's clear they have no forethought, they're just worried about their next paycheck and how many commas are in it...no regard to the health of the league - which as we already saw
- benefits them greatly. How about this for make whole: in two of the first three years coming out of the lockout, the players received in excess of 100% of their contract value!
If someone is going to try and tell me how that system didn't work for everyone - minus tweaking that needs to be done nearly a decade later - they can kiss my make hole. Itttttt alllllreeadddyyyy wwwooorrrkkkkeedddd...and the owners are willing to meet you half way on the previous contract arrangements...
interstorm wrote:i think the difference between our opinions is that you believe there is a major problem financially with the league. i don't. and like you saying you just don't get "our" position -- i have to admit the same. i look at the above and say to (most) the NHL teams, "what is your problem?"
The players want to try to reverse major portions of the 2005 CBA. De-linkage, like the 1995 CBA. The 1995 CBA was a failure. It failed the owners, it failed the fans, it failed the league. Bobby Holik didn't fail. Everything from the pro-union side focuses on the next paycheck. No care or thought to the league and all that encompasses it. Twice now, as I recall, the keys of the asylum were tossed over to the straight-jackets: the aforementioned 1995-2004 span, where a once-burgeoning league crumbled into a sea of slush...and in the 1970's, when the passenger slammed down on the accelerator citing that the ride was going too safely and smoothly for enjoyment causing premature expansion and even a bastard league of anti-establishment types that were incorrectly credited with forming another professional, major league outfit but just created a mess that the adults had to come and clean up after the kids went to bed...
It's not a coincidence that two of the worst eras since World War II have come with the players calling plays in the huddle...they have no reason and do not think for the greater good...some of these gifted athletes have no ability to think at all, isn't that right, Ian White?