Support NeoGAF

[Alucard]

Number one, they do a little more then hit a rubber disc with a stick. Sometimes they take that rubber disc in the face. As JR can attest, it's not a pretty sight. Number two, I'm sure they all said they'd play for free once upon a time. But this is real life, not some childhood or crack-induced fantasy. When you become a professional in ANY field, you want to get paid what you think you're worth. That's a universal fact, unless you want to be a fucking slave.

I'm not saying that what the players do is easy. I love hockey. It's my favourite sport to watch and even to play. And I'm all for people being paid what they're worth, but would you pay someone to play a game of hockey for, let's say...7 million dollars a season? SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS FOR A YEAR OF WORK. That is more money than the average North American would see in 7 lifetimes. Plus, it just doesn't make sense to pay the players so much to the point where their own industry is LOSING money. Salaries have gotten WAY out of hand. Like I said...Aki Berg is making over a million dollars a season. Back in the early 90s, a player of his "caliber" wouldn't see more than $300,000 a year, tops. (which I still think is a lot of money) The amount of money that these guys are making is ridiculous, end of story. Can you contest that? And I'm saying that for all of the major sports, unless it's a healthy and well-off league like the NFL.

 

[Shinobi]

The owners chose to pay the money. That's all there is to it. Yeah the players are ridiculously overpaid even in the zany context of , but how does that affect me? I don't attend games anyway.

The fact that a few owners like the guy in Jersey have been able to show fiscal restraint and STILL be successful shows that the system does work if you're not a fucking moron. The owners are the ones who created this pit, and they oughta be looking to help themselves first by instituting 100% revenue sharing before looking to the players for being the beneficeries of their own stupidity.

 

[Crazymoogle]

BTW, glad you brought up the Flames...how is it that them, T Bay, Minny and the Ducks last year, and the Devils with three cups in a decade have been able to be competitive, despite the system being oh so unfair? Doesn't that prove that the system isn't that bad in terms of providing competitive balance? No one can convince me that it's going to be anymore assured with a cap in place. Particularly when the Rangers have already missed the last 65 playoffs. :lol

It's not an issue of competitive balance. It's about the league pricing itself out of existence. With the current system, players can shop around for offers, use them as pressure elsewhere, and eventually one team will "break" and offer more than they should. From there it's a step ladder to the disaster of MLB, where ARod is basically a team killer with anybody but the Yankees. It's like game reviews from Gamefan: if DK is 100%, DK2 is 102%, Mario 64 is 103%, and so on. Eventually the whole system is busted by relative comparison.

What most people don't realize is that the NHL is both a game on the balance sheet and a game on the ice. As Burke says, the league wants to implement policies that reduce the impact 'idiots' (bad owners/GM's) can have on the system. All it takes is one owner who has some extra financial windfall elsewhere and wants to ensure a key player signing to break the balance. There are rules for the players, but the NHLPA doesn't want rules for the owners as it could affect their own bottom line.

If the smartest GMs stay with the most financially vulnerable teams, those clubs will continue to do well...until the day the tank hits empty and the franchise is liquidated. A cap (of some variety) takes every team in the league out of purgatory so that they (and we) know who stands and who falls.

 

[Kon Tiki]

Canada's ratings CLEARLY have not made a huge difference when it comes to advertising and promotion of the sport. And take that "keeping the sport pure" cop out answer, it's clear that in these times, it's about the money, ask NASCAR and their legions of 'NECKS. You'd be a fool not to accept that the NHL needs the U.S. to survive, considering that a majority of those teams in NHL play in the United States..

Ya I am sure the world's favorite sport, football, is suffering without 2min commercials every 5 mins.

 

[Shinobi]

Well to be fair, soccer teams make up for that by wearing company logos on their chest. Surprised that hasn't happened over here yet to be honest.

 

[Kon Tiki]

Well to be fair, soccer teams make up for that by wearing company logos on their chest. Surprised that hasn't happened over here yet to be honest.

I will settle for a Fido logo on a Leafs jersey if it spares me a commercial break.

 

[SickBoy]

BTW, glad you brought up the Flames...how is it that them, T Bay, Minny and the Ducks last year, and the Devils with three cups in a decade have been able to be competitive, despite the system being oh so unfair? Doesn't that prove that the system isn't that bad in terms of providing competitive balance?

The counterpoint is in one of my earlier posts: 10/14 non-playoff teams have payrolls below the league average. Doesn't that prove the system doesn't provide competitive balance? (Well, no more or less than the last few Stanley Cups have proved the opposite)

(New Jersey, for the record, has been consistently above average in the 2000's, and they had the eighth-highest in 2002-03 when they won the cup -- to be fair, they were slightly below the league average in 2000).

I reassembled your post out of order, because the rest of what I have to say really is more just rambling to follow one of your points.

INow if you have non-guaranteed contracts included, then shit like that is easier to manage. But if you think players are going to give that luxury up willingly, you're out of your tree. The NFL is the exception in that regard, not the rule...and they only got that cause they broke the union in half. Kinda like what the NHL is trying to do now. Will it work? Beats me. But someone's gotta fold.

I've got to say I'm surprised when leagues go so far as to enter into strike situations (MLB, NHL a decade ago) and then come out of them with bad deals. If you asked me at the end of the last NHL labour dispute, I don't know if I would have predicted the situation we're in today, but I know that I didn't feel it was particularly sustainable at the time.

Anyhow, why it surprises me is because the leagues and players suffer a loss of goodwill anytime something like this happens. But had a better deal come out of the negotiations a decade ago, maybe they wouldn't be going through this a second time. Once you've lost that goodwill, particularly when you're in the owners' power position (after all, a player's shelf-life is only so long), you don't lose a lot in the big picture in holding out for the deal you want. I guess there's the whole "optics" of negotiations, but it seems to me that the owners hold the chips.

Though I'll profess to not knowing how it would work in practice, the one thing I keep wondering about with regard to a luxury tax is whether teams have any sort of revenue certainty when a good chunk of shared revenue is based on how other teams spend? I'm sure there are ways this could be addressed, but I just wanted to get the question out there becuase it's something that's been on my mind.

In the end, I think a luxury tax could work, but it does need to have teeth. Clearly baseball's luxury tax doesn't seem to have modified some teams' spending habits... but I'm not sure how the newer CBA there is working. I think it was Brian Burke who offered his concept of a good settlement during the World Cup, and it seemed like a good plan...

Wow, and surprisingly, given my normal thoughts about CBC's website, it was easy to find:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/cba/features/brianburke.html

-SB

 

[Mike Works]

I will settle for a Fido logo on a Leafs jersey if it spares me a commercial break.

Forget Fido, the brand of pretzel that George Bush once ate should be right next to the Maple Leaf

 

[Shinobi]

The counterpoint is in one of my earlier posts: 10/14 non-playoff teams have payrolls below the league average. Doesn't that prove the system doesn't provide competitive balance? (Well, no more or less than the last few Stanley Cups have proved the opposite)

So what, the only teams that should make the playoffs are teams below the league average in payroll? That wouldn't make much sense.-SB

I've got to say I'm surprised when leagues go so far as to enter into strike situations (MLB, NHL a decade ago) and then come out of them with bad deals. If you asked me at the end of the last NHL labour dispute, I don't know if I would have predicted the situation we're in today, but I know that I didn't feel it was particularly sustainable at the time.

Anyhow, why it surprises me is because the leagues and players suffer a loss of goodwill anytime something like this happens. But had a better deal come out of the negotiations a decade ago, maybe they wouldn't be going through this a second time. Once you've lost that goodwill, particularly when you're in the owners' power position (after all, a player's shelf-life is only so long), you don't lose a lot in the big picture in holding out for the deal you want. I guess there's the whole "optics" of negotiations, but it seems to me that the owners hold the chips.

The NHL deal was great for the owners. They control the rights of every player until they're 31. Problem is that the players know how dumb the owners are, and that they'd get rich off it anyway with the owners essentially bidding against themselves. To be fair, the arbitration process is the single most damaging problem in the NHL, where a player is guaranteed raises even if he only takes the lesser amount. But again, both sides negotiated it...the owners can't really blame anyone but themselves for that stupid process, same way the players can't lay blame regarding true free agency not starting till their 31.

Not that they do complain...they know that the more free agents that are available on the free market, the harder it is to get pay increases due to the larger talent pool. It's all about supply and demand. Personally I'd rather have freedom over more bucks...but then I'd rather wear an eye visor too.

Though I'll profess to not knowing how it would work in practice, the one thing I keep wondering about with regard to a luxury tax is whether teams have any sort of revenue certainty when a good chunk of shared revenue is based on how other teams spend? I'm sure there are ways this could be addressed, but I just wanted to get the question out there becuase it's something that's been on my mind.

In the end, I think a luxury tax could work, but it does need to have teeth. Clearly baseball's luxury tax doesn't seem to have modified some teams' spending habits... but I'm not sure how the newer CBA there is working. I think it was Brian Burke who offered his concept of a good settlement during the World Cup, and it seemed like a good plan...

Wow, and surprisingly, given my normal thoughts about CBC's website, it was easy to find:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/cba/features/brianburke.html

-SB

I do like a lot of what Burke said, particularly the joint audit. The biggest problem is the trust level between the two sides...there is none. I think the cap number is too low though...I'd rather see 40-43 mill myself. But 38's a hell of a lot better then the looney 31 figure.

 

[Kon Tiki]

Anyone watching the National? Q&A with Bettman. Tomorrow it is with Bob Goodenow.

 

[calder]

I haven't bothered reading this thread, mainly because CBA debates don't interest me much. In a weird way, I agree with most opinions about it (except the annoying PR soundbites from the league and/or PA) but while I agree it sucks I just can't get all outraged by the lockout. It's a terrible way to settle a labour impasse... but there really is no better way to do it so I just can't get all upset about it like some people seem to. I don't blame the players for using every bit of collective strength they have to keep the new CBA as profitable to them as the last one was, and I don't blame the owners for holding firm and cancelling a whole year if that's what they think they have to do. Hell, if it was my livelihood or my multi-million dollar investement on the line I'd do pretty much the same thing.


Anyway, if there's something that DOES interest me, it's 1995. If you ever say that number to me in a hockey conversation I don't think about the lockout of 95 or Lindros' winning the Hart and almost the Art Ross, I think about the best hockey of the year being played in Red Deer. What a fucking awesome team.

McKenzie: WJHC could have dream team

TSN.ca Staff

9/29/2004

With the NHL lockout of 2004 expected to go into 2005, there doesn't appear to be any reason why Canada won't be able to ice its best possible team.

Call it a Dream Team, if you will, that would include locked out NHLers (but underage juniors) Nathan Horton of the Florida Panthers, Patrice Bergeron of the Boston Bruins and Brent Burns of the Minnesota Wild.

Of those three, Burns was the only one who was loaned by his NHL team to play for Canada's silver-medal squad at last year's world junior tournament. Now, as fate would have it, he's the one who might be the biggest question mark.

As a locked out NHLer, Burns has signed with Houston of the American League but there don't appear to be any impediments there to him being made available for the World Juniors. The hitch, though, is the Minnesota Wild have decided Burns' NHL future is as a defenceman, not a forward. He will play defence for Houston.

It will be up to national junior team head coach Brent Sutter to decide whether Burns fits in as a blueliner on a roster where the top four spots are locked up by standout returnees Dion Phaneuf, Brent Seabrook, Braydon Coburn and Shawn Belle. Or Sutter may have to decide if he's interested in Burns playing forward for Team Canada even though he'll be playing defence in Houston.

The really big boost, however, would be if Horton and Bergeron could be added to the national junior squad. Horton is currently rehabbing his surgically repaired shoulder and once he's healthy he will be playing for Florida's farm team in San Antonio. Bergeron, who starred for the Bruins last season as the youngest player in the NHL, has signed on with Providence of the American Hockey League.

While nothing is yet etched in stone, all things being equal, Horton and Bergeron are likely to be on Team Canada if the lockout goes that long.

That would give Canada unprecedented depth up front to go with seven returnees from last year's team. That list includes impact players such as Jeff Carter, Nigel Dawes, Ryan Getzlaf, Sidney Crosby and Anthony Stewart as well as foot soldiers Jeremy Colliton and Stephen Dixon.

With Horton, Bergeron and burns in the fold, the 2005 national junior team could be Canada's best ever, surpassing the perfect 1995 squad that was able to ice Alexandre Daigle, Jeff Friesen and Todd Harvey, players who otherwise would have been in the NHL if not for the lockout. But even if this year's trio of NHL talent isn't available for one reason or another, Canada will still be the odds-on favourite to win it all.

For TSN.ca, I'm Bob McKenzie.

Last year was a brutal heartbreaker, but everyone knew last year that with so many 18's on the team this years Team Canada would be a monster. Can't wait.

 

[Socreges]

I blame the owners for the present state. But I hold the players responsible for the lockout. Well, the NHLPA at any rate. If you were to ask each individual player, and they were openly honest, there would be a LARGE amount of dissension, I'm sure.

.... I miss NHL hockey.

 

[Kon Tiki]

You guys ee that Zobgy poll?

The nationwide poll of 1,813 American adults, conducted from Oct. 1-3

56 % have no insterest in hockey if it resumed.
6 % had a great interest in watching the NHL when play resumes.

Jeez.

sportsnet.ca has the rest of the numbers. Th eiste crashes for me, maybe somone else can get them.

 

[Socreges]

Do you remember the media coverage in the US after the Bertuzzi incident? They RELISHED in the opportunity to rip apart the sport.

There's a general attitude among Americans towards hockey. That's not going to change.