Fanpuck33_ Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 In the beginning, I was with the players, because I hated the idea of a salary. All I could think of was teams having to let go of upcoming stars who become too expensive, or releasing veterans because they are paid too much. As time went on, however, my position changed. As I thought about it, I realized that with no owners there is no league. There will always be hockey players willing to play, but if there is nobody to pay them, there is no league. Professional sports are about making money. The owners make money off of the players, and the players in turn make money off of the owners. In the current state of the league though, the players were taking more money than they were bringing in. In that situation, how can the owners justify owning a team? Now that the deadline has passed, I have decided both sides are equally at fault. I agree with the position of the owners, but I think they went about it all wrong. It seemed to me that the league wanted to break the union. When the union gave up 24% of the salaries and agreed to a cap, the owners did not meet them halfway. Once it appeared the two sides were on common ground, the owners refused to go halfway and meet at a 45-46 million dollar cap, something the union almost assuredly would have agreed to, as the players lose more money here than the owners do. I think they players were too greedy, the owners were too greedy, and Bettman ran the league into the ground. The league expanded too fast. Nashville, Anaheim, Florida, Atlanta have almost no fan support, and Ottawa has struggled with bankrupcy. The former Hartfard Whalers are dying in Carolina, and the Coyotes aren't exactly winning over Phoenix. Some of these teams may not survive this lockout. IMO, the only safe bets among the expansion/relocated teams are Columbus, Minnesota, San Jose, and Tampa Bay. Ottawa, Phoenix, and Atlanta I think will make it, but the others are really up in the air I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsfan21 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Well said.:/) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33_ Posted February 17, 2005 Author Share Posted February 17, 2005 Barry Melrose just reported that Bettman was willing to go to 45 million on the cap, but hardliner owners told him not to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sakiqc Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I don't get the "cap" thing. If the owner of team X don't want to spend more than 42 M$, he only has to tell his GM to stop at 42. Why does he needs the league to put a salary cap at 42?? If the cap was 100M$, the owner still can tell his GM not to go above 42.. no? Please someone, explain this to me!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puck7x Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Originally posted by sakiqcI don't get the "cap" thing. If the owner of team X don't want to spend more than 42 M$, he only has to tell his GM to stop at 42. Why does he needs the league to put a salary cap at 42?? If the cap was 100M$, the owner still can tell his GM not to go above 42.. no? Please someone, explain this to me!! Simple really. If all the owners in the league told their GM's to spend no more then 42 million (in a system without a cap) this would be collusion (a secret agreement between the 30 teams). Collusion is illegal, and the players could easily prove that collusion was taking place. Thats why they need a cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33_ Posted February 17, 2005 Author Share Posted February 17, 2005 I don't think a cap does anything to solve the owners problems. The teams that are spending near or above 42 million are the teams that can afford it. The poor teams are not affected by the cap, except they have more opportunity to get FA that they can't even afford. A cap mainly prevents teams from signing all the players simply because they have money. It's more about keeping the league competetive rather than saving money. Now that the deadline has passed, the owners will refuse to accept any offer without cost certainty, something that will actually help the league's money situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sakiqc Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 competitivenes... yeah well, hockey is not like baseball. If you spend 100 M$ it doesn't means you'll even make the playoffs! That's something I like with hockey. It's really a sport team first. Greatest examples are the NY Rangers and the Wild. collusion... Didn't thought about that. Not sure how it would be provable. Every team should be able to make his own budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33_ Posted February 17, 2005 Author Share Posted February 17, 2005 Originally posted by sakiqccompetitivenes... yeah well, hockey is not like baseball. If you spend 100 M$ it doesn't means you'll even make the playoffs! That's something I like with hockey. It's really a sport team first. Greatest examples are the NY Rangers and the Wild. True, but look at Colorado, Detroit, Dallas, Toronto... (Off-topic, but I now wish I hadn't b ought my jersey during the playoffs on ebay at peak cost. I see jerseys on ebay now for half the price I got mine) [Edited on 2-17-05 by Fanpuck33] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalhabs Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 I think a big problem is that some players get WAAAY to much money after only playing one good year. I cant think of someone right now but some players get to play with superstars like Forsberg, Lemieux and get alot more points becaus of it. I bet even I might be able to score a goal if i played a season with Lemieux but am I worth a million dollar contract becaus of it? I am also kind of hoping that a few teams will dissapear during this lockout. 24-26 team nhl would be better I think. [Edited on 2005/2/18 by Dalhabs] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafs Suck Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 The owners are the one who signed the players to their contracts. However, I do not generalize all owners together. I think it's mainly the fault of 6 owners. The big spenders are the ones who've caused the problem. The last two years have proven you don't need to spend $70 million on payroll to have a winning team. Out of the 8 teams who've made it the final four, only one has been a big spender. The likes of Ottawa, Calgary, Minnesota, Anaheim, Tampa and Calgary don't have huge payrolls yet have been very successful over the last few years. The Habs, IMO, are an average spender. They don't blow their brains out on UFA's every summer, aside from Briesbois, they sign their players to what the market says (and no over like the big spenders do). The owners are also the ones who expanded to several non-hockey markets. That is one of the biggest things wrong with the game IMO. However the players do share alot of blame as well. Two things mainly. First, why did it take them till two days before the season cancalation before they took the "no cap" off the table. If they had done that in October, we'd be playing hockey right now. It was a very stupid move on their part. The other beef I have with the players is when they call themselves a union. It's not a union, it's barley an assocation. They will stab each other in the back if they could. Running over to play in Europe for peaunts or in some cases to play in a minor league with a salary cap, proves how un-united they really are. And like I've said many times before, isn't the purpose of a union is to get the best deal for ALL THE PLAYERS? Well if they continued going at the rate they were up till last September, many teams would go bankrupt, which means 100's are out of work. The union is supposed to protect the jobs, not put them in jeopardy. It's clear both sides aren't interested in whats best for the game. Hopefully when the NHL returns it'll be stronger than ever. And without those two running the show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.