Blackhawks Ink Patrick Kane & Jonathan Toews To Eight-Year Extensions

[Phantomphan]

They must have been consulting Holmgren when negotiating these contracts.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

I think the cap is absolutely a good thing. I like the fact that the NHL has a system where the competence of the team's GM, scouting department, player development system, etc. determines their potential for success instead of just their ability to write huge checks.

And then when the hard work of the scouts and development system pay off and those players become really good at what they do, they have to be jettisoned because the teams can't keep them and stay below the cap. Bullshit.

 

[Phantomphan]

I think the cap is absolutely a good thing. I like the fact that the NHL has a system where the competence of the team's GM, scouting department, player development system, etc. determines their potential for success instead of just their ability to write huge checks.

I guess it's how you look at sports in general. For hockey, the cap's main purpose is to ensure mediocre teams remain financially viable and it allows the commish to continue to push his expansion strategy. Mostly, it has killed any chance for true 'dynasty' teams. I doubt we will ever see a team win the Cup 3 or 4 years in a row anymore. This is good for teams in less supportive markets as they can stick around without really winning much or having a strong fan base. If the cap were eliminated, I'm sure the league would lose half a dozen teams. I'm on the fence regarding the cap - I can see the need when looking at total league revenues but I do miss the days when a team could win it all regularly (probably cos I'm getting old and nostalgic).

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

I guess it's how you look at sports in general. For hockey, the cap's main purpose is to ensure mediocre teams remain financially viable and it allows the commish to continue to push his expansion strategy. Mostly, it has killed any chance for true 'dynasty' teams. I doubt we will ever see a team win the Cup 3 or 4 years in a row anymore. This is good for teams in less supportive markets as they can stick around without really winning much or having a strong fan base. If the cap were eliminated, I'm sure the league would lose half a dozen teams. I'm on the fence regarding the cap - I can see the need when looking at total league revenues but I do miss the days when a team could win it all regularly (probably cos I'm getting old and nostalgic).

Cap was instituted, officially, for two reason: to help the failing small-market Canadian teams, and to help the misplaced Sun Belt teams. Ten years later, the Canadian teams are relatively healthy thanks to a stronger Canadian dollar and modern media pumping millions upon millions into their bank accounts, while the league has already lost one Sun Belt team and will probably lose more in the near future as the Buttplug runs out of creative ways to keep hockey being played in Miami and Phoenix. In short, the cap hasn't helped either group all that much.

 

[Cobiemonster]

Cap was instituted, officially, for two reason: to help the failing small-market Canadian teams, and to help the misplaced Sun Belt teams. Ten years later, the Canadian teams are relatively healthy thanks to a stronger Canadian dollar and modern media pumping millions upon millions into their bank accounts, while the league has already lost one Sun Belt team and will probably lose more in the near future as the Buttplug runs out of creative ways to keep hockey being played in Miami and Phoenix. In short, the cap hasn't helped either group all that much.

Teams struggling like Florida and Arizona have nothing to do with where they are playing, it has to do with incompetent GM'ing and stupid marketing idiots - both teams seem to have settled in as far as the marketing goes, and the Panthers look like they have a future with some real nice young players, something they didn't have before - if you win, they will come - trust me - and if the Coyotes weren't in the boondocks, more fans would have been showing up the last few years because they had some pretty good teams too

 

[pixburgher66]

Maybe it's because my favorite team would be in Timbuktu without it, but the cap is a good thing. Yes, it complicates things for GMs, but that just means they need to be better at their jobs. As much as Bettman gets slammed, he's done a pretty good job with the league (sans that little lockout thing). In today's sports world parity means a lot. The NBA gets trashed on (and I agree) because you know exactly who's going to win 90% of the time. The reason it's like that is because the financial rules in the league allow it. Bettman's job is to cater to the league and owners...all of them.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Cap was instituted, officially, for two reason: to help the failing small-market Canadian teams, and to help the misplaced Sun Belt teams. Ten years later, the Canadian teams are relatively healthy thanks to a stronger Canadian dollar and modern media pumping millions upon millions into their bank accounts, while the league has already lost one Sun Belt team and will probably lose more in the near future as the Buttplug runs out of creative ways to keep hockey being played in Miami and Phoenix. In short, the cap hasn't helped either group all that much.

Before the cap was instituted, several of the smaller Canadian teams were on the verge of folding. Lets not even get into the fact that a couple had already been lost to some of those southern cities you speak so poorly of.

Obviously we can play the hypothetical game all day, but there's no guarantee that the struggling Canadian franchises would have survived long enough for the C$ to recover and help them shore up their financial position. And without the strong Canadian franchises that we have now, those lucrative TV contracts don't come rolling in either.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

And then when the hard work of the scouts and development system pay off and those players become really good at what they do, they have to be jettisoned because the teams can't keep them and stay below the cap. Bullshit.

A good team would make that happen because they know how to develop and keep those good players and supplement them with new pieces.

It's no fluke that Chicago (notwithstanding their potential cap problems with the new Toews/Kane deals) and the Kings are as good as they are and show no signs of dropping off either.

A good team knows that they will need to let some mid-tier players go in the future, but they have a system in place to develop new players to replace them. They also know how to supplement their own developed talent with key FA or trade pieces. As their own players mature, they let the FA/trade players move on to other teams (or retire), and then the cycle repeats.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Teams struggling like Florida and Arizona have nothing to do with where they are playing, it has to do with incompetent GM'ing and stupid marketing idiots - both teams seem to have settled in as far as the marketing goes, and the Panthers look like they have a future with some real nice young players, something they didn't have before - if you win, they will come - trust me - and if the Coyotes weren't in the boondocks, more fans would have been showing up the last few years because they had some pretty good teams too

 

[forty_three]

Teams struggling like Florida and Arizona have nothing to do with where they are playing, it has to do with incompetent GM'ing and stupid marketing idiots - both teams seem to have settled in as far as the marketing goes, and the Panthers look like they have a future with some real nice young players, something they didn't have before - if you win, they will come - trust me - and if the Coyotes weren't in the boondocks, more fans would have been showing up the last few years because they had some pretty good teams too

I think it's a double edged sword, though. Yes, those teams have a cap floor and they have to spend that, but they don't have the revenue to do other things and have to skimp elsewhere. Mainly marketing or community support. Then they do things like give away tickets to keep the attendance numbers up and all that concession money goes elsewhere and the local ownership is even further in the hole. I think to a degree it does involve where they are playing. If you have to "sell" the locals in a market that does not have enough pure hockey fans to half fill your arena and have to reach out, but you aren't making enough money to do that effectively...

Here in Columbus, the Jackets are everywhere. They spend money on youth hockey programs and they hold events all over town. They sponsor other events and get involved in community projects. All that stuff costs money, but the difference between Columbus and say Phoenix is that there was already a base of hockey fans here. So it was easier for Columbus. And it still wasn't "easy" easy. I'm not sure I'd say the Jackets have stabilized either. Last year was a huge step forward, but it's not easy to maintain. The Cap gives them a fighting chance, though.

And Florida has had good, young teams before. And two years later they get the same number of fans at a game that Toronto or Vancouver gets to a practice. And more than half of who shows up got their ticket free.

Salary cap stops teams from buying all the best players, and gives teams that are struggling a more stable footing. But without revenue sharing, there will still be serious imbalance, IMO.

 

[Harry Crack]

I think the cap is absolutely a good thing. I like the fact that the NHL has a system where the competence of the team's GM, scouting department, player development system, etc. determines their potential for success instead of just their ability to write huge checks.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I guess it's how you look at sports in general. For hockey, the cap's main purpose is to ensure mediocre teams remain financially viable and it allows the commish to continue to push his expansion strategy. Mostly, it has killed any chance for true 'dynasty' teams. I doubt we will ever see a team win the Cup 3 or 4 years in a row anymore. This is good for teams in less supportive markets as they can stick around without really winning much or having a strong fan base. If the cap were eliminated, I'm sure the league would lose half a dozen teams. I'm on the fence regarding the cap - I can see the need when looking at total league revenues but I do miss the days when a team could win it all regularly (probably cos I'm getting old and nostalgic).

If you need to win 3 or 4 times in a row to be a dynasty, then it's unlikely.

But since 1967, only two teams have done that, though clearly Edmonton's 4 in 5 and 5 in 7 would be considered a dynasty.

But LA has now won 2 of the last 3. If they win again next year, would 3 in 4 not be considered a dynasty? What if they don't win, but Chicago does? That would be 3 in 5 for Chicago.

 

[Cobiemonster]

I think it's a double edged sword, though. Yes, those teams have a cap floor and they have to spend that, but they don't have the revenue to do other things and have to skimp elsewhere. Mainly marketing or community support. Then they do things like give away tickets to keep the attendance numbers up and all that concession money goes elsewhere and the local ownership is even further in the hole. I think to a degree it does involve where they are playing. If you have to "sell" the locals in a market that does not have enough pure hockey fans to half fill your arena and have to reach out, but you aren't making enough money to do that effectively...

Here in Columbus, the Jackets are everywhere. They spend money on youth hockey programs and they hold events all over town. They sponsor other events and get involved in community projects. All that stuff costs money, but the difference between Columbus and say Phoenix is that there was already a base of hockey fans here. So it was easier for Columbus. And it still wasn't "easy" easy. I'm not sure I'd say the Jackets have stabilized either. Last year was a huge step forward, but it's not easy to maintain. The Cap gives them a fighting chance, though.

And Florida has had good, young teams before. And two years later they get the same number of fans at a game that Toronto or Vancouver gets to a practice. And more than half of who shows up got their ticket free.

Salary cap stops teams from buying all the best players, and gives teams that are struggling a more stable footing. But without revenue sharing, there will still be serious imbalance, IMO.

1) For example, in Florida, people make it out to be bad, but they actually turn a profit because of the other events they have at BB&T center - the Panthers own part of that so they get the money that comes from some of the other events there

2) Look at Tampa Bay, they have a really good team now and fans are showing up, heck even when they struggled a bit, fans were still coming - Hockey does work in Florida, the Panthers just need to start winning - how can you blame fans for not wanting to come when they've made the playoffs once in what, 12 years? If they start winning, fans will come

 

[dash]

Gallagher's take on the Toews/Kane signings and his thoughts on the salary cap:

Gallagher: Salary cap holds down NHL players? real value

 

[Phantomphan]

If you need to win 3 or 4 times in a row to be a dynasty, then it's unlikely.

But since 1967, only two teams have done that, though clearly Edmonton's 4 in 5 and 5 in 7 would be considered a dynasty.

But LA has now won 2 of the last 3. If they win again next year, would 3 in 4 not be considered a dynasty? What if they don't win, but Chicago does? That would be 3 in 5 for Chicago.

I would say the Red Wings had a nice dynasty going for a while, too. I think that what will be considered a dynasty will be exactly what you are saying - winning X Cups in Y years. Teams that win a couple of Cups in the span of a few years and make deep playoff runs in the others are going to be thought of as dynasties.

Or teams with a lot of Carringtons on the roster will be. Either or.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Teams struggling like Florida and Arizona have nothing to do with where they are playing, it has to do with incompetent GM'ing and stupid marketing idiots - both teams seem to have settled in as far as the marketing goes, and the Panthers look like they have a future with some real nice young players, something they didn't have before - if you win, they will come - trust me - and if the Coyotes weren't in the boondocks, more fans would have been showing up the last few years because they had some pretty good teams too

They will come, for $5 a ticket, and the team will still be unprofitable like Tampa and Anaheim. TV ratings are piss poor in those markets too even when the teams are good.

NHL teams should not be in these cities.

 

[Phantomphan]

I would say the Red Wings had a nice dynasty going for a while, too. I think that what will be considered a dynasty will be exactly what you are saying - winning X Cups in Y years. Teams that win a couple of Cups in the span of a few years and make deep playoff runs in the others are going to be thought of as dynasties.

Or teams with a lot of Carringtons on the roster will be. Either or.

Speaking of signings - here is something Otis might like (hope I did this correctly).

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Gallagher's take on the Toews/Kane signings and his thoughts on the salary cap:

Gallagher: Salary cap holds down NHL players? real value

I think where he totally misses the point is that the NHL (nor any of the major N. American leagues for that matter) is not a true freemarket enterprise, so the concept of "normal market basics" doesn't apply.

He also conveniently ignores the new revenue sharing agreements that came into place with the last CBA and how that helped those teams that were previously struggling.

And lastly (am I beating a dead horse here yet?), the NHLPA's job is not to look out only for the Crosby, Kane, and Ovechkins of the league, but to consider the collective well-being of ALL of their members. When you have only about a half dozen healthy clubs (as was the case before the big lockout), the 20-odd players on each of those teams do extremely well, but the players on all the others not so much. But when you've now got somewhere in the range of 20 healthy teams (according to Forbes, 19 teams posted a profit in 2012-2013), that's a lot more pie to go around. A few of the best players may do worse under that scenario, but the collective membership does better.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Before the cap was instituted, several of the smaller Canadian teams were on the verge of folding. Lets not even get into the fact that a couple had already been lost to some of those southern cities you speak so poorly of.

Obviously we can play the hypothetical game all day, but there's no guarantee that the struggling Canadian franchises would have survived long enough for the C$ to recover and help them shore up their financial position. And without the strong Canadian franchises that we have now, those lucrative TV contracts don't come rolling in either.

And those markets the teams moved to have done so well since acquiring those franchises. Hey, how stable were the Avs after they stopped winning titles? Won't even begin with Phoenix...

Maybe they would have folded, but their recoveries had little to do with a salary cap and everything to do with the improved Canadian dollar and the increase in media revenues, something which has aided each of the big 4 sports. There were several baseball teams that were just as at risk as the hockey teams and they held out long enough for the current media landscape to take hold and stabilize the franchises. It's likely the struggling NHL franchises would've done likewise.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

1) For example, in Florida, people make it out to be bad, but they actually turn a profit because of the other events they have at BB&T center - the Panthers own part of that so they get the money that comes from some of the other events there

2) Look at Tampa Bay, they have a really good team now and fans are showing up, heck even when they struggled a bit, fans were still coming - Hockey does work in Florida, the Panthers just need to start winning - how can you blame fans for not wanting to come when they've made the playoffs once in what, 12 years? If they start winning, fans will come

So get rid of the hockey team and you have an excellent profit model without the drag of an unsuccessful hockey team that the owner has to go out of pocket to run. Also, attendance isn't everything, and the TV deals/viewership in successful Southern markets like Tampa prove that. Nobody is watching.