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

[sabresfaninthesouth]

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.

OK, you totally missed the point on the Avs and Coyotes. The point was that there was a clear risk of those Canadian teams that were struggling packing up and moving elsewhere, as demonstrated by the Avs and Coyotes. We can debate the wisdom of those two cities some other time, the simple fact is that those two Canadian franchises couldn't cut it.

And then you're talking hypotheticals again. They may have survived long enough, you're absolutely right. But you know what, they may not have. We don't know. But the absolute fact is that those franchises are in much better shape now than they were before the cap. The cap is but one factor in that. The strength of the C$ and the new TV contracts are too. But the new revenue sharing agreements are also. And the fact that those teams can put a better product on the ice (or at least have a chance to, poor management aside) because they don't have to worry about always being outbid by the teams with deeper pockets, which directly corresponds to an increase in revenue.

 

[Phantomphan]

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.

I agree with this to a point. The one thing I would say is that the NHL needs its stars more than other leagues. The stars sell the tickets and ticket revenue counts for a lot in regards to total team revenue. That's the real bind here - with most of the revenue coming from ticket sales teams have to be real careful how much they charge which in turn effects profit, salaries, etc. A nice big tv contract would do wonders, but I don't know if that's ever gonna happen.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

OK, you totally missed the point on the Avs and Coyotes. The point was that there was a clear risk of those Canadian teams that were struggling packing up and moving elsewhere, as demonstrated by the Avs and Coyotes. We can debate the wisdom of those two cities some other time, the simple fact is that those two Canadian franchises couldn't cut it.

And then you're talking hypotheticals again. They may have survived long enough, you're absolutely right. But you know what, they may not have. We don't know. But the absolute fact is that those franchises are in much better shape now than they were before the cap. The cap is but one factor in that. The strength of the C$ and the new TV contracts are too. But the new revenue sharing agreements are also. And the fact that those teams can put a better product on the ice (or at least have a chance to, poor management aside) because they don't have to worry about always being outbid by the teams with deeper pockets, which directly corresponds to an increase in revenue.

The two franchises that moved were in the two smallest Canadian markets, and they were smallest by a big margin.

I also started that paragraph off by saying "Maybe they would've folded", so, there's that.

Past is past, the fact remains, the NHL doesn't need a salary cap today. Well-run teams who generate profit (or teams bought by Rich Uncle Pennybags, like Florida) should be free to do as they please with that profit, just like any other business.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

(according to Forbes, 19 teams posted a profit in 2012-2013)

That number would be higher with hockey teams playing in places where hockey is actually enjoyed.

 

[forty_three]

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

I guess I am not understanding what you are saying. Sounds like you are trying to say that the Florida Panthers are viable because they are profitable, but then stating the reason they are profitable is because of Beyonce concerts and Monster Truck Rallies. What is the point of even having a team, then? Instead of paying 35m in salaries for a hockey team, just get rid of them and open up 42 more nights a year for Taylor Swift and the Idol tour.

Florida doesn't need to win to be viable, they need people that genuinely care what happens day in / day out with the team and the sport. A big knock on all the sports teams there is that the "fans" look at them as social events and whichever one is popular makes the money. Bron Bron shows up, and everyone's a basketball fan. See what their attendance is next year.

I remember the Stanley cup final run, every crowd shot showed confused people looking at each other as if they were saying "Now? Is now when we throw the rats?" Panthers have been there 20+ years and as far as I can tell, there are three sheets of ice in the city, not including the one in the Arena.

3 rinks. There are 2.6 million people. There simply aren't enough people who care about hockey passionately. You can't build a franchise on a fickle base.

 

[Abe Vigoda]

That number would be higher with hockey teams playing in places where hockey is actually enjoyed.

You fooled me. I thought all you Canucks were moving to Florida?

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

You fooled me. I thought all you Canucks were moving to Florida?

I would choose California.

 

[dash]

I would choose California.

Me too, although I would chose NorCal.

/San Diego would be the exception however, love it down there.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Me too, although I would chose NorCal.

/San Diego would be the exception however, love it down there.

Yeah not an LA guy at all.

Whoever is dumb enough to marry me will be doing so in Napa.

 

[pixburgher66]

The two franchises that moved were in the two smallest Canadian markets, and they were smallest by a big margin.

I also started that paragraph off by saying "Maybe they would've folded", so, there's that.

Past is past, the fact remains, the NHL doesn't need a salary cap today. Well-run teams who generate profit (or teams bought by Rich Uncle Pennybags, like Florida) should be free to do as they please with that profit, just like any other business.

That's called baseball, and it sucks. Does it help the league as a whole to allow this and then cut the viable contenders in half? Then you have teams in decent markets with bad owners (Hiiiiii NYI!) who won't spend money, and thus not be competitive. And you have big money markets and teams (NYR, TOR, etc) who poach those low budget teams' developed players by giving contracts they simply can't afford. It's not a good system. I'd rather not see the Rangers become the Yankees, poaching players. I've seen it...I'm a dang Pirates fan. If you want viability and parity, you need restrictions. Otherwise, welcome to a league with 5 teams that can actually compete.

 

[pixburgher66]

Yeah not an LA guy at all.

Whoever is dumb enough to marry me will be doing so in Napa.

You're lucky 95% of women would be happy getting hitched in Napa...word of advice: make it seem like her idea. Brides can be...touchy. (Sidenote: I hate the whole "groom shuts up is just a prop" in a wedding thing. It's stupid.)

 

[dash]

Back on topic (sort of), in both the Jets and Nords cases in the mid 90s, a new arena was needed for both teams, but the economy was terrible and nobody was willing to step up to the plate and own either team. The Gerbil wanted to make a big splash and seized the opportunity to move a couple of struggling franchises. Heck, the Oilers were this close to moving to Houston (the moving trucks were ready to roll out) when the Edmonton Investors Group stepped in at the 11th hour and bought the team. Attendance in Calgary dropped during the 90s because the fans were tired of seeing all their best players lured away to big dollars.

I guess the main reason I don't mind a salary cap is that is levels the playing field somewhat as far as competitive balance is concerned and I don't like to see teams lose star players that they have drafted and developed simply because they don't have the financial resources to keep them. The salary cap does very little in keeping ticket prices down and the owners love it because they can rake in the revenues even more than before.

 

[Phantomphan]

Back on topic (sort of), in both the Jets and Nords cases in the mid 90s, a new arena was needed for both teams, but the economy was terrible and nobody was willing to step up to the plate and own either team. The Gerbil wanted to make a big splash and seized the opportunity to move a couple of struggling franchises. Heck, the Oilers were this close to moving to Houston (the moving trucks were ready to roll out) when the Edmonton Investors Group stepped in at the 11th hour and bought the team. Attendance in Calgary dropped during the 90s because the fans were tired of seeing all their best players lured away to big dollars.

I guess the main reason I don't mind a salary cap is that is levels the playing field somewhat as far as competitive balance is concerned and I don't like to see teams lose star players that they have drafted and developed simply because they don't have the financial resources to keep them. The salary cap does very little in keeping ticket prices down and the owners love it because they can rake in the revenues even more than before.

As long as the league has 30 teams (or more) it will need a salary cap. There is no other way to keep that many teams operating. If it went back to 15-20 teams, a cap probably wouldn't be needed. But we all know that isn't happening.

 

[Abe Vigoda]

Yeah not an LA guy at all.

Whoever is dumb enough to marry me will be doing so in Napa.

See now that fooled me as well, I thought you were the Metrosexual type o LA guy.....part celebrity, part surfer, part Northern Woodsy Patagonia type

 

[dash]

It's amazing that when the league came out of the lockout to start the 2005/06 season, the cap ceiling was set at $39 million. Fast forward 10 years and we've added $30 million to that amount.

 

[Abe Vigoda]

Then you have teams in decent markets with bad owners (Hiiiiii NYI!) who won't spend money, and thus not be competitive. And you have big money markets and teams (NYR, TOR, etc) who poach those low budget teams' developed players by giving contracts they simply can't afford. It's not a good system.

Fair point, but then conversely you have the exact opposite occuring in the NHL as well. Teams desperate to reach the cap minimum going on spending sprees overpaying and poaching mediocre players are good teams. Or even worse over paying "buy out" players

 

[pixburgher66]

Fair point, but then conversely you have the exact opposite occuring in the NHL as well. Teams desperate to reach the cap minimum going on spending sprees overpaying and poaching mediocre players are good teams. Or even worse over paying "buy out" players

The cap system isn't perfect, and that's obviously one of the problems. But in a system without a cap, those teams simply don't spend any money. Or, conversely, something that happened in baseball: those teams that operate toward the bottom of the financial waters also don't have success, and in order to bring in talent they must overpay them. At least that's something that happened in the darkest of the days with the Pirates. No one wanted to come play in Pittsburgh, so in order to bring them in and fill a roster, they overpaid old has beens.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

That's called baseball, and it sucks. Does it help the league as a whole to allow this and then cut the viable contenders in half? Then you have teams in decent markets with bad owners (Hiiiiii NYI!) who won't spend money, and thus not be competitive. And you have big money markets and teams (NYR, TOR, etc) who poach those low budget teams' developed players by giving contracts they simply can't afford. It's not a good system. I'd rather not see the Rangers become the Yankees, poaching players. I've seen it...I'm a dang Pirates fan. If you want viability and parity, you need restrictions. Otherwise, welcome to a league with 5 teams that can actually compete.

Baseball has no salary cap and achieves the same parity as the NHL and NFL. Teams develop different models to be successful and it's working. The team with the highest payroll in baseball has won once since 2000, and if I recall correctly the Rangers weren't exactly throwing parades down Broadway every June when they were the league's highest spender by a mile, and a certain second-highest spending team wasn't having any more luck than NYR was.

Have you seen the Cup winners in the NHL the past five years? You say "welcome to a league with 5 teams". We're already there. And would you bet against LA or Chicago winning more? It's 1996-2003 all over again.

In the last year before the lockout, the Red Wings had the league's highest payroll at $77.8 million; in comparison, Tampa had $33.5 million and Calgary $35.2 million. In 2002-03, the Rangers had the highest payroll at $69.2 million; New Jersey had $52.4 million and Anaheim $39 million. Teams were spending modestly then and they were winning doing so.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Fair point, but then conversely you have the exact opposite occuring in the NHL as well. Teams desperate to reach the cap minimum going on spending sprees overpaying and poaching mediocre players are good teams. Or even worse over paying "buy out" players

Or trading for cap value of players who aren't even fucking playing (Hello NYI)!

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

See now that fooled me as well, I thought you were the Metrosexual type o LA guy.....part celebrity, part surfer, part Northern Woodsy Patagonia type

Love the city life but give me a beach in a quiet spot anyday.