The Poojer Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 "Brian Surgery"??????? He needs a Brian removed? So they finally agree on a cap. The basics are the NHLPA wants $52 million the league says $40 million in a last ditch effort to save the season. WTF is the problem from here? Allow me to solve this major stumbling block for you guys. $46 million cap. Hammer out the details. Game on. This is not brian surgery. 239606[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 The NFL which has tv money up the ying yang and is doing fantastic has an 80+ million cap with 53 players. The nhlpa which has no major tv contract and a sh------- product on the ice wants a 50+ million cap with 23 players. What's wrong with this picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zow2 Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 I love this quote from Jay McKee in today's paper (obviously quoted prior to today's news) "I can assure you the players are getting stronger and stronger," Sabres player representative Jay McKee said. "There is no way a cap will ever be accepted. Gary's getting into a fight he never saw coming. He's in the fight of his life. (The players) aren't the type of guys will back away when they're pushed." Now today, he hears that the union essentially agreed to the cap and he totally backtracks...."I wonder why now?" he says. Wake the F-- up Jay?!? You mean to tell me a few powerful players don't want to be pushed around by the owners so that's why they're digging their heels in so much? geez, these players really need to think about the good of the sport not just how fat they can get off irresponsible owners. The jig is up. The owners got smart finally and are reeling it in. It's their sport, they can call the shots how they see it. I still don't see where the players have any leverage in the Lockout? The Sabres are losing LESS money by not turning the lights on at HSBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 The NFL which has tv money up the ying yang and is doing fantastic has an 80+ million cap with 53 players. The nhlpa which has no major tv contract and a sh------- product on the ice wants a 50+ million cap with 23 players. What's wrong with this picture? 240043[/snapback] I knew the NHL and NHLPA's cap ideas were out of proportion to the financial health of the sport, but I never thought about it that way. Nice point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 This is not brian surgery. 239606[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachChuckDickerson Posted February 15, 2005 Author Share Posted February 15, 2005 The NFL which has tv money up the ying yang and is doing fantastic has an 80+ million cap with 53 players. The nhlpa which has no major tv contract and a sh------- product on the ice wants a 50+ million cap with 23 players. What's wrong with this picture? 240043[/snapback] On thing the NHL season does have though is 82 games and the insanely long playoffs as well. Still does not come close to balancing but....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 On thing the NHL season does have though is 82 games and the insanely long playoffs as well. Still does come close to balancing but....... 240107[/snapback] And $250 rinkside seats and $60 nosebleeds. Nothing like pricing out the average fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 The NFL which has tv money up the ying yang and is doing fantastic has an 80+ million cap with 53 players. The nhlpa which has no major tv contract and a sh------- product on the ice wants a 50+ million cap with 23 players. What's wrong with this picture? 240043[/snapback] Thats a great way to look at it.I see both sides of this fight. See, the players agreed to a cap as soon as the owners said that it would not be tied to revenues. Thats because the players, wheather right or wrong, do not trust the figures of the owners. Lets remeber that the league does not want to include little items like luxuary box revunue, concessions, and parking in their revenue figures. As for the the owners controlling there own spending, the baseball owners tried that and got nailed for collusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 Here is my problem with a Salary cap. It basically states that formely sucessful business men cannot manage to a budget. Could you imagine. Well I am such an idiot that society now needs me to have a spending salary cap. Why? Because is my spending does not have a imposed limit I cannot survive because I will lose money... Note to owners. Want a way to predict costs. Set a number. What are you willing to spend? 42 million? Well here is a thought... Only spend that much. When you have spent 42 million on salary stop buying....You get your cap.... 239926[/snapback] Here's the problem with that argument. If you are one owner trying that alone, you will get crushed by the competition, not be able to field a competitive team and eventually go out of business. Remember, the product here is the ENTIRE league; the object is not to force your competitor to go bankrupt. And if all the owners try to live on a reasonable budget, they get sued. Baseball owners tried to do this in the 80s. The greedy players union ran crying to the courts because there weren't enough zeros on their paychecks. Naturally, the owners were found guilty of collusion and were fined heavily. Having a salary cap simply lets everyone agree to the fact that the teams need to stay on a reasonable budget. We can argue for what the cap should be, but I have not heard a valid argument to NOT have a salary cap in the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 Here is my problem with a Salary cap. It basically states that formely sucessful business men cannot manage to a budget. Could you imagine. Well I am such an idiot that society now needs me to have a spending salary cap. Why? Because is my spending does not have a imposed limit I cannot survive because I will lose money... Note to owners. Want a way to predict costs. Set a number. What are you willing to spend? 42 million? Well here is a thought... Only spend that much. When you have spent 42 million on salary stop buying....You get your cap.... 239926[/snapback] and what happens when one team has 80M to spend and another team has 30M? sorry, not every team is working with the same "budget", so your theory would continue to create competitive inbalance....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 Here is my problem with a Salary cap. It basically states that formely sucessful business men cannot manage to a budget. Could you imagine. Well I am such an idiot that society now needs me to have a spending salary cap. Why? Because is my spending does not have a imposed limit I cannot survive because I will lose money... Note to owners. Want a way to predict costs. Set a number. What are you willing to spend? 42 million? Well here is a thought... Only spend that much. When you have spent 42 million on salary stop buying....You get your cap.... 239926[/snapback] The problem with your logic is that it does not take into account the haves and have nots. The Rangers can afford to outbid 80% of the other teams. Just picture the Yanks and Red Sox compared to the small market teams. Do you want the same thing to continue in hockey? A salary cap brings parity to a league. The NFL realized it, the NBA tried to do it and MLB and the NHL have fallen behind, and now those leagues are suffering for their stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndyJay1234 Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 and what happens when one team has 80M to spend and another team has 30M? sorry, not every team is working with the same "budget", so your theory would continue to create competitive inbalance....... 240172[/snapback] It is called baseball and the Yankees. The twins and A's both small market teams seem to find a way to compete....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndyJay1234 Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 The problem with your logic is that it does not take into account the haves and have nots. The Rangers can afford to outbid 80% of the other teams. Just picture the Yanks and Red Sox compared to the small market teams. Do you want the same thing to continue in hockey? A salary cap brings parity to a league. The NFL realized it, the NBA tried to do it and MLB and the NHL have fallen behind, and now those leagues are suffering for their stupidity. 240205[/snapback] Sure and how have the Rangers faired with this approach?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndyJay1234 Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 Easier said than done. Sure, you can have a self-imposed limit, but the attraction of signing a free agent superstar would probably blow that out of the water. If you had $2 million left on your budget, yet you could get Martin Brodeur for a cheap $3 million per year, wouldn't you do it? Overall, I blame both sides for this. The owners for actually spending outrageous amounts of money on average players and the players for getting spoiled. It's the same thing that's happening in baseball, yet the union there is WAY too strong and the commissioner is out of his element. 239969[/snapback] You do it if you are ok with losing money. If you could buy a BMW but it outside of your budget do you buy it? Some people are ok with living in debt. If you own a hockey franchise you either look at it as a business or as a dream. If it is a dream you buy it and live with losing money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 By the way, these secret meetings between the NHLPA and Bill Daly are taking place in Niagara Falls, NY. As we know WNY is the epicenter of all things hockey! 239677[/snapback] Soon WNY will be known as the place where hockey went to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 Soon WNY will be known as the place where hockey went to die. 240294[/snapback] Not unlike the free market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 Soon WNY will be known as the place where hockey went to die. 240294[/snapback] I hate to say it but you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyMannn Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 Soon WNY will be known as the place where hockey went to die. 240294[/snapback] The solution to the strike is at Niagara Falls. You just have to get it. You wade into the water just above the Falls and............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 Sure and how have the Rangers faired with this approach?? 240288[/snapback] I never said it was a recipe for 100% success. If you don't have someone who is a capable GM it doesn't matter how much money you throw at a problem. My point was made from the fan perspective. I want a cap for the NHL and MLB for the same reasons I like the one in the NFL. It gives all franchises an equal footing, which is good for the fans. Small market teams can make a good run, but that is the exception, not the rule. How often do the Yanks not make the post season? Compare that to any small market team and tell me this is good for MLB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cash2Burn Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 I love this quote from Jay McKee in today's paper (obviously quoted prior to today's news) "I can assure you the players are getting stronger and stronger," Sabres player representative Jay McKee said. "There is no way a cap will ever be accepted. Gary's getting into a fight he never saw coming. He's in the fight of his life. (The players) aren't the type of guys will back away when they're pushed." 240076[/snapback] Looks like Jay got blindsided by this, just as much as everyone else: http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=cp-n...ov=cp&type=lgns "Still Sabres player representative Jay McKee was surprised when he heard the union would accept a cap. "If that's where we were going, I wonder why now," he said. Even Redden, also in Edmonton, wondered about the timing. "If it could have been done two years ago it could have been a lot more convenient for everyone," he said. Chicago forward Matthew Barnaby was of the same mind. "We probably could've gotten this thing done in the summertime," he said. "Am I mad? No. I want to get back to work. But at the same time, I'm just a little disappointed that it went this far to play poker and to have someone call your bluff." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts