LabattBlue Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I have a question as to the statements being made that the NHL is now a "level playing field". The Sabres in recent years had a team salary of around 30 million dollars and were "supposedly" losing 5-10 million per year. The new salary cap will be 39 million dollars. Lets assume the Sabres will have a team payroll of between 25-30 million in 05-06. This is somewhere between 9 and 14 million less than what the "spend at all cost" teams(DET, TOR, COL, DAL, NYR, etc...) will be playing with as they will all be spending right to the edge of the cap. I realize that the upper echelon teams will have to share revenue(details yet to be revealed), but I don't anticipate this being more than 1 or 2 million(combined) to each of the sisters of the poor. That being said, where is the level playing field when there will be teams spending 25-35 percent more on players than the Sabres? Maybe I'm missing something in the CBA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 The Sabres lost money the last few years by missing the playoffs. A strong playoff run, combined with revenue sharing, could make up much of their losses from a higher payroll. It benefits them in a big way by controlling player costs and making a whole group of top players affordable. With a cap, they would have been able to keep guys like Peca and Hasek. Another thing that will help them is that the playoff field is being expanded to 20 teams under the new CBA. In the long run, this will help the team fill the arena, because fans will know the Sabres aren't competing against teams that outspend them by 30 or 40 million dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Another thing that will help them is that the playoff field is being expanded to 20 teams under the new CBA. I havn't had time to read about the new CBA, but you're kidding about this right? My god, the NHL is already a huge joke for letting almost everyone into the playoffs. Now they're going to EXPAND that number? And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously. *sigh* CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I have a question as to the statements being made that the NHL is now a "level playing field". The Sabres in recent years had a team salary of around 30 million dollars and were "supposedly" losing 5-10 million per year. The new salary cap will be 39 million dollars. Lets assume the Sabres will have a team payroll of between 25-30 million in 05-06. This is somewhere between 9 and 14 million less than what the "spend at all cost" teams(DET, TOR, COL, DAL, NYR, etc...) will be playing with as they will all be spending right to the edge of the cap. I realize that the upper echelon teams will have to share revenue(details yet to be revealed), but I don't anticipate this being more than 1 or 2 million(combined) to each of the sisters of the poor.That being said, where is the level playing field when there will be teams spending 25-35 percent more on players than the Sabres? Maybe I'm missing something in the CBA? Well, 25-35% more is better than 100% more. And I'd have to think that Tom would be willing to open the purse strings to get the puck rolling so to speak and jump start interest in the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 Well, 25-35% more is better than 100% more. And I'd have to think that Tom would be willing to open the purse strings to get the puck rolling so to speak and jump start interest in the team. 382377[/snapback] You're correct that the new salary structure is better than the old, I just wouldn't refer to it as a level playing field. As far as Golisano spending more, I guess it all depends what he is going to receive in terms of revenue sharing to supplement the team operating budget. The next couple of weeks should be very exciting as players are let go left and right. Combined with the start of training camp, it should make for an interesting month of August. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I havn't had time to read about the new CBA, but you're kidding about this right? My god, the NHL is already a huge joke for letting almost everyone into the playoffs. Now they're going to EXPAND that number? And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously. *sigh* CW 382373[/snapback] It used to be 16 of 20 teams made the playoffs. The number of playoff seeds have not changed through the expansion years. With the increase number of entrants, roughly 2/3rds of the league will now make the playoffs. That might be high, but the NHL, with a lousy national TV contract, needs the extra games to increase revenue. I'm not going to complain. Playoff hockey is an awesome thing to behold. The more the merrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EZC-Boston Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 If salaries are lower, they should be able to afford better players, hopefully leading to better attendance as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 If salaries are lower, they should be able to afford better players, hopefully leading to better attendance as well. 382390[/snapback] The same can be said for the other 31 teams in the league. We'll see how things shake out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 The same can be said for the other 31 teams in the league. We'll see how things shake out. 382395[/snapback] That's how it evens out the playing field, which benefits a small market club like the Sabres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I have a question as to the statements being made that the NHL is now a "level playing field". The Sabres in recent years had a team salary of around 30 million dollars and were "supposedly" losing 5-10 million per year. The new salary cap will be 39 million dollars. Lets assume the Sabres will have a team payroll of between 25-30 million in 05-06. This is somewhere between 9 and 14 million less than what the "spend at all cost" teams(DET, TOR, COL, DAL, NYR, etc...) will be playing with as they will all be spending right to the edge of the cap. I realize that the upper echelon teams will have to share revenue(details yet to be revealed), but I don't anticipate this being more than 1 or 2 million(combined) to each of the sisters of the poor.That being said, where is the level playing field when there will be teams spending 25-35 percent more on players than the Sabres? Maybe I'm missing something in the CBA? 382348[/snapback] Lets remember to that in the NFL, not everyone spends to the limit.Think the Vikes were $30M under last year and still compettive. As mentioned earlier, the cap brings everybodys price down as there are less options for a players services, cause even if the big money teams spend to the max, the next year they will not have cap room to add to the team via FAs. As opposed to football, these contracts are guaranteed, so no cutting an underperforming player as that money will still count agaisn't your cap. This is why the the cream of the crop as far as GMs is going to rise to the top, as mistakes can longer be brushed aside with the stroke of a check.My guess is guys will take less money per year for a longer contract, as that will provide the security all pro athletes say they crave. I would think this first year of the new CBA you will se a lot of one and two year deals until the GMs get a better feel on how to work within the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 The same can be said for the other 31 teams in the league. We'll see how things shake out. 382395[/snapback] So, hopefully the sabres can nab a couple of great players as they get spread around the league. That may put fannies in the seats and increase team revenue. Even if they decided to deficit spend in a year when the team looks like it is gelling - they can make that up with a nice playoff run and spend just as much as the Detroits of the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 That's how it evens out the playing field, which benefits a small market club like the Sabres. 382397[/snapback] It brings teams "somewhat" closer together, but it's not a level playing field like the NFL, where most teams are within a couple of million dollars of the cap limit. Like I stated earlier, you will still have teams spending 25-35% more on player salaries than others. IMO...I do not look for the Sabres to go on a spending spree landing top notch players left and right, like some folks do. No matter what happens, I will have my part season tickets for 05-06 and am glad to see hockey coming back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 Lets remember to that in the NFL, not everyone spends to the limit.Think the Vikes were $30M under last year and still compettive. 382402[/snapback] Is this true? I can't believe with the talent on that club(including signing AW to a huge contract last season), that they could be that far under the cap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Another thing that will help them is that the playoff field is being expanded to 20 teams under the new CBA. 382369[/snapback] Can i ask where you got this info from? I've read a ton of stuff and seen a bunch on the new CBA and rule changes, and no where have i seen them say they were expanding to 20 teams... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTS Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I havn't had time to read about the new CBA, but you're kidding about this right? My god, the NHL is already a huge joke for letting almost everyone into the playoffs. Now they're going to EXPAND that number? And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously. *sigh* CW 382373[/snapback] I'm 99% sure that the playoffs won't be 20 teams. The 16 team playoff structure worked great. Playoffs were never a problem in hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Can i ask where you got this info from? I've read a ton of stuff and seen a bunch on the new CBA and rule changes, and no where have i seen them say they were expanding to 20 teams... 382413[/snapback] I'm too lazy to look it up, but this info has been all over most stories over the past week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I'm too lazy to look it up, but this info has been all over most stories over the past week. 382421[/snapback] link? I've read all over the 'net and nowhere has this been mentioned... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Is this true? I can't believe with the talent on that club(including signing AW to a huge contract last season), that they could be that far under the cap? 382407[/snapback] Was very true, as a matter of fact, AW bonus last year was a roster bonus, not a signing bonus. They did this so the whole bonus would be counted in last years cap figures. Thats also how they could sign Smoot, Phat Pat etc this year. One of the reasons Moss wanted out of there so bad was he kept saying they would not spend the money on FAs. To the point about 20 teams in the playoffs, almost a certainty. The proposed set up will be a best of three for teams 7-10 in each conferance, then best of sevens for the remaining 8. Could be looking at a late septemebr start and late June ending between an extra rd of the playoffs as well as a three week break for the Olympics this tr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Was very true, as a matter of fact, AW bonus last year was a roster bonus, not a signing bonus. They did this so the whole bonus would be counted in last years cap figures. Thats also how they could sign Smoot, Phat Pat etc this year. One of the reasons Moss wanted out of there so bad was he kept saying they would not spend the money on FAs. To the point about 20 teams in the playoffs, almost a certainty. The proposed set up will be a best of five for teams 7-10 in each conferance, then best of sevens for the remaining 8. Could be looking at a late septemebr start and late June ending between an extra rd of the playoffs as well as a three week break for the Olympics this tr 382425[/snapback] Honestly, 20 teams in the playoffs suck...why not just scrap the regular saeson and make it 1 big playoff series since all the teams are gonna make it anyway... NHL screwed the pooch on this one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 From ESPN This will be a matter for the board of governors to approve, but look for two more teams to be added in each conference and for the seventh through 10th teams to play best-of-three series immediately after the end of the regular season. This preliminary round would lead into the traditional four best-of-seven series for the Cup. This brings to 20 the number of teams that would qualify for the playoffs. That's a lot. But it's also a good business practice and will mean more excitement in more cities and will see fewer teams selling off players at the trade deadline, not to mention more revenue generated all around. http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?id=2106971 Long column, but some good stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EndZoneCrew Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 here we go sabres, here we go!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 From ESPN This will be a matter for the board of governors to approve, but look for two more teams to be added in each conference and for the seventh through 10th teams to play best-of-three series immediately after the end of the regular season. This preliminary round would lead into the traditional four best-of-seven series for the Cup. This brings to 20 the number of teams that would qualify for the playoffs. That's a lot. But it's also a good business practice and will mean more excitement in more cities and will see fewer teams selling off players at the trade deadline, not to mention more revenue generated all around. http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?id=2106971 Long column, but some good stuff 382432[/snapback] Thanks...i read that column and somehow missed that i guess the one good thing will be that it'll keep the lower teams from trading off all of their good players... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Honestly, 20 teams in the playoffs suck...why not just scrap the regular saeson and make it 1 big playoff series since all the teams are gonna make it anyway... NHL screwed the pooch on this one... 382428[/snapback] I don't know, an extra round of playoff hockey means two things to me: 1. An extra week of lounging in front of the tube drinking beer and eating snacks while screaming at friggin' Euros. 2. An even better chance that Detroit will lose to some pretender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 The playoffs are where the teams make their money. Players don't get paid by the teams during the playoffs so whatever money comes in from ticket sales is profit for only the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I think your question is answered in part by going back to the general premise. Us small western minds (as opposed to the small eastern minds) seem to have difficulty holding more than two premises in our heads at the same time (and if they seem contradictory even though in reality they are both true fuggadaboutit). The playing field in the NHL teams is not level at all. However, it is far more level than it has been and this is a great thing. The new CBA appears not to be perfect at all, but is far better if only because both the NHL and NHLPA seem to be prepared to agree to it. Some may cite particular flaws and use them to claim that it sucks completely. Others will cite the benefits (like the little fact they will now be ablle to play the game) and also make a false claim that the CBA is the greatest thing or even perfect. Both are wrong, but that is life which is rarely if never perfect. The key questions it strikes me is not whether the playing field is truly level (it is not as rich teams are rich and poor teams actually are also rich but far poorer for example than the conglomerate that owns the Rangers). The poor teams are at a competitive disadvantage, but this disadvantage can be overcome if a poor team is very good from top to bottom and gets good luck and breaks. The questions are: 1. Is this better? Demonstrably yes as they had to shut down the league underthe old system and the new system has the aggreement of both parties over a lengthy number of years so it is much better. 2. Is the deal sustainable? Hard to say for sure because the key to sustainability is the degree to which the two formerly warring parties realize and operate as partners who profit from co-operating to get money from you and me rather than opponents who when they battle over the split actually do not get money from you and me. There are some good signs however, because their appear to be signficsnt facets of the new CBA which parrot the NFL/NFLPA aggreement and the the football model has proved to be sustainable so far as the owners and players have proffitted far beyond the levels they achieved when they were at war and the deal has been successfully extended a couple of times. By creating an NHL version of the football CBA (tying player salaries to revenues in a salary cap with a range) it is possible for the NHL to achieve an NFL level of sustainability if the two sides can get over arguing over the shape of the table and truly learn to play well together as partners. It looks good so far but we'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Honestly, 20 teams in the playoffs suck...why not just scrap the regular saeson and make it 1 big playoff series since all the teams are gonna make it anyway... NHL screwed the pooch on this one... 382428[/snapback] Agreed. Why play 82 games if most teams end up making the playoffs anyway? They should shorten the regular season significantly so that the playoffs begin March 1st and the whole thing is wrapped up in April, and the playoffs can get some attention before the NBA playoffs and MLB really take center stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobblehead Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 With the more marquee players being able to spend 6-9 mil more than Buffalo, that probably means they will be able to get that one superstar that Buffalo will not be able to. Not the best situation, but far, far better then the handful of teams gobbling up everyone. No more situations like Kariya/Selanne going as a tandem to Colorado. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 With the more marquee players being able to spend 6-9 mil more than Buffalo, that probably means they will be able to get that one superstar that Buffalo will not be able to. Not the best situation, but far, far better then the handful of teams gobbling up everyone. No more situations like Kariya/Selanne going as a tandem to Colorado. 382504[/snapback] Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobblehead Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Huh? 382510[/snapback] Yeah, I know. 1/2 liter of Mt. Dew this morning. 'nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachChuckDickerson Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 With the more marquee players being able to spend 6-9 mil more than Buffalo, that probably means they will be able to get that one superstar that Buffalo will not be able to. Not the best situation, but far, far better then the handful of teams gobbling up everyone. No more situations like Kariya/Selanne going as a tandem to Colorado. 382504[/snapback] Even if this post did make sense, Kariya playing there had nothing to do with money. He signed for peanuts to play with Selanne again and for a shot at the cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Even if this post did make sense, Kariya playing there had nothing to do with money. He signed for peanuts to play with Selanne again and for a shot at the cup. 382541[/snapback] He also signed that deal so he could become an unrestricted free agent the next year. I forget how that ended. Where did he sign with the following offseason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I'm not going to complain. Playoff hockey is an awesome thing to behold. The more the merrier. 382389[/snapback] The playoffs, in any sport, are only an "awesome thing to behold" because you're watching the very best pair off for weeks in a row. Allow everybody into the dance and the quality of the game isn't any better than the regular season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBusBillsFan Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 If it can get playoff hockey to Columbus then I'm all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts