It's BACK! The 2005-2006 NHL Season

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Johnny93g

Salary cap doesnt punish succes.....Calgary seemed to have alot of succes last season, and the cap hasnt hurt them.....it has hurt the big money teams, but it was neccesary to save the league......plus, i think good gm's and bad gm's will be very easy to spot with this new system

you couldn't spot the bad GMs in the old system?

Calgary had one good season and postseason, as have several teams in recent years. Lets see them string a few great seasons together and THEN see if they are able to maintain it. Heck, the Lightning just finally turned the corner, and now they are already headed for cap trouble.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

well, yes.
but there WERE good things about the cap. I think there were big market teams that really DID spend pretty wisely as a whole (Wings and Avs, for example), generally more to retain/maintain their talent level than to build their team, and I, as a fan, appreciated that more than seeing my favorite team dismantled. Then you have teams like, say, the Rangers, ruining it for everyone. I liked the fact that the Wings and Avs (or Sens and Leafs, whatever) could build and maintain a rivalry for a number of seasons. I'm not so sure you'll see that as much anymore.

and it's not like there were just one or two franchises dominating - in the last 12 years, 7 different teams won the Cup, and only 1 team (I think you know who) managed to repeat. meanwhile, the 12 seasons before that, you had 5 different teams winning, and 5 times a team managed to repeat the following year. heck, from 73 to 88, only 4 franchises won the Cup, and EVERY winner except the Habs in 85 repeated at least one more year.

personally, I'm not so sure that a cap was needed for competitive balance.

I agree that all "big market" teams were not evil and wasteful. Both the Avs and the Wings, to a large extent, spent the big bucks (there were some exceptions: see, CuJo, Hatcher, etc.) keeping a core together that was obtained either through drafting or legit trades. But then you had other teams spending wildly on free agents. I have long held that the only team to spend a considerable amount of money on free agents and actually win the Cup were the 2002 Red Wings. I look at a Hasek as more of a free agent than a trade (though he was technically traded to the Wings, it was way more about the money), then you add Robitaille and Hull. Still, even with those guys, the core of that Wings team: Draper, Shanahn, Yzerman, Fedorov, Lidstrom, McCarty, etc. was still drafted/traded for.

I also agree that the league doesn't need the cap for competitive balance. Over the last three years there were six different teams in the finals. The most you could have. One reason for this, of course, is that hockey, unlike any other sport really, a team can ride one hot player (the goalie) to wild success. While you can do that so some extent in some sports, there is no real equivalent.

Still, what the cap prevents is smaller market teams, like Edmonton, from basically becoming "farm clubs" for bigger market teams. They draft a guy. Develope him. He becomes good and the team is then forced to trade him away because they can't afford him. The cap also opens the free agent market up to all teams, as opposed to a handful.

[Karim]

As a small-market fan, there's nothing that I've seen so far that I don't like in this CBA. Every team now has the ability to sign one or two "name" players (three if they're crazy), every team now has to face the same cap constraints and will inevitably lose good players but have the ability to replenish through free agency.

I'm really tired of Sens and Canuck fans though, whining about how this CBA is dismantling their dynasties. The Canucks couldn't beat the lowly Wild or Flames and the Sens have never beaten the Leafs, despite being so 'obviously' much more talented.

Just because Melnyk is loaded, Sens fans are delusional if they think he'd lose millions every year to run a $50-$60 million US payroll as would have been necessary under the old system. I suppose they would have loved the alternative in keeping a lower payroll and trading Hossa, Spezza, and Chara for three prospects once their salary demands became unrealistic, just like the Oilers had to do for so many years.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Karim

I'm really tired of Sens and Canuck fans though, whining about how this CBA is dismantling their dynasties. The Canucks couldn't beat the lowly Wild or Flames and the Sens have never beaten the Leafs, despite being so 'obviously' much more talented.

I guess because I am not living in Canada I am missing out on this whining. Dynasties? Dynasties? They do realize that in order to be a dynasty a team usually has to win at least two (if not probably three) Cups within a short period of time. Not ever winning a Cup, or even making it to the finals, doesn't really make one a dynasty. And, no, winning the President's Trophy three years straight does not qualify either. Perhaps, they are thinking about potential dynasties.

[Karim]

Potential dynasties is more accurate. They don't actually say they're dynasties but think way too highly of their team and have a 'woe is me' attitude with the new CBA. If anyone has the right to brag it's Red Wings, Avs and Devils fans and you don't hear half as much from them as you do from 'Nucks and Sens fans. But of course, location has a part in this as well. There will be more excuses and blaming of the CBA from each camp when they lose again in the playoffs to 'clearly' inferior teams.

[Johnny93g]

Originally Posted by Karim

Potential dynasties is more accurate. They don't actually say they're dynasties but think way too highly of their team and have a 'woe is me' attitude with the new CBA. If anyone has the right to brag it's Red Wings, Avs and Devils fans and you don't hear half as much from them as you do from 'Nucks and Sens fans. But of course, location has a part in this as well. There will be more excuses and blaming of the CBA from each camp when they lose again in the playoffs to 'clearly' inferior teams.

I know theres a small dig at my leafs in there

[Pyser]

us devil fans are fiercly proud, but there are too few of us to be heard above you crazy canadians

[Karim]

Originally Posted by Johnny93g

I know theres a small dig at my leafs in there

In all honesty, there wasn't intended to be, unless you're referring to 'inferior teams'. That's from the perspective of their fans. Clearly with all the talent on those teams, they're much better than the Leafs or Flames, despite not beating them in the playoffs.

[Johnny93g]

Originally Posted by Karim

In all honesty, there wasn't intended to be, unless you're referring to 'inferior teams'. That's from the perspective of their fans. Clearly with all the talent on those teams, they're much better than the Leafs or Flames, despite not beating them in the playoffs.

great thing about hockey is heart matters more then skill

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Johnny93g

great thing about hockey is heart matters more then skill

Except, of course, when the team with more skill wins.

[SoxWin]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

well, yes.
but there WERE good things about the cap. I think there were big market teams that really DID spend pretty wisely as a whole (Wings and Avs, for example), generally more to retain/maintain their talent level than to build their team, and I, as a fan, appreciated that more than seeing my favorite team dismantled. Then you have teams like, say, the Rangers, ruining it for everyone. I liked the fact that the Wings and Avs (or Sens and Leafs, whatever) could build and maintain a rivalry for a number of seasons. I'm not so sure you'll see that as much anymore.

and it's not like there were just one or two franchises dominating - in the last 12 years, 7 different teams won the Cup, and only 1 team (I think you know who) managed to repeat. meanwhile, the 12 seasons before that, you had 5 different teams winning, and 5 times a team managed to repeat the following year. heck, from 73 to 88, only 4 franchises won the Cup, and EVERY winner except the Habs in 85 repeated at least one more year.

personally, I'm not so sure that a cap was needed for competitive balance.

Hammer. Nail. Head.

The Devils, Canucks, and Senators were all successful under the old system on budgets from 35 to 45 million.

[Johnny93g]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Except, of course, when the team with more skill wins.

Shutup....

[SoxWin]

Originally Posted by Karim

Potential dynasties is more accurate. They don't actually say they're dynasties but think way too highly of their team and have a 'woe is me' attitude with the new CBA. If anyone has the right to brag it's Red Wings, Avs and Devils fans and you don't hear half as much from them as you do from 'Nucks and Sens fans. But of course, location has a part in this as well. There will be more excuses and blaming of the CBA from each camp when they lose again in the playoffs to 'clearly' inferior teams.

So in other words your other post was a lie?

Yes, it does suck that we're going to lose Jovo after this year and maybe Cooke as well. It sucks that we had to trade our highest scoring defenceman for the past 3 years to get cap room. Management here worked hard to build a competitive team and stay within a budget. The fact that work is now being undone because 7 or 8 other owners can't even spell budget pisses me off no end. I think Canuck and Sens fans can be proud of their teams due to the fact that they never signed top free agents while the Av's and Wings did. Of course, why does any fan have a right to brag? What have you done to help the Flames or me the Canucks lately?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by SoxWin

I think Canuck and Sens fans can be proud of their teams due to the fact that they never signed top free agents while the Av's and Wings did.

While I think Wings and Avs fans can be proud of their teams due to the fact that they actually won a Stanley Cup while the Canucks and Sens never did.

For the record, the Avs' '96 and '01 Cup winning teams and the Wings '97 - '98 Cup winning teams were built through the draft and trades, not free agency. There is no shame in those victories.

You know what, I know believe that SoxWin is a agent-spawn of the Devil himself, as he has some how tricked me with guile and evilness to actually defend The Forces of Darkness(tm). I feel whollly unclean...

[Johnny93g]

Originally Posted by SoxWin

So in other words your other post was a lie?

Yes, it does suck that we're going to lose Jovo after this year and maybe Cooke as well. It sucks that we had to trade our highest scoring defenceman for the past 3 years to get cap room. Management here worked hard to build a competitive team and stay within a budget. The fact that work is now being undone because 7 or 8 other owners can't even spell budget pisses me off no end. I think Canuck and Sens fans can be proud of their teams due to the fact that they never signed top free agents while the Av's and Wings did. Of course, why does any fan have a right to brag? What have you done to help the Flames or me the Canucks lately?

This makes no sense.....The league needed the cap to survive......you cant say that only 7 or 8 owners were in trouble....Vancouver was probably 3 years away from losing money, then trading away the talent.....dont be so bitter cuz you guys cant spend as much as you personally would like......its an even playing field...how can you possibly complain about that

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Still, what the cap prevents is smaller market teams, like Edmonton, from basically becoming "farm clubs" for bigger market teams. They draft a guy. Develope him. He becomes good and the team is then forced to trade him away because they can't afford him. The cap also opens the free agent market up to all teams, as opposed to a handful.

Originally Posted by SoxWin

Hammer. Nail. Head.

There we go...

[Karim]

Originally Posted by SoxWin

The Devils, Canucks, and Senators were all successful under the old system on budgets from 35 to 45 million.

It depends on how you measure success.

[Karim]

Originally Posted by SoxWin

So in other words your other post was a lie?

No. Many Canuck and Sens fans believe their team was dynastic. Now they're whining about the dismantling of the team under a new CBA when under the old CBA, that dismantling would have occurred as well, with a much less favourable outcome to the team.

But I guess it's easy to forget the past when it isn't glorious.

I think Canuck and Sens fans can be proud of their teams due to the fact that they never signed top free agents while the Av's and Wings did.

Be proud. Just don't complain that those teams are so hard done by in this new CBA. Neither team was in the league of Detroit, New Jersey or Colorado in terms of success and neither team had the financial capability of Toronto or Philadelphia, which would have been required to retain all the teams' talent under the old CBA.

What have you done to help the Flames?

You mean other than supporting them, buying tickets, jerseys, memorabilia, PPV, etc., since 1986?

All one can do to help is be a fan.

[Karim]

Originally Posted by SoxWin

The Devils, Canucks, and Senators were all successful under the old system on budgets from 35 to 45 million.

Team Payrolls

Devils
2001-2002: $40.1 million
2002-2003: $52.4 million
2003-2004: $48.1 million

Canucks
2001-2002: $28.9 million
2002-2003: $31.8 million
2003-2004: $38.7 million

Senators
2001-2002: $27.0 million
2002-2003: $30.3 million
2003-2004: $39.6 million

New Jersey is used as an example of a low-budget team winning but clearly they spent a bit as well. The only low-budget team to win the Cup was Tampa.

Source: http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Johnny93g

This makes no sense.....The league needed the cap to survive......you cant say that only 7 or 8 owners were in trouble....Vancouver was probably 3 years away from losing money, then trading away the talent.....dont be so bitter cuz you guys cant spend as much as you personally would like......its an even playing field...how can you possibly complain about that

the league needed the cap to MAKE BIG BUCKS. end of story.

[SoxWin]

Originally Posted by Johnny93g

This makes no sense.....The league needed the cap to survive......you cant say that only 7 or 8 owners were in trouble....Vancouver was probably 3 years away from losing money, then trading away the talent.....dont be so bitter cuz you guys cant spend as much as you personally would like......its an even playing field...how can you possibly complain about that

I don't believe the league needed a cap to survive, we're both wasting our time here, we have a fundamental difference in beliefs

I remember the Forbes critique of (I believe) the Levit report stated that 7 or 8 teams were responsible for 75% of the leagues losses, so yeah, I think I made a fair statement.

Why on earth would Vancouver be 3 years away from losing money? They have 16 or 17 thousand season tickets sold, not to mention a waiting list. They get funds from the province via lottery tickets, have a great TV cable deal and had 12 or 14 ppv games a year. A payroll of 42 mil or whatever with 20 mil profit doesn't seem like they were anywhere close to losing money anytime soon.

The Canucks never were going to spend a ton of cash, they set a budget and they stuck to it. Sure would have been nice to spend the 42 mil they earned and kept everyone from last season, that's why I can complain about it. Also, I'm no fan of the Canucks giving revenue sharing cash to their competition, it's hardly their fault if people in Nashville could give a shit about their team.

[SoxWin]

Originally Posted by Karim

Team Payrolls

Devils
2001-2002: $40.1 million
2002-2003: $52.4 million
2003-2004: $48.1 million

Canucks
2001-2002: $28.9 million
2002-2003: $31.8 million
2003-2004: $38.7 million

Senators
2001-2002: $27.0 million
2002-2003: $30.3 million
2003-2004: $39.6 million

New Jersey is used as an example of a low-budget team winning but clearly they spent a bit as well. The only low-budget team to win the Cup was Tampa.

Source: http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm

So once NJ went over the max I stated by 3 mil and once by 7 mil (which is clearly an aberation considering their normal spending)

What exactly are you trying to refute?

[SoxWin]

Originally Posted by Karim

No. Many Canuck and Sens fans believe their team was dynastic. Now they're whining about the dismantling of the team under a new CBA when under the old CBA, that dismantling would have occurred as well, with a much less favourable outcome to the team.

But I guess it's easy to forget the past when it isn't glorious.

It's not that the Canucks are being dismantled, but the loss of quality depth has seriously hurt this team. The 5 - 7 defencemen are going to come from a group of Nolan Baumgartner, Steve McCarthy, Sven Butsomethingorother, and Kevin Bieksa. Easily our best defensive forward and penalty killer chose to stay in Russia for more money. While they haven't been hurt to the extent of Colorado or Detroit, they've been hurt, substantially, imo.

Once again, there is no reason to think they would have been dismantled under the old CBA. They were extremely profitable and considering Bert signed for 7 mil or so, I have to believe top end salaries were lowering regardless.

Be proud. Just don't complain that those teams are so hard done by in this new CBA. Neither team was in the league of Detroit, New Jersey or Colorado in terms of success and neither team had the financial capability of Toronto or Philadelphia, which would have been required to retain all the teams' talent under the old CBA.

Agreed on the first part, disagree on the second.

You mean other than supporting them, buying tickets, jerseys, memorabilia, PPV, etc., since 1986?

All one can do to help is be a fan.

I don't believe any of that gives you (or me) the right to brag no. Be proud sure, but it's not like you or I help to assemble the talent we watch.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by SoxWin

I don't believe any of that gives you (or me) the right to brag no. Be proud sure, but it's not like you or I help to assemble the talent we watch.

Of course it allows you the right to brag. It's your team. What's the point of being a sports fan if you can't be proud and brag about your team? Is there a disconnect there? Of course there is. But those disconnects exist whenever one is a fan of anything really. To try and break it down like that is just kind of silly.

[henry296]

Originally Posted by SoxWin

It's not that the Canucks are being dismantled, but the loss of quality depth has seriously hurt this team. The 5 - 7 defencemen are going to come from a group of Nolan Baumgartner, Steve McCarthy, Sven Butsomethingorother, and Kevin Bieksa. Easily our best defensive forward and penalty killer chose to stay in Russia for more money. While they haven't been hurt to the extent of Colorado or Detroit, they've been hurt, substantially, imo.

Sounds like the group of defenseman that were #3-4 on the Penguins before the new CBA.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

the league needed the cap to MAKE BIG BUCKS. end of story.

I agree, but I'd put it more like... the league needed the cap so the majority of the teams could make big bucks. And to me in the world of pro sports making big bucks = success\survival for leagues and teams.

[Johnny93g]

Originally Posted by SoxWin

I don't believe the league needed a cap to survive, we're both wasting our time here, we have a fundamental difference in beliefs

I remember the Forbes critique of (I believe) the Levit report stated that 7 or 8 teams were responsible for 75% of the leagues losses, so yeah, I think I made a fair statement.

Why on earth would Vancouver be 3 years away from losing money? They have 16 or 17 thousand season tickets sold, not to mention a waiting list. They get funds from the province via lottery tickets, have a great TV cable deal and had 12 or 14 ppv games a year. A payroll of 42 mil or whatever with 20 mil profit doesn't seem like they were anywhere close to losing money anytime soon.

The Canucks never were going to spend a ton of cash, they set a budget and they stuck to it. Sure would have been nice to spend the 42 mil they earned and kept everyone from last season, that's why I can complain about it. Also, I'm no fan of the Canucks giving revenue sharing cash to their competition, it's hardly their fault if people in Nashville could give a shit about their team.

You make some good points. So ill ask you this. Are you against the cap and why? cuz it sure doesnt hurt the game

[Johnny93g]

Originally Posted by SoxWin

It's not that the Canucks are being dismantled, but the loss of quality depth has seriously hurt this team. The 5 - 7 defencemen are going to come from a group of Nolan Baumgartner, Steve McCarthy, Sven Butsomethingorother, and Kevin Bieksa. Easily our best defensive forward and penalty killer chose to stay in Russia for more money. While they haven't been hurt to the extent of Colorado or Detroit, they've been hurt, substantially, imo.

Once again, there is no reason to think they would have been dismantled under the old CBA. They were extremely profitable and considering Bert signed for 7 mil or so, I have to believe top end salaries were lowering regardless.

Another question...so what? Every team is now on a level playing field, how can you complain?

[Karim]

There are a few Sabres fans on this board...

Calgary traded D Toni Lydman to Buffalo for a 3rd Round Pick.

Lydman makes $1.9 million so this was a straight salary dump. Flames fans are generally not pleased from what I'm hearing, since Lydman was always expected to fetch a forward.

Buffalo gets a good, not great defenceman. Lydman is good at everything, just not great, and Flames' fans have been waiting for a breakout that just never happened. He's not physical at all, but very sound positionally, a smooth skater and can make the outlet pass. He won't hurt you on the PP but with his talent you'd expect him to put up better numbers. It just never happened.

Buffalo wins this trade hands down, as Lydman can eat up minutes in all situations.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Johnny93g

You make some good points. So ill ask you this. Are you against the cap and why? cuz it sure doesnt hurt the game

the cap has been in place for, what, all of 2 months? we haven't even played a game yet under the cap, and we're already talking about it like it's the next coming of Christ...er, Gretzky.
yep, there's a lot of excitement now, and fans in most cities seem to be forgetting how they got fucked out of a season and are buying tickets in droves.
and maybe that's because of the salary cap...or maybe the NHL just needs to skip seasons every once in a while to keep up interest.

I'm not saying that the cap won't end up being good for the game (even though I, personally, am not a fan). But let's give it a little time before we make that determination.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The Atlanta Thrashers acquired defenseman Mark Popovic from the Anaheim Mighty Ducks in exchange for forward Kip Brennan on Thursday.

Popovic made his NHL debut with Anaheim in 2004 after he was selected by the Mighty Ducks in the 2001 NHL entry draft.

With Cincinnati of the AHL, Popovic had one goal and 17 assists in 74 games.

In three seasons with Cincinnati, Popovic had eight goals and 48 assists for 56 points.

Brennan was acquired by Atlanta from Los Angeles in March 2004. He played five games with the Thrashers at the end of the 2003-04 season and 41 games in parts of three seasons with the Kings.

Looks like spare part for spare part to me, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[NoSkillz]

Originally Posted by Karim

There are a few Sabres fans on this board...

Calgary traded D Toni Lydman to Buffalo for a 3rd Round Pick.

Lydman makes $1.9 million so this was a straight salary dump. Flames fans are generally not pleased from what I'm hearing, since Lydman was always expected to fetch a forward.

Buffalo gets a good, not great defenceman. Lydman is good at everything, just not great, and Flames' fans have been waiting for a breakout that just never happened. He's not physical at all, but very sound positionally, a smooth skater and can make the outlet pass. He won't hurt you on the PP but with his talent you'd expect him to put up better numbers. It just never happened.

Buffalo wins this trade hands down, as Lydman can eat up minutes in all situations.

Thanks for the info on Lydman. I was actually just going to ask you about him.

He'll likely play with countryman Numminen on the second defensive pairing for Buffalo. I just hope the rumours about Regier flipping Lydman to Los Angeles with Martin Biron for Aaron Miller aren't true...

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Looks like spare part for spare part to me, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

you are correct

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Looks like spare part for spare part to me, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

"Hey, we have a spare 4th line forward."
"We have a spare 4th line defenseman."
"Rock on!"

SI

[Draft Dodger]

4th line forward is probably being generous to Kip Brennan...

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Karim

Team Payrolls

Devils
2001-2002: $40.1 million
2002-2003: $52.4 million
2003-2004: $48.1 million

Canucks
2001-2002: $28.9 million
2002-2003: $31.8 million
2003-2004: $38.7 million

Senators
2001-2002: $27.0 million
2002-2003: $30.3 million
2003-2004: $39.6 million

New Jersey is used as an example of a low-budget team winning but clearly they spent a bit as well. The only low-budget team to win the Cup was Tampa.

Source: http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm

Originally Posted by SoxWin

So once NJ went over the max I stated by 3 mil and once by 7 mil (which is clearly an aberation considering their normal spending)

What exactly are you trying to refute?

I think another thing to notice is the trend that in the years shown there, the Devils payroll increased by 12 million in one season, then dropped only 4 the next, so they were still spending 8 million more in the 3rd season as compared to the first.

The Canucks were up almost $10 million in that span while the Senators were up almost $13 million.

The Senators have a lot of guys hitting their prime, or will be in the next few years while the Canucks obviously have some very big names who would be demanding larger contracts the next time they reupped, so I think it is more likely that these trends would have continued as opposed to levelling off.

So 3 years from now we could have been looking at the Devils in the $55 million range, the Canucks at $50 million and the Senators at $53 million?

I seriously hope that the league wide cap does not rise at such an alarming rate or the small market teams would be screwed.

And for every Nashville that you want to throw under the bus as a drain to the other teams in the league, remember that there is a team like Edmonton who sells out a vast majority of their home games while also being one of the better road draws in the NHL, but because we weren't blessed in having an owner with deep pockets, have to keep our payroll at around $32 million to come close to making money season to season.

The fans here were sick and tired of watching our developed stars leave for bigger cheques, and now we can actually believe that we have a chance to see a guy start something great, and end it here.

[Draft Dodger]

wonder what the ticket price increases were over those same time frames...

[Draft Dodger]

not to pimp stuff, but do you guys generally agree that the Andrew Peters thing is mostly an isolated incident.

http://vtbub.com/index.php?title=ste...&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

[SoxWin]

Originally Posted by Johnny93g

You make some good points. So ill ask you this. Are you against the cap and why? cuz it sure doesnt hurt the game

Thanks

I'm basically against salary caps in sports period. I guess they help parity, but I'm not a fan of that either, I'd rather see well managed teams kick the crap out of poorly managed ones. If the owners want a level playing field so badly, maybe they should be prepared to share all revenue equally instead of doing so off the backs of the players. Would that not do the same thing as a cap while passing the responsibilty of making good business decisions onto those who are paid to do?

What I see happening is that a lot of guys (especially the 3 and 4th liners and the last set of d) are either going to be switching teams every year or not being able to obtain a contract because some young cheap kid (who isn't necessarily better, but is cheaper !!) will fill that spot. That doesn't strike me as good for the quality of the game, or for the connection between fans and their teams. So in that sense, yes, I do believe it will hurt the game.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by SoxWin

What I see happening is that a lot of guys (especially the 3 and 4th liners and the last set of d) are either going to be switching teams every year or not being able to obtain a contract because some young cheap kid (who isn't necessarily better, but is cheaper !!) will fill that spot. That doesn't strike me as good for the quality of the game, or for the connection between fans and their teams. So in that sense, yes, I do believe it will hurt the game.

++

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

not to pimp stuff, but do you guys generally agree that the Andrew Peters thing is mostly an isolated incident.

I would not be shocked if many guys like Peters (i.e. borderline NHL tough guys) were using something. For many of these guys, it's making $300K in the NHL or playing in a beer league and working at the gas station, so the risk/reward might make sense.

I'd be surprised if many top players were using steroids.

I wouldn't be shocked if greenies are extremely common in the NHL.

[SoxWin]

Originally Posted by Travis

[/i]


I think another thing to notice is the trend that in the years shown there, the Devils payroll increased by 12 million in one season, then dropped only 4 the next, so they were still spending 8 million more in the 3rd season as compared to the first.

The Canucks were up almost $10 million in that span while the Senators were up almost $13 million.

The Senators have a lot of guys hitting their prime, or will be in the next few years while the Canucks obviously have some very big names who would be demanding larger contracts the next time they reupped, so I think it is more likely that these trends would have continued as opposed to levelling off.

So 3 years from now we could have been looking at the Devils in the $55 million range, the Canucks at $50 million and the Senators at $53 million?

If it works out that way, and the team has been run well enough to generate that kind of income, what's the problem?

I seriously hope that the league wide cap does not rise at such an alarming rate or the small market teams would be screwed.

So then, the real problem is that some teams will always make more then others and that the salary cap doesn't solve this problem whereas a true level playing field could easily be created by revenue sharing. Gotcha.

And for every Nashville that you want to throw under the bus as a drain to the other teams in the league, remember that there is a team like Edmonton who sells out a vast majority of their home games while also being one of the better road draws in the NHL, but because we weren't blessed in having an owner with deep pockets, have to keep our payroll at around $32 million to come close to making money season to season.

Maybe the Oilers need to increase ticket prices a bit, market more creatively, sell more games on ppv then. Yes, McCaw bankrolled the Canucks for a few years but hard work in the business community and a well run entertaining team has made them wildly successful financially. If they're selling out every game yet can't afford more then a 32 mil payroll, ownership/management is doing something wrong. Nashville likely shouldn't be in the league, or at the minimum expansion should have gone a lot slower then it did.

The fans here were sick and tired of watching our developed stars leave for bigger cheques, and now we can actually believe that we have a chance to see a guy start something great, and end it here.

But players can, and still will leave for more now under a cap. I highly doubt Richards is back in Tampa when he becomes unrestricted, they made their choice to go with Vinny and St Louis. Same thing with Jovo, he hasn't always played here, but this is where he's really blossomed as a player. Players are going to age, players are going to take more $$ to go elsewhere. That's why you need to draft and trade well things that successful teams have always done well. Admittedly the cap will make it so not all young stars move once they're old enough or have enough service time, but not all of them are going to stay. And again, the same thing could be done by revenue sharing.

[Chubby]

how the fuck have the Sens been successful? They've been pretty good at losing in the 1st round of the playoffs I'll give ya that

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Chubby

how the fuck have the Sens been successful? They've been pretty good at losing in the 1st round of the playoffs I'll give ya that

Yeesh. In Ottawa, winning three rounds in five years is considered to be right up there with the 80s Islanders and Oilers.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Yeesh. In Ottawa, winning three rounds in five years is considered to be right up there with the 80s Islanders and Oilers.

Not that I have anything to brag about as a Sabres fan but I'm not going around saying we're a friggin dynasty in the making and that we've been successful the last few years.

Yeah, 3 rounds in 5 years WHOOOOOO hehe

[SoxWin]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I would not be shocked if many guys like Peters (i.e. borderline NHL tough guys) were using something. For many of these guys, it's making $300K in the NHL or playing in a beer league and working at the gas station, so the risk/reward might make sense.

I'd be surprised if many top players were using steroids.

I wouldn't be shocked if greenies are extremely common in the NHL.

" "

Not that Sopel is a top player, but he came to camp a few years back and had gained 20 pounds or so in the summer, I remember at the time people were talking about steroid use. He dropped the weight pretty quickly after it became apparent the added size was affecting his skating. He had no mobility and had lost a step or two because of the extra mass. Steroids or not, I think it's possible to get too big to play NHL hockey if you still want to be able to get around the rink. Goons though, yeah I could see it.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by NoSkillz

Thanks for the info on Lydman. I was actually just going to ask you about him.

He'll likely play with countryman Numminen on the second defensive pairing for Buffalo. I just hope the rumours about Regier flipping Lydman to Los Angeles with Martin Biron for Aaron Miller aren't true...

From everything I've heard, I like the Lydman trade.

I really really hope it's Biron + Campbell for Miller. That would make me happy

[Karim]

Originally Posted by SoxWin

What I see happening is that a lot of guys (especially the 3 and 4th liners and the last set of d) are either going to be switching teams every year or not being able to obtain a contract because some young cheap kid (who isn't necessarily better, but is cheaper !!) will fill that spot. That doesn't strike me as good for the quality of the game, or for the connection between fans and their teams. So in that sense, yes, I do believe it will hurt the game.

One could argue that this is better for the fans. The scoring of the 80s and Gretzky's records were in part due to the greatest expansion the league had ever seen. Many mistakes from younger, inexperienced players were devoured and led to high-scoring games that everyone seems to crave today. At least that's what I keep hearing.

A 20 year old cheaper 6th defenceman who makes mistakes leading to scoring chances versus a 36 year old safer but more expensive veteran may be exactly what this league needs.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by SoxWin

Maybe the Oilers need to increase ticket prices a bit, market more creatively, sell more games on ppv then. Yes, McCaw bankrolled the Canucks for a few years but hard work in the business community and a well run entertaining team has made them wildly successful financially. If they're selling out every game yet can't afford more then a 32 mil payroll, ownership/management is doing something wrong. Nashville likely shouldn't be in the league, or at the minimum expansion should have gone a lot slower then it did.

Isn't that always the best idea, just keep jacking ticket prices. That alone tells me all I need to know about your viewpoint on things.

The Oilers are routinely among the best home and road attendance teams in the league come the end of the season. Just because the owners here try to put a product on the ice that a family could possibly afford to go and see isn't something that detracts from the team, and I don't see why they should be penalized for trying to take the game to the general public rather than corporate sponsors. That is a big reason why going to an Oiler's game is an event, because the entire crowd is into the game and doesn't sit on their hands.

I'm assuming of course throughout all of this that you're not a big supporter of the NFL sytem either?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Travis

I'm assuming of course throughout all of this that you're not a big supporter of the NFL sytem either?

Although I wasn't the one who made the comment you're referring to, I'd like to throw in an answer too, since he did a darned good job of describing my feelings as well.

I find the current NFL only slightly more interesting than watching paint dry, have virtually no interest in teams, and only watch games to see particular favorite players. With all the cuts for cap reasons & roster shuffling & such, all I've got left to follow are a handful of players, as I don't really feel like there are many "teams" left, just temporary collections of players thrown together to fit the cap, best personnell be damned.