Toronto Escorts

NHL and the CBA

big dogie

Active member
Jun 15, 2003
1,227
0
36
in a van down by the river
Well the Cup has been won, contested by two teams in the lower end of spending threshhold and I think this about proves that the system in place is not all that bad. If a team is losing money maybe the should spend less. Over the last while I have shifted over to the NHLPA's side, but the truth is that if there is a strike will just hurt the game as they the owners and players have worked toward. Just as the baseball strike killed the strong fan base for the Blue Jays what do you think a strike would do for the marginal fan base in the weaker US markets?
I hope for hope.
b d
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
Hopefully any labour action will KILL the smaller US markets which shouldn't even have teams.

Contraction would be a very very good thing right now. Hopefully it wouldn't cost us any more Canadian franchises, but that's the way it goes.

And, *one* final where two lesser-spending teams play each other doesn't "prove that the system in place is not all that bad". If it consistently happened, that'd be something else. But, it doesn't.
 

big dogie

Active member
Jun 15, 2003
1,227
0
36
in a van down by the river
the ducks last year, hurricanes the year before made it to the finals seams like a trend to me this year two of the teams in the finals
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
Why would you think this was a "trend" rather than an "aberration"?

Where are the Ducks this year? The Hurricanes?

Flukes.

The NHL finals in the last ten years have been dominated by higher spending teams, and these teams have a much greater probability of making the playoffs repeatedly.
 

beaver cleaner

New member
Jun 26, 2003
34
0
0
While smaller market teams may make it to the finals, they don't seem to be able to keep the momentum going. One of the reasons for that, is that playoff style hockey is very different than that of the regular season. As a fan, you need to ask yourself, would I rather have a team such as the Leafs or the Wings who can and do compete every season, make the playoffs, and may be a contender, Or would you like a team such as Carolina, Calgary or Anaheim, that may sneak in one year, play the best hockey of their lives, and then miss the playoffs the next year.
 

big dogie

Active member
Jun 15, 2003
1,227
0
36
in a van down by the river
I'm just ramblin

well I guess we could use the NFL model where players can't stay for very long with teams because of the cap. Parody sucks I like David and Goliath. I like the fact Detriot can spend $10,000,000 on Lindstrom a season another $20,000,000 on goaltending and get beat out by the Flames or Ducks. And the owners complain that they are losing money.......... it's because they are stupid and they need controls to protect tnem from them selves. What I would like is a team that I could a ford the pay the ticket price but that won't happen in TO. I would also like to see hockey in October and that probably won't happen either and why..........
 

Fortunato

New member
Apr 27, 2003
215
0
0
big dogie said:
Well the Cup has been won, contested by two teams in the lower end of spending threshhold and I think this about proves that the system in place is not all that bad...
Unfortunately, it proves nothing about the economic viability of the game. The two teams in question are among those "on the bubble", meaning THEY need to cut payroll to survive (and most believe they played beyond themselves in the first place).

The success (or lack thereof) in the games has nothing at all to do with economic problems... it still boils down to the fact that two separate interests on the supplier side are fighting over "rights", while the customer (fans) is left to live with the garbage....

big dogie said:
If a team is losing money maybe the should spend less.
Obviously. But the LEAGUE as a whole has the RIGHT to create the product that they want/need to compete with other entertainment options.

The teams that spend the most aren't the ones that are in trouble, though... so all you'd be doing is increasing the discrepancies.

big dogie said:
Over the last while I have shifted over to the NHLPA's side, but the truth is that if there is a strike will just hurt the game as they the owners and players have worked toward.
The players have no valid arguments. Their entire platform is to try and turn PARTNERS (franchise owners) into COMPETITORS, so as to extract more for themselves (eventually from the fans). Their actions are doing more to damage the game than any blunders the owners may do....

big dogie said:
Just as the baseball strike killed the strong fan base for the Blue Jays what do you think a strike would do for the marginal fan base in the weaker US markets?
I hope for hope.
b d
It may expedite a few events, but it won't really affect anything. Franchises in cities that don't have a population base that LOVES hockey WILL fail (and the contraction is undoubtedly a good thing).


Best regards,

F.
 

Fortunato

New member
Apr 27, 2003
215
0
0
Re: I'm just ramblin

big dogie said:
well I guess we could use the NFL model where players can't stay for very long with teams because of the cap.
Player movement rights (free agency) have more to do with it than salary caps, and to be honest, I think this will be even MORE damaging to a professional sport than anything else....

big dogie said:
well I guess we could use the NFL model where players can't stay for very long with teams because of the cap. Parody sucks I like David and Goliath. I like the fact Detriot can spend $10,000,000 on Lindstrom a season another $20,000,000 on goaltending and get beat out by the Flames or Ducks.
Or the Rangers... is there anything sweeter than watching them riding the golf carts in late spring? But, unfortunately, these are the strongest of the teams... and all they are doing is hurting the affordability of professional hockey to fans everywhere....

big dogie said:
it's because they are stupid and they need controls to protect tnem from them selves.
Well, they are STUPID, because they are confusing their on-ice competition for BUSINESS competition (quite different)... or they don't care... but they are NOT damaging themselves... they are damaging everyone else. They need controls to stop THAT.

big dogie said:
What I would like is a team that I could a ford the pay the ticket price but that won't happen in TO.
And THIS is why. It WAS affordable, prior to idiocy of the McNall era owners, and it COULD BE again, but the owners absolutely HAVE to get things under control, because the players won't do it...

Best regards,

F.
 

blitz

New member
Nov 25, 2003
1,488
0
0
Toronto
Ranger68 said:
Why would you think this was a "trend" rather than an "aberration"?
Where are the Ducks this year? The Hurricanes?
Flukes.
The NHL finals in the last ten years have been dominated by higher spending teams, and these teams have a much greater probability of making the playoffs repeatedly.
I disagree Ranger.

Let's look at some past cup finals:

Flames AND Bolts
Ducks
'Canes
Panthers not too long ago

I see a trend.

The NHL is, in fact, a very tight league come playoff time. The best teams seem to be healthy and play like a "team".

There is a lot to be said for "small market" success as the playoffs are a completely different grind than the regular season where passion, health and comradery pay huge dividends.

JMHO
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
Health may in fact be related to being a younger, less expensive team. Injuries have certainly become much more of a factor, which means that less injury prone teams - younger teams, in general - may have more success in the playoffs due to fewer man-games lost.
This may very well be a trend in the NHL. I doubt it, though.

I still don't think that it's indicative of some newfound small-market success formula. The best teams certainly seem to be healthy - the Lightning are an example of that. "Playing like a team"? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. Unless you're saying that the Rangers are a good example of a team that doesn't. The Rangers problem has always been defense. Terrible, terrible defense, from defensemen, forwards, and goaltenders.

Again, how well did those "small market" teams fare in the following seasons? Extremely poorly, which indicates that their post-season success was a fluke. Calgary's success was a fluke. There's no model to follow here.

Skill - that is, as reflected in the standings - is the prime determiner of post-season success - forget about "passion" and "comradery". They're not a completely different grind at all. The best predictor of post-season success is regular season success. You can look it up. The President's Trophy winner has the best success rate of converting it into the Cup of any finishing position.

There's no trend.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
Of all the Stanley Cup winners since 1992, only the 2000 Devils and the 2004 Lightning ranked in the lower half of the league in payroll. Seven of the past 13 Cup winners have ranked in the top *five* in salary.

2004 Tampa Bay $33.5 million 21st out of 30
2003 New Jersey $52.4 million 8th out of 30
2002 Detroit $64.4 million 1st out of 30
2001 Colorado $50.5 million 3rd out of 30
2000 New Jersey $31.3 million 15th out of 28
1999 Dallas $39.8 million 2nd out of 27
1998 Detroit $28.4 million 9th out of 26
1997 Detroit $28.9 million 4th out of 26
1996 Colorado $20.6 million 11th out of 26
1995 New Jersey $16.5 million 10th out of 26
1994 NY Rangers $17.6 million 2nd out of 26
1993 Montreal $13.2 million 4th out of 24
1992 Pittsburgh $10.4 million 2nd out of 22
 

big dogie

Active member
Jun 15, 2003
1,227
0
36
in a van down by the river
Why don't small mrkt teams repeat. First not many teams on money list repeated well only one Detroit probably because of burnout, fatigue, let down and success means bigger contracts. There is 30 other teams trying to win as well. In TO I would rather see 5 years not making the playoffs and acctually win the dam cup.

btw......thanks for the list Ranger
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
No worries. I aim to learn from the facts, rather than just rely on gut feeling - thus the reliance on statistics - raw facts. It's the interpretation of those statistics that can lead to disagreement. ;)

Anyway, I think it's clear that small market teams don't repeat because they got lucky. Look at the those teams mentioned that made it to the finals and lost - Carolina, Anaheim, Calgary - they came pretty much out of nowhere and just as rapidly went back to nowhere. This really supports the conclusion that their post-season success was largely due to luck.

You're better off in the long-run being as successful as possible for as long as possible in the regular season - which means, largely, spending money - this seems to be the Leafs' strategy - than aiming for a one-shot deal and hoping to fluke it. Hardly anyone flukes it, as evidenced above.
 
Toronto Escorts