CBA Related Doan, Suter, Weber and Tigers Oh My!

[idahophilly]

Suter and Parise go to the highest bidder.

Weber wants to leave his current team but now wants a NMC...

Doan has held his team hostage for most of the summer.

And lets not even talk about the length of contracts being handed out with amount of money and bonuses???

So, a few questions to ponder...

1- Who's fault is this, really? Is it a case the players are simply getting market value as based on what a team is willing to pay?

2-Is it the owners fault? They are, afterall, the ones writing the checks.

3-To dove tail off question 2, the owners are writing these checks and then want to roll back salaries??? Take a moment and chew on that.

4-Maybe it's the NHL's fault? Should they have not put rules/regulations/conditions in place to prevent players from getting these contracts and teams offering these contracts.

5-Here is a side note: You have players and their agents, you have owners and both sides have their interests... Not a dispute there. But, doesn't Bettman represent the LEAGUE and have the leagues and only the leagues interests in mind. I'm sure I am mis-understanding the relationships involved but IMHO he should NOT be representing the owners. The owners have their own people for that. Bettman should be guiding the process, not dictating it.

6-Is this CBA issue being driven by the Coyotes/Nashvilles/Columbus's of the league because they cant pay their own way? For instance, If I'm a millionair I can go buy the luxury car when the guy on food stamps can't. Sorry that it happens that way but tough luck! So, in our hockey universe teams like the Flyers/Rangers ect are being forced into the same economic ladder as a Columbus (sorry to pick on you Columbus, I have been there, nice city). So I can't buy the luxury car and have to get the piece of crap used car with a quarter million miles on it ... just because not everyone can afford the new car...

So, I'll add more questions and if need be modify my views as more valid and good points are brought up. What do you all think because I can only shake my head.

Oh #7- If I was NBC, and after going OUT OF THEIR WAY to promote this sport, and assuming there is a lockout, I'd tell Bettman and the NHL to shove it right up their.... well you get my point.

[radoran]

Oh #7- If I was NBC, and after going OUT OF THEIR WAY to promote this sport, and assuming there is a lockout, I'd tell Bettman and the NHL to shove it right up their.... well you get my point.

It will be hard for NBC to tell their owner, Comcast, to go shove their broadcast TV contract up their...

6-Is this CBA issue being driven by the Coyotes/Nashvilles/Columbus's of the league because they cant pay their own way? For instance, If I'm a millionair I can go buy the luxury car when the guy on food stamps can't. Sorry that it happens that way but tough luck! So, in our hockey universe teams like the Flyers/Rangers ect are being forced into the same economic ladder as a Columbus (sorry to pick on you Columbus, I have been there, nice city). So I can't buy the luxury car and have to get the piece of crap used car with a quarter million miles on it ... just because not everyone can afford the new car...

This isn't a question of buying a new car - this is a quesiton of a competitive sports league. It's not even apples and oranges. It's apples and double-sided hex wrenches.

I don't want to watch a league in which the only way to be successful is to outspend other teams or hope that lightning conveniently inserts itself into a bottle.

That said, there is no guarantee that simply outspending everybody will result in a Cup - the Flyers are one of the best examples of this.

The players and the owners both wanted to expand the game into non-traditional markets. The Players and the owners in doing so have created situations where teams (like the Winnipeg Jets) wouldn't exist without revenue sharing. Yes, Winnipeg - not "Phoenix/Nashville/Columbus" - would not have a team if there had not been a revenue sharing agreement in the NHL as well as the relatively fixed operating costs guaranteed by a salary cap.

To be clear, Winnipeg didn't *need* revenue sharing this season - but ownership was clear from the moment they explored bringing a team back to Winnipeg that it would have been impossible without the potential of revenue sharing.

5-Here is a side note: You have players and their agents, you have owners and both sides have their interests... Not a dispute there. But, doesn't Bettman represent the LEAGUE and have the leagues and only the leagues interests in mind. I'm sure I am mis-understanding the relationships involved but IMHO he should NOT be representing the owners. The owners have their own people for that. Bettman should be guiding the process, not dictating it.

The owners are the League. They hire the Commissioner. It's their money. It's their puck, net, rink...

It's like that in every major sport.

[OH1FlyersFan]

6-Is this CBA issue being driven by the Coyotes/Nashvilles/Columbus's of the league because they cant pay their own way? For instance, If I'm a millionair I can go buy the luxury car when the guy on food stamps can't. Sorry that it happens that way but tough luck! So, in our hockey universe teams like the Flyers/Rangers ect are being forced into the same economic ladder as a Columbus (sorry to pick on you Columbus, I have been there, nice city). So I can't buy the luxury car and have to get the piece of crap used car with a quarter million miles on it ... just because not everyone can afford the new car...

This is the point that frustrates me the most. Is the league really in better shape financially because of its expansion policy driven by the revenue sharing agreement that Rad points out? That's not necessarily a rhetorical question. Maybe it is. Maybe it really has resulted in more fans as a result of the game being pushed into new/more markets, being seen by more people or people who otherwise would neve have gone to or watched a game or purchased merchandise. Overall, last year seemed to be a good year in terms of revenue earned for the league and for most teams.

But on the other hand, we have teams close to bankruptcy being bailed out by local governments or gambling proceeds because they aren't generating their own revenue - I've seen it here in Columbus. How much better could financially sound teams be? How much stronger could the league be if it consolidated, shrunk in size to include only those teams that actually made money? Is quantity better than quality? In business, if a product isn't making any money, don't you cut it out? Downsize? Maybe you try to retool or rebrand first. The league seems to be taking a page out of the governments playbook by subsidizing the financially weak teams through revenue sharing.

But then you have to ask - is revenue sharing really working? It seems to work in the NFL. But what, something like 2/3rds of that league's revenue comes from the lucrative tv deal that hockey doesn't have? How do you get a lucrative tv deal? Is it based on the sport's popularity? I'd say yes, that's a big part of it. People want to watch it, advertisers representing companies that make things want to advertise those things to those people.

How do you make a sport popular? Expand into as many markets as possible. That seems to be Bettman's strategy. But It's almost a chicken and egg thing. A catch-22. Can you expand a game into new markets subsidizing it with revenue from other, more profitable teams, and expect to be successful? Or do you end up over-extending and weakening the product? I think he's had some success, but there have been failures. Would a smaller, stronger leauge be better for the fans, players, and owners? I tend to think so, but could be convinced otherwise. How much does greed factor into that answer? There are definitely risks.

[Phillygrump]

Oh #7- If I was NBC, and after going OUT OF THEIR WAY to promote this sport, and assuming there is a lockout, I'd tell Bettman and the NHL to shove it right up their.... well you get my point.

You bet your @ss I would if I were them.

How can a league with this many issues that seems to be years behind the other major sports allow themselves to not have they **** together again? How can they be headed for their second lockout in a decade? Its ridiculous.

[JackStraw]

<p>@idahophilly - I'm not sure that I agree with the overall gist of your post, if I'm understanding you correctly...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>

<br />

Suter and Parise go to the highest bidder<br />

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>So? They were both free agents, they did what free agents do. Did they even really both go to the highest bidder? I though one of them was offered more by someone else (maybe the Flyers) but I'm not sure. In any case, seems to me that they exercised their rights as free agents and went to a place where they both had family connections and could play together. I don't think this kind of thinking threatens the survival of human civilization as we know it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>

<br />

Weber wants to leave his current team but now wants a NMC<br />

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Did he? if he really did he could have just waited a year and become unrestricted. Seems to me it was the Flyers who wanted him to leave his current team. They offered him huge amounts of money and long term security, so he took it. I would have done the same, wouldn't you? So now he's asking for more security, and maybe a firmer commitment from Nashville that they are serious about building a contending team. Which is what he's been asking for all along. They don't have to give it to him of course, but he's not really asking for anything that everyone else with a similar contract doesn't have.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>

<br />

Doan has held his team hostage for most of the summer<br />

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Wait, it's Shane Doan's fault that the Phoenix franchise is a mess? I would think he could have been gone from there by now if he wanted to be. Again, he's a free agent doing what free agents do, what's the problem?</p>

<p> </p>

<div id="myEventWatcherDiv" style="display:none;"> </div>

[JackStraw]

<p>

<br />

But, doesn't Bettman represent the LEAGUE and have the leagues and only the leagues interests in mind. I'm sure I am mis-understanding the relationships involved but IMHO he should NOT be representing the owners. The owners have their own people for that. Bettman should be guiding the process, not dictating it.<br />

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Also, like rad says, you do have this relationship wrong. Bettman <em>is</em> the owners guy. He works for them just like the commissioners in the NBA, NFL, and MLB work for their league's owners. There is no neutral party whose job it is to guide the process, unless both sides agree to bring one in.</p>

<p> </p>

<div id="myEventWatcherDiv" style="display:none;"> </div>

[idahophilly]

@idahophilly - I'm not sure that I agree with the overall gist of your post, if I'm understanding you correctly...

That's what makes it fun! Believe me I get what yout saying. Just provoking the conversation. Or I can be quiet until October (or January)

[JackStraw]

Just provoking the conversation

Reported!

PS: sorry about all the ugly html, no idea what happened there. The dog ate my homework or something...

Edited August 15, 2012 by JackStraw

[Podein25]

sorry about all the ugly html

Reported.

[Polaris922]

I know I'm in the minority... But I like what Bettman has done for the league. The league is seeing its most profitable years ever, regardless of Phoenix and NJ struggling. Whatever it is he's doing is working, and more hockey is on tv than ever before.

[mojo1917]

Of course you would @Polaris922, his policies and actions have helped hockey remain in Pgh.

Which btw, i think is a good hockey market, there has been high school hockey pgh since the 80's so hockey is in the system in the city, Hockey in Pgh makes sense.

Now are there rinks in Phx ? how about Sunrise Fla ? i think he expanded too quickly and into markets where hockey isn't in the blood of the residents.

I don't like the "super star" league marketing angle, it doesn't fit with the hockey ethos of playing for the crest on the front,

he's had 2 work stoppages under his watch including a whole lost season. So while last year was a boom year, he would receive a passing grade at best, but is far from setting the curve.

I am not a big fan of his based on his performance, and not just hating on him to hate on him 'cause he's the boss.

[Polaris922]

Of course you would @Polaris922, his policies and actions have helped hockey remain in Pgh.

Which btw, i think is a good hockey market, there has been high school hockey pgh since the 80's so hockey is in the system in the city, Hockey in Pgh makes sense.

Now are there rinks in Phx ? how about Sunrise Fla ? i think he expanded too quickly and into markets where hockey isn't in the blood of the residents.

I don't like the "super star" league marketing angle, it doesn't fit with the hockey ethos of playing for the crest on the front,

he's had 2 work stoppages under his watch including a whole lost season. So while last year was a boom year, he would receive a passing grade at best, but is far from setting the curve.

I am not a big fan of his based on his performance, and not just hating on him to hate on him 'cause he's the boss.

Actually I was trying to set aside his influence here and focus solely on the success and failure of the league as a whole. The lockout season was about salary cap, which I am 1000% on board with so user that as a success more than a failure, even though I hated, HATED losing a season. That I blame on Goodenow not Bettman.

I'm just glad the league is more sound and doing better.

[canoli]

The owners are the League. They hire the Commissioner. It's their money. It's their puck, net, rink...

True enough - except of course when these owners get together as "good-ol'-boys" with the influential politicians and corporate "under-writers" and decide what's needed is a $$xxx-million bond issue so that the taxpayers - a.k.a. "the fans" - can buy them a new rink.

The Spectrum, the Igloo, Boston Garden ... for all I know there were enormous backroom deals to keep them afloat and profitable, all at the expense of the tax payers...but at least the damn name of the place was interesting.

As far as I can recall there are only a few left that don't sport corporate names. Joe Louis Arena, MSG and Nassau Coleseum. Correct me if I'm wrong...

[radoran]

True enough - except of course when these owners get together as "good-ol'-boys" with the influential politicians and corporate "under-writers" and decide what's needed is a $$xxx-million bond issue so that the taxpayers - a.k.a. "the fans" - can buy them a new rink.

The Spectrum, the Igloo, Boston Garden ... for all I know there were enormous backroom deals to keep them afloat and profitable, all at the expense of the tax payers...but at least the damn name of the place was interesting.

As far as I can recall there are only a few left that don't sport corporate names. Joe Louis Arena, MSG and Nassau Coleseum. Correct me if I'm wrong...

If the government of the people by the people and for the people approves it, i think we can blame "the fans" for it... :-)