BobbyClarkeFan16 Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 the NFL can franchise tag players... there are ways in the NFL to keep your star players. they are allowed to restructure their contracts and cut players when needed. the NHL cannot.Give it time. They'll get it down pat. Don't forget that the difference between an NHL player's contract and an NFL player's is that the NHL contract is guaranteed, so the guarantee ties hands. If they go non-guarantee (which should be an easy sell for both sides), then you'll see things contract wise play out accordingly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 And now it's entertaining. Lol Glad I helped, that is what I'm here for... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Give it time. They'll get it down pat. Don't forget that the difference between an NHL player's contract and an NFL player's is that the NHL contract is guaranteed, so the guarantee ties hands. If they go non-guarantee (which should be an easy sell for both sides), then you'll see things contract wise play out accordingly.The one things the players have been rock solid about is that they will not give up guaranteed contracts.That was a large part of the 04-05 lockout and they gave in on the cap and revenue split to keep it.There would need to be a significant change in the base position of both sides - players and owners - to make that happen. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Glad I helped, that is what I'm here for... Spent all day yesterday sitting through a very depressing class on school massacres, listening to 911 recordings, and some pretty gruesome video... so yes, the entertainment of reading the jokes was very timely and entertaining LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Spent all day yesterday sitting through a very depressing class on school massacres, listening to 911 recordings, and some pretty gruesome video... so yes, the entertainment of reading the jokes was very timely and entertaining LOL Could not even imagine, some of that must be HORRIBLE to sit through....god bless, bro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 How about this, for every game the richer team starts with a one goal advantage? LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 (Steps on soapbox...) I guess I'm the only person in this thread that thinks I should get what I pay for. Would you pay $100,000 for a Hyundai Accent when everyone else is paying $15,000? Would you pay $25 for a cab ride if the bus arrived sooner and got you to your destination faster? Would you pay $100 for a meal if they served you McDonalds fries and McNuggets? (And made you fill your own drinks.) Would you pay $350 to watch Phil Kessel? (Has tantrum, falls off soapbox, takes ball, goes home.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 I guess I'm the only person in this thread that thinks I should get what I pay for. Not at all. Teams get what they pay for all the time. And they also spend money stupidly. This isn't about that, though. This is about a level playing field for a competitive sporting league. There is nothing about "having more money" or "having higher ticket prices" that should inherently give a franchise a competitive advantage. Nothing. At. All. Teams charge higher prices because their fans will pay higher prices. Until that stops - and the attendance record of one franchise in particular since 1967 and the league's attendance record despite three work stoppages in 20 years argues strenuously against it stopping - nothing will change. If you don't want the McNuggets for $100. Don't pay for it. Simple. But if the McNuggets are being bought for $100 - and in this analogy they are being gobbled up without even any extra sauce packets - why would McDonald's charge less for them or have any incentive to provide better food? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) There is nothing about "having more money" or "having higher ticket prices" that should inherently give a franchise a competitive advantage. Nothing. At. All. So you're okay with all of that extra ticket revenue going into the pockets of owners and not players? When fans pay higher ticket prices, it either goes to the players or to the owners. If the team can't sign any more good players then ownership is pocketing all of that extra money. Edited June 4, 2015 by WordsOfWisdom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 So you're okay with all of that extra ticket revenue going into the pockets of owners and not players? Was I "OK" with the 1990s lockout? With the 04-05 lockout? With the most recent lockout? Nothing in the comment you quoted and responded to have anything to do with being "happy" about "extra ticket revenue going into the pockets of owners." Are you "happy" with some teams charging far more than others for the same product? Why should Toronto/New York/Boston be allowed to charge far more than Phoenix/Tampa/Miami? Why not have a league mandated ticket price across the board? Regardless of "where the money goes", I am "happier" with everyone starting on a relatively flat competitive floor that doesn't allow for some Yankee-esque domination of a sport based solely upon one franchise's ability to spend ridiculous sums of money more than other franchises. And, yes, I have voted with my feet. I practically don't follow baseball any more. I gave up on the NBA years ago. I don't buy tickets direct from the Flyers (secondary market) and I haven't been to a live Eagles game in 10 years. What have you done? When fans pay higher ticket prices, it either goes to the players or to the owners. If the team can't sign any more good players then ownership is pocketing all of that extra money. If you're "worried" about whether or not "too much" profit goes into the hands of the owners - don't buy a ticket. Don't have a cable package. Don't buy a jersey. Don't buy the overpriced beer at the game. Don't follow a team. The NHL has shown again (93-94) and again (04-05) and again (12-13) that they don't give a rat's ass if you buy a ticket or not. There's always some other rube waiting to take your seat and they keep coming back no matter what the league does. You're also forgetting your other "worst thing ever" - revenue sharing. Some of that "extra ticket revenue" goes to help develop the sport in non-traditional hockey markets. As hockey gains popularity, the league generates more revenue, franchises become more valuable and the salary cap goes up accordingly. The league is more valuable and more popular than it ever has been - and that's regardless of the expansion of the population or any other statistical factor. Virtually all of the teams "break even" (at the very least) and you have marginal players like David Clarkson and Andrew MacDonald pulling down big bucks. I don't expect that either the players or the owners will be killing that golden goose because a few fans might have a hankering for pate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 The strikes have always been about one thing, giving the owners more leverage and giving them the ability to manipulate the rules....bottom line, when a billionaire and millionaire clash, guess who is gonna be able to wait out who? I expect this next strike (yes, it's a foregone conclusion at this point) will target guaranteed contracts...which will mean it will be a long one...and yeah, the fans will come back, tails between their legs....it is inevitable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 That's too much to quote! I'm all for having a cap and revenue sharing (if they're set right), but when fans in some NHL cities are paying 10x more than others and not getting to watch a better on-ice product as a result, then I take issue with it. If you want to use the Yankees as an example, I guarantee you fans in New York wouldn't accept a salary cap in baseball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) I haven't been to a live Eagles game in 10 years. You're such a Dork. Edited June 4, 2015 by JackStraw 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 I'm all for having a cap and revenue sharing (if they're set right)... Only a handful of teams actually spend right up to the cap. I'm guessing your idea of "right" is high enough for the Toronto Maple Leafs to add a few $10,000,000 superstars to their roster when no one else really can. That gets right back to the insane notion of teams whose fans who spend the most on tickets having the "right" to sign the best players. Don't disagree. That's what you want. ....but when fans in some NHL cities are paying 10x more than others and not getting to watch a better on-ice product as a result, then I take issue with it. Take issue with 48 years of player mismanagement then. 17 different teams have won the Cup since the Leafs last did in 1967. Another 6 have made at least 1 appearance in the Finals. I'm betting not all had the highest payroll in the league at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Only a handful of teams actually spend right up to the cap. I'm guessing your idea of "right" is high enough for the Toronto Maple Leafs to add a few $10,000,000 superstars to their roster when no one else really can. That gets right back to the insane notion of teams whose fans who spend the most on tickets having the "right" to sign the best players. Don't disagree. That's what you want. Take issue with 48 years of player mismanagement then. 17 different teams have won the Cup since the Leafs last did in 1967. Another 6 have made at least 1 appearance in the Finals. I'm betting not all had the highest payroll in the league at the time. ...because it would be so awful that long suffering Toronto fans were able use their financial leverage to actually win something for a change? Ten years ago the Blackhawks were on the verge of bankruptcy because their owner had alienated every fan in Chicago. The team was invisible in its own marketplace. People in the NHL wanted to see that organization get back on its feet because it's not good for business to have an original six team on its deathbed. They went from being in the abyss (literally a dead franchise) to being a modern day dynasty in just one decade. All Toronto fans want is their turn. We can't win with financial might in baseball because of the Yankees, but you don't see Major League Baseball putting in a salary cap to help Jays fans. Hockey is the only sport where Toronto is #1 in revenue. It's the only sport where a Toronto franchise could (in theory) be like the Yankees if they wanted to be... but the salary cap prevents it. Speaking as a Leafs fan, how many Cups did the Leafs win prior to the salary cap (in my lifetime)? 0. The only difference was, the team was more interesting. At least they could make the playoffs 50% of the time. It's not like the Leafs were preventing anyone else from winning with their big spending. All they did was buy aging veterans at the end of their career. But that's still better than the no-name, no-talent crap we've had to put up with for the past decade. Chicago: Window of opportunity closes after this year.Boston: Rebuilding.Detroit: Moving backward.New York: Unknown.Montreal: Peaked. Due for a drop off. The best thing that could happen to the NHL right now would be Toronto winning 3 of the next 5 Stanley Cups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 ...because it would be so awful that long suffering Toronto fans were able use their financial leverage to actually win something for a change? Yes, because "financial leverage" has nothing at all to do with success on the ice. The Leafs had 27 YEARS to "use their financial leverage" to win a Cup in a league with more than six teams. They failed. Stop whining about it. Ten years ago the Blackhawks were on the verge of bankruptcy because their owner had alienated every fan in Chicago. The team was invisible in its own marketplace. People in the NHL wanted to see that organization get back on its feet because it's not good for business to have an original six team on its deathbed. They went from being in the abyss (literally a dead franchise) to being a modern day dynasty in just one decade. And they did it:1) with a salary cap2) averaging pick #16 in the first round over that period3) with sound management and development of players Tronno could do all of those things. They simply haven't. The Leafs' fans are the victims of piss-poor management, not some "salary cap" conspiracy. All Toronto fans want is their turn. You have no "turn" - you have to earn victories. They aren't given to you and you can't buy them. You don't "deserve" anything just because you are a Leaf fan. Earn the damn thing. Don't expect it to be given to you because it's your "turn". When is Phoenix's "turn"? When is Buffalo's? When do the Blues get a "turn"? The Jets? The Caps? The Sharks? The Panthers? The whole concept is simply ludicrous. If you actually believe fans get "a turn" regardless of the inept management and terrible decisions, you should give up watching sport. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) ...because it would be so awful that long suffering Toronto fans were able use their financial leverage to actually win something for a change? Of course not. If you prefer being able to buy a Cup versus actually earning one the way every other NHL team does. You'd make a great Yankees fan though at least you acknowledge a financial advantage (if there were no cap). Yankee fans don't even do that. Ten years ago the Blackhawks were on the verge of bankruptcy because their owner had alienated every fan in Chicago. The team was invisible in its own marketplace. People in the NHL wanted to see that organization get back on its feet because it's not good for business to have an original six team on its deathbed. They went from being in the abyss (literally a dead franchise) to being a modern day dynasty in just one decade. And why? They retooled on the fly after their first Cup. Won another and are in line for a 3rd. Go ahead and point to Kane and Toews. I'll raise you a Saad (2nd round), Duncan Keith (2nd Round), Seabrook (14th overall - kinda where the Leafs usually draft), Shaw (5th round) and Crawford (2nd Round). What exactly did the NHL do to help them? All Toronto fans want is their turn. We can't win with financial might in baseball because of the Yankees, but you don't see Major League Baseball putting in a salary cap to help Jays fans. Hockey is the only sport where Toronto is #1 in revenue. It's the only sport where a Toronto franchise could (in theory) be like the Yankees if they wanted to be... but the salary cap prevents it. Take it up with your ownership and front office. If you spend to the cap limit you are still outspending about 80% of the NHL. How much of a financial advantage do you want? Speaking as a Leafs fan, how many Cups did the Leafs win prior to the salary cap (in my lifetime)? 0. The only difference was, the team was more interesting. At least they could make the playoffs 50% of the time. It's not like the Leafs were preventing anyone else from winning with their big spending. All they did was buy aging veterans at the end of their career. But that's still better than the no-name, no-talent crap we've had to put up with for the past decade. Thanks for making my point. Even before the salary cap "unfairly" restricted the Leafs ability to buy a Cup, they still couldn't buy a Cup. The best thing that could happen to the NHL right now would be Toronto winning 3 of the next 5 Stanley Cups. Actually - not a reflection of the Leafs but that's the worst thing that could happen to the NHL. Not that I would care - I have nothing against the Leafs. But...the best thing that could happen to the NHL is Phoenix winning next year, Florida the year after, Dallas the year after that and then Edmonton/Pittsburgh meeting for the Cup for the next 3 years (can McJesus take the mantle from an "aging" Sidney Crosby?). Edited June 5, 2015 by B21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Yes, because "financial leverage" has nothing at all to do with success on the ice. The Leafs had 27 YEARS to "use their financial leverage" to win a Cup in a league with more than six teams. They failed. Stop whining about it. And they did it:1) with a salary cap2) averaging pick #16 in the first round over that period3) with sound management and development of players Tronno could do all of those things. They simply haven't. The Leafs' fans are the victims of piss-poor management, not some "salary cap" conspiracy. You have no "turn" - you have to earn victories. They aren't given to you and you can't buy them. You don't "deserve" anything just because you are a Leaf fan. Earn the damn thing. Don't expect it to be given to you because it's your "turn". When is Phoenix's "turn"? When is Buffalo's? When do the Blues get a "turn"? The Jets? The Caps? The Sharks? The Panthers? The whole concept is simply ludicrous. If you actually believe fans get "a turn" regardless of the inept management and terrible decisions, you should give up watching sport. So whens our turn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Yes, because "financial leverage" has nothing at all to do with success on the ice. The Leafs had 27 YEARS to "use their financial leverage" to win a Cup in a league with more than six teams. They failed. Stop whining about it. The Yankees disagree with you. Spending lots on payroll doesn't guarantee success, but it's the exception (not the rule) when teams with money don't win in non-salary capped leagues. Can you name a team other than Toronto with lots of money that didn't win prior to the salary cap? I'm not whining about it. Toronto has been badly managed, no doubt about it. I'm just trying to point out that the salary cap hurts teams like Toronto more than anyone else in the NHL, because high payroll teams could atone for their mistakes by spending their way out of trouble. The Yankees are famous for having TWO starting lineups in the late 1990's: their 1-9 and their bench -- players that were in a starting lineup on any other team. That made the Yankees slump-proof and injury-proof. They had all-stars at every position and former all-stars backing them up. Not surprisingly, they used to win the AL East by 20 games. Edited June 5, 2015 by WordsOfWisdom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 @WordsOfWisdom It's not the salary cap that hurts Toronto...it's bad trades, terrible management and arguably the worst drafting of any NHL team that hurts the Leafs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) And why? They retooled on the fly after their first Cup. Won another and are in line for a 3rd. Go ahead and point to Kane and Toews. I'll raise you a Saad (2nd round), Duncan Keith (2nd Round), Seabrook (14th overall - kinda where the Leafs usually draft), Shaw (5th round) and Crawford (2nd Round). What exactly did the NHL do to help them? But I think the point is..... fans root for Chicago. Even non-Blackhawks fans are rooting for Chicago right now. They like the dynasty as much as anyone else. I'm not sure the same can be said of Toronto. I don't think people ever root for Toronto (outside of Leafs fans). I don't think anyone wants to see the Leafs in the playoffs ever again... outside of Leafs fans. It's a very different dichotomy and it's puzzling. I remember people cheering for New York when they ended their Cup drought in 1994. Most of the time, fans want to see streaks like that end. Edited June 5, 2015 by WordsOfWisdom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 The Yankees disagree with you. Spending lots on payroll doesn't guarantee success, but it's the exception (not the rule) when teams with money don't win in non-salary capped leagues. Can you name a team other than Toronto with lots of money that didn't win prior to the salary cap? I'm not whining about it. Toronto has been badly managed, no doubt about it. I'm just trying to point out that the salary cap hurts teams like Toronto more than anyone else in the NHL, because high payroll teams could atone for their mistakes by spending their way out of trouble. The Yankees are famous for having TWO starting lineups in the late 1990's: their 1-9 and their bench -- players that were in a starting lineup on any other team. That made the Yankees slump-proof and injury-proof. They had all-stars at every position and former all-stars backing them up. Not surprisingly, they used to win the AL East by 20 games. Fine, shouldn't have anything to do with it. The idea that because one team simply has more money than another they should be able to paper over their mistakes and miscues is anathema to competitive sport. Again, why I don't watch baseball anymore. It's not a level playing field. It's a joke. Your team had twenty thirty-seven years to make that "we have more money than you" plan work. They failed miserably. (For the record, so did the Flyers...) But you're still on the "we deserve it" line - and nothing could be further from the truth. You "deserve" nothing simply because you have more money. You "deserve" what you earn. And the Leafs have earned nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 @WordsOfWisdom It's not the salary cap that hurts Toronto...it's bad trades, terrible management and arguably the worst drafting of any NHL team that hurts the Leafs. I agree the cap isn't the only reason, but you can't say a salary cap wouldn't hurt the Yankees. Any system that prevents the highest spending teams from spending will hurt the highest spending teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 But I think the point is..... fans root for Chicago. Even non-Blackhawks fans are rooting for Chicago right now. They like the dynasty as much as anyone else. I'm not sure the same can be said of Toronto. I don't think people ever root for Toronto (outside of Leafs fans). I don't think anyone wants to see the Leafs in the playoffs ever again... outside of Leafs fans. It's a very different dichotomy and it's puzzling. I remember people cheering for New York when they ended their Cup drought in 1994. Most of the time, fans want to see streaks like that end. As a Flyer fan, I'd love to see the Leafs back in the playoffs. Heck if I had it my way, Philly would play the Leafs, then Pittsburgh, then the Leafs, then Pittsburgh in the playoff each year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 I agree the cap isn't the only reason, but you can't say a salary cap wouldn't hurt the Yankees. Any system that prevents the highest spending teams from spending will hurt the highest spending teams. All I'll say about the Yankees is I can't stand them. Theres no sportsmanship in outspending every team not named Red Sox for every good player. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.