NHL Fuckers
February 16, 2005 1:37 PM Subscribe
NHL cancels season. The players caved and finally offered to accept a salary cap. This after they offered a host of concessions, including a 24% rollback on salaries. It wasn't enough for the owners. How did it come to this? What's going to happen to the teams, even if the league comes back next year? What are the odds that it will come back? Will the fans come back?
Gary Bettman says he's truly sorry. I am too.
Salon's King Kaufman wrote a good article about it. Stupid, stupid, stupid NHL.
posted by cl at 1:43 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by cl at 1:43 PM on February 16, 2005
I think Bettman has destroyed the NHL one classic franchise at a time. I'm sad to see such a great sport gutted by its owners and management.
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:48 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:48 PM on February 16, 2005
Well, the statement from Bettman is well composed. I wonder who wrote it for the slimy little bastard.
/not bitter
posted by Turtles all the way down at 1:49 PM on February 16, 2005
/not bitter
posted by Turtles all the way down at 1:49 PM on February 16, 2005
I'm sorry, too. The playoffs, at least, will be missed.
I never thought the players would give in. Actually, I think they didn't really give in - if they were going to agree to the cap, they would have done so earlier. By agreeing to a cap that the owners would never go for, they made themselves look better. Same thing with the owners. someone wasn't serious about getting a deal, or $5M difference on cap would have been closed. Guess we'll probably never know which side was serious. If either.
*sigh*
Here's hoping for contraction.
posted by dpx.mfx at 1:49 PM on February 16, 2005
I never thought the players would give in. Actually, I think they didn't really give in - if they were going to agree to the cap, they would have done so earlier. By agreeing to a cap that the owners would never go for, they made themselves look better. Same thing with the owners. someone wasn't serious about getting a deal, or $5M difference on cap would have been closed. Guess we'll probably never know which side was serious. If either.
*sigh*
Here's hoping for contraction.
posted by dpx.mfx at 1:49 PM on February 16, 2005
Here's hoping for contraction
Northward.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 1:52 PM on February 16, 2005
Northward.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 1:52 PM on February 16, 2005
Here's hoping for contraction
Northward.
I'm all for that... Why Florida & Arizona have teams but Winnipeg doesn't is beyond me.
posted by TetrisKid at 1:58 PM on February 16, 2005
Northward.
I'm all for that... Why Florida & Arizona have teams but Winnipeg doesn't is beyond me.
posted by TetrisKid at 1:58 PM on February 16, 2005
.
posted by chicobangs at 1:58 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by chicobangs at 1:58 PM on February 16, 2005
I used to be vociferous about the entire debacle, but I've grown numb to it.
I hope that Bettman will never be able to get another job, anywhere.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 2:00 PM on February 16, 2005
I hope that Bettman will never be able to get another job, anywhere.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 2:00 PM on February 16, 2005
They were only 6.5 million apart on the non-linked cap at the end. The fact that they couldn't bridge that gap is, frankly, appalling. That said, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they hammer something out in the next couple days and stage some sort of miracle comeback. Otherwise, fuck 'em. If they're willing to throw away a season with such a small gap, I'm going to continue to do my best not to care.
I mean, honestly, everyone in their right mind knows that if the game was marketed properly and they sold 80% capacity, the 49.5-million-dollar-cap offered by the players would be more than enough to fix whatever problems they have. The fact of the matter is, the owners want the players to make the league idiot proof for owners (and idiots they do have aplenty), and that just doesn't seem feasible.
But whatever. What-evar!
posted by The God Complex at 2:06 PM on February 16, 2005
I mean, honestly, everyone in their right mind knows that if the game was marketed properly and they sold 80% capacity, the 49.5-million-dollar-cap offered by the players would be more than enough to fix whatever problems they have. The fact of the matter is, the owners want the players to make the league idiot proof for owners (and idiots they do have aplenty), and that just doesn't seem feasible.
But whatever. What-evar!
posted by The God Complex at 2:06 PM on February 16, 2005
Can someone tell me why the players can't start up their own league? Why, except for the tradition of it, are hockey fans stuck with these owners and their franchises?
posted by mania at 2:08 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by mania at 2:08 PM on February 16, 2005
Needs more fights. And maybe some prime-time reality-show stunts.
posted by camworld at 2:18 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by camworld at 2:18 PM on February 16, 2005
Why Florida & Arizona have teams but Winnipeg doesn't is beyond me.
No kidding. There are more teams in Florida, Texas, and California than in Canada. Americans bought a bunch of Canadian teams and are trying to ruin their national sport. Hockey was a perfectly good niche sport for many many years. A few people deluded themselves that it could be as big as NASCAR is, and now we're paying the price.
Mania, maybe the players could start their own league, but I doubt I'll ever root seriously for a team other than the Bruins.
posted by ibmcginty at 2:19 PM on February 16, 2005
No kidding. There are more teams in Florida, Texas, and California than in Canada. Americans bought a bunch of Canadian teams and are trying to ruin their national sport. Hockey was a perfectly good niche sport for many many years. A few people deluded themselves that it could be as big as NASCAR is, and now we're paying the price.
Mania, maybe the players could start their own league, but I doubt I'll ever root seriously for a team other than the Bruins.
posted by ibmcginty at 2:19 PM on February 16, 2005
Yes, Bettman is very, very sorry. But, what did you expect from a guy who spent the last several years getting the owners to save US$300,000,000 just in case there was a strike, then locked out the players to be sure?
posted by QIbHom at 2:20 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by QIbHom at 2:20 PM on February 16, 2005
We are stuck for now, as the NHL has exclusive rights to the Stanley Cup. and YES, that's a huge deal.
posted by tj at 2:21 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by tj at 2:21 PM on February 16, 2005
Why Florida & Arizona have teams but Winnipeg doesn't is beyond me.
I'm thinking that the hockey owners don't want to deal with Canadian labor laws (especially the ones in some provinces that prohibit replacement of striking workers). Nobody has actually proposed a hockey league without Canadian teams yet, but that may explain why you don't see a franchise in Winnipeg now.
posted by jonp72 at 2:22 PM on February 16, 2005
I'm thinking that the hockey owners don't want to deal with Canadian labor laws (especially the ones in some provinces that prohibit replacement of striking workers). Nobody has actually proposed a hockey league without Canadian teams yet, but that may explain why you don't see a franchise in Winnipeg now.
posted by jonp72 at 2:22 PM on February 16, 2005
once Gretz retired it hasnt been the same NHL.
how you cant market the most exciting game in the world to a nation that loves sports is beyond me. meanwhile NASCAR and the WWE thrive.
make Trump the commish and all the problems will go away.
posted by tsarfan at 2:24 PM on February 16, 2005
how you cant market the most exciting game in the world to a nation that loves sports is beyond me. meanwhile NASCAR and the WWE thrive.
make Trump the commish and all the problems will go away.
posted by tsarfan at 2:24 PM on February 16, 2005
Why Florida & Arizona have teams but Winnipeg doesn't is beyond me.
The weaker canadian dollar didn't help either. Getting 25% less per ticket sold or charging 25% more (in relation to currancy) per ticket is difficult to do. Between Hockey, the Vancouver Grizzlies, and the Montreal Expos, I think having international sports is ultimately doomed from the start.
posted by Arch Stanton at 2:27 PM on February 16, 2005
The weaker canadian dollar didn't help either. Getting 25% less per ticket sold or charging 25% more (in relation to currancy) per ticket is difficult to do. Between Hockey, the Vancouver Grizzlies, and the Montreal Expos, I think having international sports is ultimately doomed from the start.
posted by Arch Stanton at 2:27 PM on February 16, 2005
I don't think that's the reason, jonp72. This site says that in 2002, Phoenix (where the Jets moved to) was the world's 104th largest metro area, with 3,116,700 people, with Winnipeg at #592, 706,700 people.
The mistake was failing to note that there's no ice in Phoenix, and less of an attachment to hockey than in Winnipeg. That is, in treating hockey like any other form of entertainment.
posted by ibmcginty at 2:30 PM on February 16, 2005
The mistake was failing to note that there's no ice in Phoenix, and less of an attachment to hockey than in Winnipeg. That is, in treating hockey like any other form of entertainment.
posted by ibmcginty at 2:30 PM on February 16, 2005
the Vancouver Grizzlies,
Man, don't even get me started. They never gave the Grizzlies a chance from the get-go with the stupid regulations they put on new franchises. In addition, the support for that team was absoultely comendable (for the last season they drew more fans in their last season on a per game basis in Vancouver than they did in their first season in Memphis) considering how god awful they were. They started off on the wrong foot and the management team they had in place was horrendous (fuck you very much, Stu Jackson).
Yuck. Take your money and run, Heisley. We didn't like your singing anyway.
posted by The God Complex at 2:36 PM on February 16, 2005
Man, don't even get me started. They never gave the Grizzlies a chance from the get-go with the stupid regulations they put on new franchises. In addition, the support for that team was absoultely comendable (for the last season they drew more fans in their last season on a per game basis in Vancouver than they did in their first season in Memphis) considering how god awful they were. They started off on the wrong foot and the management team they had in place was horrendous (fuck you very much, Stu Jackson).
Yuck. Take your money and run, Heisley. We didn't like your singing anyway.
posted by The God Complex at 2:36 PM on February 16, 2005
I got my hopes up this week. I honestly believed they would work something out, ESPECIALLY when the union conceeded to a cap. Even though I should have expected this - I feel crushed.
AAAHHH!!!!!!
on preview: ibmcginty is right. Why the hell did they move the Jets to ARIZONA!?!?! I used to go see the Jets all the time, and the Winnipeg arena, though never to capacity, was usually full-ish. I
posted by Quartermass at 2:36 PM on February 16, 2005
AAAHHH!!!!!!
on preview: ibmcginty is right. Why the hell did they move the Jets to ARIZONA!?!?! I used to go see the Jets all the time, and the Winnipeg arena, though never to capacity, was usually full-ish. I
posted by Quartermass at 2:36 PM on February 16, 2005
I think that most of the southern US locations that ended up with NHL teams already had a history of supporting minor-league hockey teams. And lots of suburban kids down there learned to skate in indoor rinks, so they figured that they had a built-in audience. I think the mistake was over-estimating how much that interest would support the crazy ticket prices that NHL teams charge, and they also under-estimated the dropoff in fans during non-playoff years.
posted by goatdog at 2:37 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by goatdog at 2:37 PM on February 16, 2005
This sucks for a lot of reasons and not the least of which is that we're only left with basketball which I can't stand.
I wish I'd taped some Giants games from last season to watch a few more times.
tsarfan, WWE thrives because they appeal to ten year old boys. Nascar thrives because they appeal to those same boys who happen to now inhabit 30 year old bodies.
Why would Trump accomplish anything? He's a bad businessman with a terrible toupee, pathetic little snarl and no hockey knowledge that I know of.
Is there some rule that all sports commissioners have to be utterly crappy at their jobs? Selig's the worst but Bettman's right up there.
posted by fenriq at 2:57 PM on February 16, 2005
I wish I'd taped some Giants games from last season to watch a few more times.
tsarfan, WWE thrives because they appeal to ten year old boys. Nascar thrives because they appeal to those same boys who happen to now inhabit 30 year old bodies.
Why would Trump accomplish anything? He's a bad businessman with a terrible toupee, pathetic little snarl and no hockey knowledge that I know of.
Is there some rule that all sports commissioners have to be utterly crappy at their jobs? Selig's the worst but Bettman's right up there.
posted by fenriq at 2:57 PM on February 16, 2005
Free Stanley!
Is there some rule that all sports commissioners have to be utterly crappy at their jobs?
Tagliabue does a fine job.
posted by euphorb at 2:58 PM on February 16, 2005
Is there some rule that all sports commissioners have to be utterly crappy at their jobs?
Tagliabue does a fine job.
posted by euphorb at 2:58 PM on February 16, 2005
Tagliabue does a fine job.
if you consider fining a guy $10k for fake-mooning fans who actually do moon players "fine", then i agree.
posted by tsarfan at 3:02 PM on February 16, 2005
if you consider fining a guy $10k for fake-mooning fans who actually do moon players "fine", then i agree.
posted by tsarfan at 3:02 PM on February 16, 2005
Scanning over the link speculating which teams won't survive the lock-out , here's a quick synopsis:
Anaheim - Already for sale, and they don't own their arena. Bad fan support.
Carolina - Fan Apathy
Florida - Loses a great deal of money and some fan apathy.
Nashville - Not as likely as others on this list, but still some fan apathy.
Pittsburgh - might not survive the lockout, certainly won't without a new arena deal. Also sites fan apathy.
Tampa - Probably will survive, but will have to win back fans.
Washington - The money is there to keep them, but major fan apathy.
granted, this is specualtion, but Pittsburgh? I hope that's not true. Has the climate in Pittsburgh changed that much since the prime Lemieux days?
posted by AccidentalHedonist at 3:03 PM on February 16, 2005
Anaheim - Already for sale, and they don't own their arena. Bad fan support.
Carolina - Fan Apathy
Florida - Loses a great deal of money and some fan apathy.
Nashville - Not as likely as others on this list, but still some fan apathy.
Pittsburgh - might not survive the lockout, certainly won't without a new arena deal. Also sites fan apathy.
Tampa - Probably will survive, but will have to win back fans.
Washington - The money is there to keep them, but major fan apathy.
granted, this is specualtion, but Pittsburgh? I hope that's not true. Has the climate in Pittsburgh changed that much since the prime Lemieux days?
posted by AccidentalHedonist at 3:03 PM on February 16, 2005
I'm going to speculate that there are enough retired Canadians migrating to Florida for the winter to just barely support a franchise. This might have been part of their reasoning for opening new franchises there.
posted by Evstar at 3:11 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by Evstar at 3:11 PM on February 16, 2005
I think many of you forget where the cup currently resides: Tampa, FL. After years of languishing at the bottom, the Lightning played some incredible hockey the last 2 seasons and before you know it the house was full. When they won the cup the area went hockey crazy. Now, after one of the greatest Tampa Bay sports seasons were stuck with a sub .500 baseball team and a football team that is more interested in playing AARP members than winning football games.
*sigh*
posted by photoslob at 3:14 PM on February 16, 2005
*sigh*
posted by photoslob at 3:14 PM on February 16, 2005
I honestly don't think Bettman's the problem. Can you seriously take issue with an organization that is trying to get people to accept the fact that paying 75% of your revenues to your players is a bad way to do business?
The massive salaries have directly affected and jeopardized the best damn franchise in the league (wink), the Edmonton Oilers, and the people of Edmonton have had to take serious action to give them the extra money to stay more than once. It's not like we don't go to games, but there remains the simple fact that to remain competitve, Edmonton (and the other less well-off teams) has to offer massive, massive salaries to the good players to be able to keep them. We've lost tons of good guys over the years. We get them in the draft, develop them, they do great here, and then we're screwed when it's renegotiation time and you've got the Devils or whoever offering 2-3 times what Edmonton could ever reasonably afford.
(I thought about signing up for SportsFilter and posting this there, but I think they would eat me alive)
posted by blacklite at 3:18 PM on February 16, 2005
The massive salaries have directly affected and jeopardized the best damn franchise in the league (wink), the Edmonton Oilers, and the people of Edmonton have had to take serious action to give them the extra money to stay more than once. It's not like we don't go to games, but there remains the simple fact that to remain competitve, Edmonton (and the other less well-off teams) has to offer massive, massive salaries to the good players to be able to keep them. We've lost tons of good guys over the years. We get them in the draft, develop them, they do great here, and then we're screwed when it's renegotiation time and you've got the Devils or whoever offering 2-3 times what Edmonton could ever reasonably afford.
(I thought about signing up for SportsFilter and posting this there, but I think they would eat me alive)
posted by blacklite at 3:18 PM on February 16, 2005
If you'd told me, ten years ago, that in 2005 the NHL would cancel the entire season and I wouldn't give a damn, I wouldn't have believed you. The deterioration of the on-ice product (thanks for nothing, New Jersey Devils) has been staggering; even last year's Game Seven between Calgary and Tampa Bay was that good a game, aside from being close, because of all the clutching and grabbing. Once-pround franchises were gutted and/or moved, all in the name of chasing U.S. dollars that would never materialize. Count me among those hoping that this will clear out the deadwood and allow the league (or a new league) to start afresh, with fewer thugs and more goals. I would rather see that, even if it took another cancelled season, that a return to the status quo.
The only people I feel bad for are the ordinary folk (concessions workers, sports bar owners, Zamboni drivers) who are going to lose their jobs because the millionaire players and billionaire owners couldn't come to an agreement.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:29 PM on February 16, 2005
The only people I feel bad for are the ordinary folk (concessions workers, sports bar owners, Zamboni drivers) who are going to lose their jobs because the millionaire players and billionaire owners couldn't come to an agreement.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:29 PM on February 16, 2005
What I *meant* to say was that *not* even last year's Game Seven was that good a game....
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:30 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:30 PM on February 16, 2005
The only people I feel bad for are the ordinary folk (concessions workers, sports bar owners, Zamboni drivers) who are going to lose their jobs because the millionaire players and billionaire owners couldn't come to an agreement.
And the CBC! Hockey Night in Canada is only a memory now.
posted by blacklite at 3:35 PM on February 16, 2005
And the CBC! Hockey Night in Canada is only a memory now.
posted by blacklite at 3:35 PM on February 16, 2005
I wonder how long it'll be before Vince McMahon senses a business opportunity, and launches the XHL? ;)
posted by kaemaril at 3:35 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by kaemaril at 3:35 PM on February 16, 2005
On the plus side, those of us in AHL team cities are getting some damn fine hockey this year, what with some of our NHLers staying down and our best players not getting called up to cover for injuries.
(We're sorry, NHL fans. We really do feel for you.)
posted by aine42 at 3:37 PM on February 16, 2005
(We're sorry, NHL fans. We really do feel for you.)
posted by aine42 at 3:37 PM on February 16, 2005
I never thought I'd actually miss the theme to Hockey Night in Canada. I don't care about hockey itself, but I will shed a tear for the cause of Canadian identity, that elusive creature.
posted by jokeefe at 3:43 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by jokeefe at 3:43 PM on February 16, 2005
Can you seriously take issue with an organization that is trying to get people to accept the fact that paying 75% of your revenues to your players is a bad way to do business?
I can. Since the players are the product, why shouldn't they get most of the revenue? Further, there are no guns being held to owner heads forcing them to pay ever-higher salaries; more or less all of the team owners made piles of money because they knew how to run a business and if they get caught up in emotions then tough luck. I would point out, for instance, the new arena the Devils are getting with 2/3 or the cost being paid by government. This is a free(-ish) market capitalist society where "owners" usually get all the breaks; fine by me if some situations give "labor" the upper hand.
posted by billsaysthis at 3:48 PM on February 16, 2005
I can. Since the players are the product, why shouldn't they get most of the revenue? Further, there are no guns being held to owner heads forcing them to pay ever-higher salaries; more or less all of the team owners made piles of money because they knew how to run a business and if they get caught up in emotions then tough luck. I would point out, for instance, the new arena the Devils are getting with 2/3 or the cost being paid by government. This is a free(-ish) market capitalist society where "owners" usually get all the breaks; fine by me if some situations give "labor" the upper hand.
posted by billsaysthis at 3:48 PM on February 16, 2005
This is great news! For once it may be worthwhile to tune in to the Swedish hockey league playoffs. And to the World Championships.
posted by mr.marx at 3:52 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by mr.marx at 3:52 PM on February 16, 2005
Can you seriously take issue with an organization that is trying to get people to accept the fact that paying 75% of your revenues to your players is a bad way to do business? - blacklite
Oh no, Sportfilter here we go!
So, you're a business owner, right. You know your expected revenues and therefore budget for expenses - like salaries. You get some extra seed money when new businesses are opened and have to pay a fee and decide to spend a big chunk of it on higher salaries to get ‘bette’ employees.
Other businesses start spending even more on salaries - no evidence doing so makes them better businesses, but that's what they're doing. You join in.
Suddenly your expenses and revenues aren't working out as you'd like - who's to blame?
Why, your employee's of course! Greedy bastards!
Middle of the road payroll teams HAVE been successful, regardless of what the NHL wants people to focus on. The owners make repeated idiotic decisions (Carolina with the Fedorov deal, Yashin in NYI) about salaries, have absolutely no control over their own rash business decisions but are blameless of the resulting problems and need the players to take the entire hit?
Therein lies the problem.
posted by lirio at 3:57 PM on February 16, 2005
Oh no, Sportfilter here we go!
So, you're a business owner, right. You know your expected revenues and therefore budget for expenses - like salaries. You get some extra seed money when new businesses are opened and have to pay a fee and decide to spend a big chunk of it on higher salaries to get ‘bette’ employees.
Other businesses start spending even more on salaries - no evidence doing so makes them better businesses, but that's what they're doing. You join in.
Suddenly your expenses and revenues aren't working out as you'd like - who's to blame?
Why, your employee's of course! Greedy bastards!
Middle of the road payroll teams HAVE been successful, regardless of what the NHL wants people to focus on. The owners make repeated idiotic decisions (Carolina with the Fedorov deal, Yashin in NYI) about salaries, have absolutely no control over their own rash business decisions but are blameless of the resulting problems and need the players to take the entire hit?
Therein lies the problem.
posted by lirio at 3:57 PM on February 16, 2005
I honestly don't think Bettman's the problem. Can you seriously take issue with an organization that is trying to get people to accept the fact that paying 75% of your revenues to your players is a bad way to do business?
Paying 75% of your revunes to your players might be a bad way to do business, but a salary cap isn't the most direct way to address that problem. The simple way to handle that is to pay players less.
The fact that the teams are paying so much for players indicates that the owners think they're worth that much. Nobody's holding a gun to anybody's head and forcing them to sign players for multi-million dollar contracts. The owners do it willingly.
On preview, word-up lirio
posted by chrchr at 4:03 PM on February 16, 2005
I don't know if middle of the road payroll teams can then be rolled over into successful-in-the-medium-term franchises that consistently have the same high level of play, though.
E.g., say Edmonton gets a ton of great players in a draft and gets really lucky and everyone does great and they win the cup. Meanwhile, that spring and summer, a quarter of the contracts expire. These are Stanley Cup players, so they need great big competitive salaries, right? And that's what their agents will demand, rightly so under the free market system. They should get their players the maximum they can get.
Edmonton, or whichever small-market team, might already have the maximum realistic revenue they can get for their local market. You can only drive merchandise and ticket prices so high before your market isn't going to pay that any more. "Sure, I love the Oilers, but I can't pay (price) for (product)," they will say, "that's just crazy!"
Consequently, they keep the players they've got at the salary levels negotiated pre-Cup win, and everyone else who's become awesome goes on to bigger and better pastures. And there isn't anything you can do about this. It happens on the small scale all the time.
I'm not saying a cap, or any of this, would make any sense in any economic situations that are not competitive sport. But the business of, say, Intel and Microsoft, is not attracting people to watch them skate around a rink and compete against each other. It doesn't work the same at all. There are things that need to be done to ensure (a) competitive, strong play throughout the league and (b) that every one of these 30 franchises can stay afloat.
Of course there are owners that make completely stupid decisions with regards to salary, but it isn't all that. It just seems like the natural progression of things in the old system will necessarily kill the teams in smaller markets.
On preview, yeah, it is the owners that decide what to pay, but what I think the league is trying to address is the disparity between teams -- obviously they want to make money, too, but why would they be discussing linkage and profit-sharing if the only motive is to make money? It's in the NHL's best interest to make a long-term profitable game, not to milk out some cash now and be done with it. These are billionaire businessmen, they don't get to be billionaires by not finding long-term profitable solutions to things -- and in this case the long-term profitable solution is ensuring good competitive games throughout the season between as many teams as possible.
posted by blacklite at 4:15 PM on February 16, 2005
E.g., say Edmonton gets a ton of great players in a draft and gets really lucky and everyone does great and they win the cup. Meanwhile, that spring and summer, a quarter of the contracts expire. These are Stanley Cup players, so they need great big competitive salaries, right? And that's what their agents will demand, rightly so under the free market system. They should get their players the maximum they can get.
Edmonton, or whichever small-market team, might already have the maximum realistic revenue they can get for their local market. You can only drive merchandise and ticket prices so high before your market isn't going to pay that any more. "Sure, I love the Oilers, but I can't pay (price) for (product)," they will say, "that's just crazy!"
Consequently, they keep the players they've got at the salary levels negotiated pre-Cup win, and everyone else who's become awesome goes on to bigger and better pastures. And there isn't anything you can do about this. It happens on the small scale all the time.
I'm not saying a cap, or any of this, would make any sense in any economic situations that are not competitive sport. But the business of, say, Intel and Microsoft, is not attracting people to watch them skate around a rink and compete against each other. It doesn't work the same at all. There are things that need to be done to ensure (a) competitive, strong play throughout the league and (b) that every one of these 30 franchises can stay afloat.
Of course there are owners that make completely stupid decisions with regards to salary, but it isn't all that. It just seems like the natural progression of things in the old system will necessarily kill the teams in smaller markets.
On preview, yeah, it is the owners that decide what to pay, but what I think the league is trying to address is the disparity between teams -- obviously they want to make money, too, but why would they be discussing linkage and profit-sharing if the only motive is to make money? It's in the NHL's best interest to make a long-term profitable game, not to milk out some cash now and be done with it. These are billionaire businessmen, they don't get to be billionaires by not finding long-term profitable solutions to things -- and in this case the long-term profitable solution is ensuring good competitive games throughout the season between as many teams as possible.
posted by blacklite at 4:15 PM on February 16, 2005
On the plus side, those of us in AHL team cities are getting some damn fine hockey this year
And the UHL, which is getting to sign some players. I'm from this area, and it's totally bizarre to think you could watch the Motor City Mechanics with Red Wings players.
And, I used to agree that anywhere that you can't skate outside naturally should not have hockey. Now, though, I don't care so much about that - if a market can sustain a team, great. But it sure seems like they expanded awfully fast into areas without a fan base. You can make an argument, I think, for Florida and Arizona, since half the people there came from somewhere else, anyway. But Carolina? Come on.
I moved from Detroit to Cincinnati. Cincinnati has minor league teams, but I have yet to find anyone here who understands or loves hockey the way people from the north do. And we're not even that far south! It even snows here.
Ugh. So disgusted. So sad.
posted by dpx.mfx at 5:35 PM on February 16, 2005
You really think there aren't a hundred--no, a thousand ready, willing and (most importantly) perfectly able hockey players that wouldn't jump at the opportunity to make a quarter of what the "stars" make? Gimme a break. The owners are the ones who sign the checks. If their talent costs too much, get new talent. I don't understand why a salary cap even factors into the equation.
This was a phenomenally stupid decision from the owners. Didn't anybody learn anything from the baseball strike? Fans hate strikes. Way to piss off your revenue source.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:37 PM on February 16, 2005
This was a phenomenally stupid decision from the owners. Didn't anybody learn anything from the baseball strike? Fans hate strikes. Way to piss off your revenue source.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:37 PM on February 16, 2005
I wish I'd taped some Giants games from last season to watch a few more times.
Only if it was from the first few games...sigh.
I miss hockey acutely. I never watched the regular season anymore, but it was always on as background, there for you on Saturday night, etc. And I'm living in an NHL city now so we were hoping to go to at least one game. We have semi-pro women's hockey here (and I prefer women's hockey anyway) but it's not televised and I miss being able to have sports on in the background.
I'm glad to see a mostly pro-player perspective here. I'm a union sympathizer from way back, and I can't get behind the owners here - some good articulartions above of the market.
posted by livii at 5:51 PM on February 16, 2005
Only if it was from the first few games...sigh.
I miss hockey acutely. I never watched the regular season anymore, but it was always on as background, there for you on Saturday night, etc. And I'm living in an NHL city now so we were hoping to go to at least one game. We have semi-pro women's hockey here (and I prefer women's hockey anyway) but it's not televised and I miss being able to have sports on in the background.
I'm glad to see a mostly pro-player perspective here. I'm a union sympathizer from way back, and I can't get behind the owners here - some good articulartions above of the market.
posted by livii at 5:51 PM on February 16, 2005
Oh, and I feel like defending Carolina at least a little bit. My cousins moved there from Montreal; we went down to visit them two years ago and went to a game while we were there. The fans were totally, totally awesome. I mean, it was different than up in Mtl or Toronto - they were all tailgating in the parking lot before hand, since it was so warm out - but they were really enthusiastic. They explained the calls and things over the PA system as the game went on, and the crowd was really responsive to that, and the game in general. I don't know if that dropped off, but I gotta say, they were damn fine fans.
posted by livii at 5:55 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by livii at 5:55 PM on February 16, 2005
I heard that Hockey (movie) Night in Canada is getting the same ratings even though they're just playing crappy old movies. go figure.
posted by imaswinger at 6:00 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by imaswinger at 6:00 PM on February 16, 2005
Fans hate strikes.
Just replying to myself here: I realize this wasn't a strike but a lock-out; I should have said Fans hate cancelled seasons.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:40 PM on February 16, 2005
Just replying to myself here: I realize this wasn't a strike but a lock-out; I should have said Fans hate cancelled seasons.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:40 PM on February 16, 2005
I'm in hockey hibernation. I hope spring comes soon.
posted by Doohickie at 6:58 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by Doohickie at 6:58 PM on February 16, 2005
Wow. I never thought I'd meet someone who actually believes that Trump is a competent businessman. Wow. The show has worked!
posted by graventy at 7:36 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by graventy at 7:36 PM on February 16, 2005
Take this for what its worth from some one who grew up without the game but fell in love with it... the season is too long.
It lasts 9 months... 9 months... so many ups and downs, nobody cares by the end, they just want a winner
posted by bamassippi at 8:00 PM on February 16, 2005
It lasts 9 months... 9 months... so many ups and downs, nobody cares by the end, they just want a winner
posted by bamassippi at 8:00 PM on February 16, 2005
I think many of you forget where the cup currently resides: Tampa, FL. After years of languishing at the bottom, the Lightning played some incredible hockey the last 2 seasons and before you know it the house was full.
Photoslob, there's only one Stanley Cup to go around and 30 clubs vying for it. If Americans aren't interested in hockey unless their local team wins, then it demonstrates that we don't have a natural affinity for the sport and it is unsustainable. The NHL expansion was a fun experiment, but I think in the long run it will retreat back to its natural base: Canada and a few nothern U.S. cities.
posted by randomstriker at 9:13 PM on February 16, 2005
Photoslob, there's only one Stanley Cup to go around and 30 clubs vying for it. If Americans aren't interested in hockey unless their local team wins, then it demonstrates that we don't have a natural affinity for the sport and it is unsustainable. The NHL expansion was a fun experiment, but I think in the long run it will retreat back to its natural base: Canada and a few nothern U.S. cities.
posted by randomstriker at 9:13 PM on February 16, 2005
As a Milwaukee resident, and hockey fan, I have to ask, how does this affect the IHL?
posted by drezdn at 10:58 PM on February 16, 2005
posted by drezdn at 10:58 PM on February 16, 2005
Will some patient hockey fan explain the difference between the AHL, the UHL and the IHL?
posted by salmacis at 1:14 AM on February 17, 2005
posted by salmacis at 1:14 AM on February 17, 2005
If only Billy Beane liked hockey.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 4:52 AM on February 17, 2005
posted by robocop is bleeding at 4:52 AM on February 17, 2005
The fact that the teams are paying so much for players indicates that the owners think they're worth that much. Nobody's holding a gun to anybody's head and forcing them to sign players for multi-million dollar contracts. The owners do it willingly.
The only problem with that is, if the owners don't go out and spend a ton on free agents, the fans get angry and say the cheapskate owners aren't willing to "do (i.e. spend) what it takes" to win a championship.
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:47 AM on February 17, 2005
The only problem with that is, if the owners don't go out and spend a ton on free agents, the fans get angry and say the cheapskate owners aren't willing to "do (i.e. spend) what it takes" to win a championship.
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:47 AM on February 17, 2005
The only problem with that is, if the owners don't go out and spend a ton on free agents, the fans get angry and say the cheapskate owners aren't willing to "do (i.e. spend) what it takes" to win a championship.
Exactly. And on top of that, you get into all kinds of collusion issues as well. It's all well and good to say "If they don't want to pay the salaries, then they don't have to" - except if you want a player more than somebody else, you have to pay more for him. And the bidding wars begin. And with no limit to that spending, you end up in the situation we're curently in. Personally, I would love to see a cap. You want to pay $10 million a year for some hot shot up and comer? Fine, but then the rest of your team has to be filled with middle-of-the-roads. It would balance things out much more nicely so that teams like Edmonton (and bring back Winnipeg and Quebec!) would be able to compete.
It would be so nice if they cut out like 10 of the current teams, moved a couple floundering US teams back to Canada, and actually implemented some real rules to eliminate the clutching and grabbing. But that's some serious wishful thinking right there.
posted by antifuse at 6:58 AM on February 17, 2005
Exactly. And on top of that, you get into all kinds of collusion issues as well. It's all well and good to say "If they don't want to pay the salaries, then they don't have to" - except if you want a player more than somebody else, you have to pay more for him. And the bidding wars begin. And with no limit to that spending, you end up in the situation we're curently in. Personally, I would love to see a cap. You want to pay $10 million a year for some hot shot up and comer? Fine, but then the rest of your team has to be filled with middle-of-the-roads. It would balance things out much more nicely so that teams like Edmonton (and bring back Winnipeg and Quebec!) would be able to compete.
It would be so nice if they cut out like 10 of the current teams, moved a couple floundering US teams back to Canada, and actually implemented some real rules to eliminate the clutching and grabbing. But that's some serious wishful thinking right there.
posted by antifuse at 6:58 AM on February 17, 2005
Will some patient hockey fan explain the difference between the AHL, the UHL and the IHL?
Don't forget the EHL and OHL.
Nor the OHL, WHL, and QMJHL, which make up the CHL.
I'll see if I can find a reference page somewhere.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 8:12 AM on February 17, 2005
Don't forget the EHL and OHL.
Nor the OHL, WHL, and QMJHL, which make up the CHL.
I'll see if I can find a reference page somewhere.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 8:12 AM on February 17, 2005
salmacis: here's a complete list of leagues, which includes the American, United, and International hockey leagues.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 8:20 AM on February 17, 2005
posted by DrJohnEvans at 8:20 AM on February 17, 2005
I don't think that's the reason, jonp72.
Population is certainly a consideration, ibmcginty, but labor laws definitely influenced what happened with the 1994 baseball strike. The movement of the Montreal Expos to Washington DC certainly made Canadian baseball teams an endangered species. Watch out, Blue Jays!
posted by jonp72 at 11:25 AM on February 17, 2005
Population is certainly a consideration, ibmcginty, but labor laws definitely influenced what happened with the 1994 baseball strike. The movement of the Montreal Expos to Washington DC certainly made Canadian baseball teams an endangered species. Watch out, Blue Jays!
posted by jonp72 at 11:25 AM on February 17, 2005
As a Milwaukee resident, and hockey fan, I have to ask, how does this affect the IHL?
drezdn -- The IHL folded a few years ago and the remaining teams joined the AHL. (Milwaukee is actually the AHL city I'm talking about in my earlier comment.) The AHL is the NHL's top development league.
posted by aine42 at 11:50 AM on February 17, 2005
drezdn -- The IHL folded a few years ago and the remaining teams joined the AHL. (Milwaukee is actually the AHL city I'm talking about in my earlier comment.) The AHL is the NHL's top development league.
posted by aine42 at 11:50 AM on February 17, 2005
Good riddance to the Jays, if you ask me. Season after season of stinko baseball - how the hell are we supposed to get ANYWHERE when we're in a division with the Yankees AND the Red Sox??
posted by antifuse at 11:50 AM on February 17, 2005
posted by antifuse at 11:50 AM on February 17, 2005
I just realized that after I read the different leagues explanation, this is what I get for skimming.
posted by drezdn at 2:25 PM on February 17, 2005
posted by drezdn at 2:25 PM on February 17, 2005
I would like to point out that the last time no one played for the Stanley Cup happened to be the same year as the last time the Red Sox won World Series.
posted by tj at 1:47 PM on February 23, 2005
posted by tj at 1:47 PM on February 23, 2005
« Older USA Today Goes After 'Kids' With Thin Skin | Mars' so called life Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by edgeways at 1:41 PM on February 16, 2005