What is happening to the league/sport I love?

[Opie 308]

Sorry for the encyclopedia length rant, TLDR at bottom:

Was reading " http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130601/SPORTS02/306010071/Predators-will-need-offer-you-can-t-refuse-trade-No-4-pick "

and it got me to thinking:

That is potentially 3 of the top 4 picks in the draft up for sale. I know they said someone would have to make an offer they couldn't refuse, but their standards are a bit lower than say PIT or DET when it comes to an offer being too good to refuse!

The league is now forcing teams (that perennially fight for the right to be paid by the other teams, while their team's suck) to meet a higher salary floor.

Yet these same teams are giving away the chance to build a franchise, and the same teams that try to be successful (Phi, Ana, Chi, etc...) will be the ones to scoop up these picks. Why bother penalizing (with salary cap) the teams that strive to be better, if the teams that are just there to make their owner more money, are going to give away their shot to get better.

Why on earth would a team that is rebuilding and was not very good the year before want to trade their early picks in the draft, especially #'s 1 or 2 given what the Hawks and Pens have been able to do with a few years of good picks.

Especially in this draft that is going to be 7-10 impact players deep (by most accounts I have read, this will be a very deep draft), with a stud top pairing d-man as the first pick, which is now the most coveted position in the game.

I know I am one of the people that thinks this last lockout was an absolute waste of time, but when I see things like this, it makes it even worse.

Does Colorado or Florida really think they going to get a Crosby/Toews/Hall player from another team for that? Now sure Popeye Seth Jones could be a bust, but from what I have read he is legit!

Tallon will probably trade his pick to Chicago for their last pick and a bag of pucks! Is Florida even trying anymore?

Now i know what some will say, well Florida will get better by trading that pick for something they need.

NO, no they won't. Maybe Colorado will, but Nashville and Florida will remain just as bad as they were. They will take a late first and a late second for it and then pick a couple of utility guys.

The league looks stupid with the Playoff schedule, why on earth would Det have played Friday (if they won) when the two eastern conference teams had less than 6 game series and were sitting at home?

Why make teams play back to back in the conference finals, when if you schedule the eastern conf to start on Friday you could have had a game every night with no back to back games?

The same Cellar dwellers are there every year, C-bus, Flo, Nas (minus a few mediocre seasons), trading or letting great talent walk away, sure they throw big money at one guy every now and again, but that, IMO, is just keep up appearances and stay at the cap floor!

Meanwhile at the same time CHI, DET, ANA, and PIT have to make tough personnel decisions to stay under the cap.

If FLA, C-Bus, and others are always going to be at the bottom with or without forced parity, screw it, let them be last every year and let the DET, CHI, PIT, BOS, ANA, PHI, etc... spend whatever the hell they want!

I just don't get it.

Maybe I am too much of a cynic, maybe I am just plain stupid, but this league is starting to make less and less sense every year!

It can not support the teams it has, yet they talk of expansion, huh?

More teams in the playoffs?! Why! over half of the teams already make the playoffs? The way they are talking all but 10 teams would make the playoffs.

To me, the league is trying to fake success, 3 point games fake tight playoff races and inflate records, more teams in the post seasons fakes successful teams (can you count playoff streaks anymore if all you need to do is win 1/3 of your games to make it), salary cap to fake parity?

The league used these 3 point games to fake CHI start of season streak/record. Granted PHI has 10 ties in their unbeaten streak, the Hawks streak was labeled as unbeaten in regulation.

Is it all being done to draw in more fans or is the league just really poorly ran?

TLDR: What is the happening with this league, teams(like Florida) are handing over the chance to get better, while teams like DET, CHI, PIT struggle to maintain at the top of the heap due to a salary cap. Also some other comments about playoff scheduling!

[MasterPavel 115]

Don't worry Bettman knows what he is doing lol...

[Guest The Axe]

Don't worry Bettman knows what he is doing lol...

You laugh, but he actually does. He's following the NFL model with parity and sharing. Its smart longterm, but sucked for us shortterm because we were at the top. If this had been done in 1985, the Wings would have loved it.

[LeftWinger 4,934]

Edmonton? Are you listening? How about another #1?

[Hockeymom1960 5,107]

I guess I don't understand where the parity is? Basically the same teams are still on top. Or did they adjust better than the other teams?

[RedLightGoesOn 81]

Poorly run/managed teams that had financial issues were the top reason for a salary cap. Now most of these teams still struggle in the cap era. Maybe there should be new ownership/management established for these teams? They don't seem to make smart decisions or invest in their future with draft picks.

[Seraph 240]

It's a trade off. Older but proven in lieu of young and unproven. Nothing wrong with that. Plus it makes the team better sooner if they get proven players.

There is parity because because all the teams are all within a few points of each other at the end of the season. It used to be wildly different in the 90s. Plus, with the cap, each team can only sustain 2 maybe 3 marque players. That's why they are all spread out across the league.

[Opie 308]

It's a trade off. Older but proven in lieu of young and unproven. Nothing wrong with that. Plus it makes the team better sooner if they get proven players.

There is parity because because all the teams are all within a few points of each other at the end of the season. It used to be wildly different in the 90s. Plus, with the cap, each team can only sustain 2 maybe 3 marque players. That's why they are all spread out across the league.

Two words:

Florida Panthers

Three More:

Columbus Blue Jackets

What have either of these two teams done to get better lately?

Oh Yeah C-bus Way over spent on Wiz!

How many Marquee players in either of those cities, or Pho, Dallas, Win, Buf, etc...

When was the last time Florida traded anything for a player that made them better immediately or in the future?

Florida is the rest of the leagues developmental team.

And the tight races at the end of the season are the product of faked points, since you can no longer tie, you should no longer get any points just for making it to OT!

The cap and the 3 point game have faked parity, there is no real parity in the league.

As to your point about 2 maybe three marquee players, Two more words:

Chicago BlackHawks

or

Pittsburgh Penquins

There are plenty of teams in the league with 3 marquee forwards and at least one D-man.

Parity in this day and age of sports means one thing, Salary cap is in place. The NFL, the NBA (albeit a weak system compared to NHL and NFL) all have forced parity, and what happens the same top 6 teams are in it every year.

Look at the teams in the final 5 this year of the NHL playoffs, it was the last 5 cup winning teams.

Parity is being faked and forced, with little success, so why not just reward the teams that want to be on top, want to spend, want to win every year.

Tired of your team losing(as a fan), get on the GM and owner and get them to get some talent and spend some money!

[Guest The Axe]

I guess I don't understand where the parity is? Basically the same teams are still on top. Or did they adjust better than the other teams?

Why dont you understand? A different team has won the cup for how many years now? 10?

[Opie 308]

Why dont you understand? A different team has won the cup for how many years now? 10?

Sure there hasn't been a repeat cup winner but look at the final four every year since the first lockout:

(EDIT: Dammit lost my format:)

Eastern Conf:

No Conference Finals played due to the lockout

. 2006 Carolina Hurricanes vs Buffalo Sabres

2007 Ottawa Senators vs Buffalo Sabres

2008 Pittsburgh Penguins vs Philadelphia Flyers

2009 Pittsburgh Penguins vs Carolina Hurricanes

2010 Philadelphia Flyers vs Montreal Canadiens

2011 Boston Bruins vs Tampa Bay Lightning

2012 New Jersey Devils vs New York Rangers

2013 Boston Bruins vs. Pittsburgh Penguins

Western Conf:

2006 Edmonton Oilers vs Mighty Ducks of Anaheim

2007 Anaheim Ducks vs Detroit Red Wings

2008 Detroit Red Wings vs Dallas Stars

2009 Detroit Red Wings vs Chicago Blackhawks

2010 Chicago Blackhawks vs San Jose Sharks

2011 Vancouver Canucks vs San Jose Sharks

2012 Los Angeles Kings vs Phoenix Coyotes

2013 Los Angeles Kings vs. Chicago Blackhawks

Sure a couple of teams sneak in once an a while like the random Pheonix/Vancouver/Tamba Bay/Carolina appearance, but look at all the Pit, Det, Chi, Phi, SJ (even if they choke on it).

And if you go back to the final 8, you will see that it also tends to be the same teams over and over again with teams like ANA and Van being there more often.

It really is the same top 5-6 teams almost every year.

Det and Pit being the top of the class since the lockout, maybe parity is working better in the east (other than Pit) but to me it is a joke!

Edited June 3, 2013 by Opie

[MasterPavel 115]

You laugh, but he actually does. He's following the NFL model with parity and sharing. Its smart longterm, but sucked for us shortterm because we were at the top. If this had been done in 1985, the Wings would have loved it.

Following a model of a sport that doesn't economically, nor culturally relate is not going to be successful. Football is more mainstream for casual viewership besides being America's favorite sport. You can suck and still fill up a stadium. I give you the Detroit Lions. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor has never worked in any society. I give you our economy/society and the Florida Panthers. However I digress, we as a whole will never agree on cap vs no-cap. I would just like to see TV/sales ratings pre Bettman and during.

[LeftWinger 4,934]

The NHL doesn't care about how good the team is, it cares about how much revenue it can bring in. When you say "parity" do you think they are talking about the competition? No. They are talking about revenue and salary parity. The NHL wanted a cap so the Detroit's of the league can not sign all the big names anymore. They wanted the smaller markets to be the only ones who can sign the big names so they can generate more revenue with those names. Why do you think Minnesota was able to sign the Olsen Twins over the summer? Do you think for a minute that id there was no salary cap that those guys would have gone to Minnesota? You make it so the successful franchises cannot sign the big names, now the small markets get to give them $14M a year and people buy the Parise and Suter jersey's. But when it comes down to it, the team is so mismanaged that they still aren't as good as the same top 6 teams that are always there. Now Minnesota is probably going to be forced to buyout a top player and all of a sudden the team isn't even as good as it was this past season.

If we had league parity on a talent scale, then there would be different teams in the final 4 every year. (at least more than there is now.) But no, the 5 remaining teams where the last 5 Stanley Cup winners.

It's all about generating a couple years of profits in a city, its not about winning. At least to the NHL. To the fans, once they realize their team still sucks, even with the superstar on their team, they stop going to the games...especially in places like Nashville, Florida, Phoenix and Carolina. You see how well it did for the Preds when they signed Weber to that huge contract... Sure, fans will go for a couple of seasons to see if the teams gets better around Weber, but it won't and they will stop coming....again.

[Opie 308]

The NHL doesn't care about how good the team is, it cares about how much revenue it can bring in. When you say "parity" do you think they are talking about the competition? No. They are talking about revenue and salary parity. The NHL wanted a cap so the Detroit's of the league can not sign all the big names anymore. They wanted the smaller markets to be the only ones who can sign the big names so they can generate more revenue with those names. Why do you think Minnesota was able to sign the Olsen Twins over the summer? Do you think for a minute that id there was no salary cap that those guys would have gone to Minnesota? You make it so the successful franchises cannot sign the big names, now the small markets get to give them $14M a year and people buy the Parise and Suter jersey's. But when it comes down to it, the team is so mismanaged that they still aren't as good as the same top 6 teams that are always there. Now Minnesota is probably going to be forced to buyout a top player and all of a sudden the team isn't even as good as it was this past season.

If we had league parity on a talent scale, then there would be different teams in the final 4 every year. (at least more than there is now.) But no, the 5 remaining teams where the last 5 Stanley Cup winners.

It's all about generating a couple years of profits in a city, its not about winning. At least to the NHL. To the fans, once they realize their team still sucks, even with the superstar on their team, they stop going to the games...especially in places like Nashville, Florida, Phoenix and Carolina. You see how well it did for the Preds when they signed Weber to that huge contract... Sure, fans will go for a couple of seasons to see if the teams gets better around Weber, but it won't and they will stop coming....again.

Well thought out and written post.

[wings_fanatic 677]

Lets take a look at the final 4 teams since 2007 playoffs:

2007:

Detroit/ Ducks

Senators/ Sabres

2008:

Red WIngs/ Stars

s***sburg/ Philly

2009:

Red Wings/ Hawks

s***sburg/ Capitals

2010:

Hawks/ Sharks

Habs/ Philly

2011:

Sharks/ Canucks

Bruins/ Lightning

2012:

Rangers/ Devils

Kings/ Coyotes

TO me this shows that the idea of parity is VERY MUCH working. Each year there are different teams in the the final 4. From 2007-2009, the Red Wings made the final 4 each time, however since that it has been quite different each year. To me, this shows that parity is working along with the Ducks, Red Wings, s***sburg, Blackhawks, Bruins, Kings all winning the Cup during that time. Rewind to 1995. From 1995- 2003, all of the Cup winners consisted of 3 teams (Red Wings, Avs, Devils) except for one year. Since then, parity has become stronger in the league.

[Seraph 240]

Two words:

Florida Panthers

Three More:

Columbus Blue Jackets

What have either of these two teams done to get better lately?

Oh Yeah C-bus Way over spent on Wiz!

How many Marquee players in either of those cities, or Pho, Dallas, Win, Buf, etc...

When was the last time Florida traded anything for a player that made them better immediately or in the future?

Florida is the rest of the leagues developmental team.

And the tight races at the end of the season are the product of faked points, since you can no longer tie, you should no longer get any points just for making it to OT!

The cap and the 3 point game have faked parity, there is no real parity in the league.

As to your point about 2 maybe three marquee players, Two more words:

Chicago BlackHawks

or

Pittsburgh Penquins

There are plenty of teams in the league with 3 marquee forwards and at least one D-man.

Parity in this day and age of sports means one thing, Salary cap is in place. The NFL, the NBA (albeit a weak system compared to NHL and NFL) all have forced parity, and what happens the same top 6 teams are in it every year.

Look at the teams in the final 5 this year of the NHL playoffs, it was the last 5 cup winning teams.

Parity is being faked and forced, with little success, so why not just reward the teams that want to be on top, want to spend, want to win every year.

Tired of your team losing(as a fan), get on the GM and owner and get them to get some talent and spend some money!

There are indeed exceptions to what I said. I never said ALL the teams in the league are dead even or that there's a hard cap to three marquee players. What I was getting at is that on the whole the league is much closer than it used to be and those are couple general reasons that could explain it.

Someone should calculate the distribution of points from 2003 and 2013 to see how much closer the teams are and settle it. Let's see what these two lockouts have done for us.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Seraph

[55fan 5,133]

The whole "parity" understanding thing is kind of like how people understand the whole "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."* thing.

*Declaration of Independence for those of you not from the US.

People think of parity as being the same as being equal, and that being created equal means that we should end up equal.

All either of them means is that the rules ought to be the same for everyone, and how well you end up depends on what kind of breaks you get along the way, how you handle adversity, how well you learn from your mistakes- or the mistakes of others- and, in general, just how big of a completly idiotic f***head you are- or not.

I think we can see how the people in charge of the successful teams have directly influenced the outcome by depending on their brains, skill, ingenuity, ability, and -on occasion- a bit of luck.

To be sure, there will be things that are out of anyone's control- a player gets injured being the biggest example, but over the long-term, the teams that are on top deserve to be there.

The day that parity means that we all line up and every 30 years get to raise the Cup is the day that the NHL has truly failed.

[Guest The Axe]

Following a model of a sport that doesn't economically, nor culturally relate is not going to be successful. Football is more mainstream for casual viewership besides being America's favorite sport. You can suck and still fill up a stadium. I give you the Detroit Lions. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor has never worked in any society. I give you our economy/society and the Florida Panthers. However I digress, we as a whole will never agree on cap vs no-cap. I would just like to see TV/sales ratings pre Bettman and during.

I dislike Bettman and his parity driven NHL, but not understanding that 30 billionaires wanting ONLY to increase their net worth using a system / model that does that collectively is naive. And most of us dont really want a 16 team league long-term, right? So you grit your teeth and bear the horrendous officiating knowing fully well that the Blackhawks and Penguins are going to get every break possible from the refs along the way. And when one goes the Wings' way, the whole broadcasting community will make sure to crucify the official.

[b.shanafan14 733]

TLDR: No pick, no matter how high is a guarantee, so why not entertain offers to satisfy some needs? Repeats in the top 4 to the tune of 2 or 3 appearances in 7 years does not necessarily indicate parity not working. Are good teams supposed to be replaced by the worst teams through the draft and salary crunch every year? If anything is wrong with the system, its that teams like Pittsburgh, Chicago, and obviously less successfully Edmonton can tank for several years and basically bounce off the bottom into contention with little to no growing pains by stockpiling high picks through the lottery.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think some people are trying to see a problem where there really isn't one.

First of all, even supposed great draft prospects can bust, or at the very least not be the sort of "game-breakers" a team hopes for. When you look at a team like Edmonton, imagine if they had dangled a few of their top picks for a group of established players that could provide the sort of leadership and depth they have been missing. Maybe they wouldn't still be bottom feeding. To equate trading your top picks to some conscious effort not to improve seems silly. If Edmonton had been bad enough early enough they could have gotten Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, Toews, Kane, that caliber of player. Instead, they got serviceable guys like Hall that haven't been good enough to really turn them around. That's life.

And as far as the supposed same teams making the top 4 every year, I don't really see it. Red Wings 3 straight, Pittsburgh 2 straight, Hawks 2 straight, Sharks 2 straight, with some teams returning to the top 4 this season after a few seasons out of it. Is parity supposed to knock teams down and others up every single year?

Some teams are good consistently working within the cap because the same core remains. At no point did parity and draft lottery guarantee the sort of "worst to first" climb Pittsburgh and Chicago had, nor did it limit a teams window to a year or two. Its evened the playing field in terms of salary, period. In fact, in terms of the draft lottery system, I think its terrible that the worst teams get rewarded with the quickest ascent ala Chicago and Pittsburgh, while the bubble teams remain in limbo.

[Hockeymom1960 5,107]

Why dont you understand? A different team has won the cup for how many years now? 10?

Ah nevermind.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Hockeymom1960

[Son of a Wing 1,644]

Yet these same teams are giving away the chance to build a franchise, and the same teams that try to be successful (Phi, Ana, Chi, etc...) will be the ones to scoop up these picks. Why bother penalizing (with salary cap) the teams that strive to be better, if the teams that are just there to make their owner more money, are going to give away their shot to get better.

What exactly are you basing this on?? Not once since the lockout, or even in the last decade, has a bottom 5 team traded a pick at the draft to a contender for depth as you suggest. Not once. Every year GMs claim they would entertain offers. What's the harm?

Why on earth would a team that is rebuilding and was not very good the year before want to trade their early picks in the draft, especially #'s 1 or 2 given what the Hawks and Pens have been able to do with a few years of good picks. Especially in this draft that is going to be 7-10 impact players deep (by most accounts I have read, this will be a very deep draft), with a stud top pairing d-man as the first pick, which is now the most coveted position in the game.

You answered your own question....This will be a very deep draft. The only time since the lockout that a top 5 pick was moved was in 2008 when TOR/NYI/FLA swapped because they knew what players they were targeting and felt they may as well maximize the deal by getting some additional or better late round picks. To summarize this point...If a team feels there's little talent drop-off between when their pick and one a few turns later then why not trade down and grab an additional pick. Red Wings have been doing it for years with late first round picks. It can be done with high picks as well as seen in 2008.

Now i know what some will say, well Florida will get better by trading that pick for something they need.

NO, no they won't. Maybe Colorado will, but Nashville and Florida will remain just as bad as they were. They will take a late first and a late second for it and then pick a couple of utility guys.

Not sure where you get the idea that just because a GM says they will entertain offers for their pick, that translates to a couple later picks and a depth guy. It just doesn't happen. This whole rant is centered around the fact that the lockout/cap floor is causing this or at least a major cause yet I say it again....never has this actually occurred since the lockout. Not once.

The same Cellar dwellers are there every year, C-bus, Flo, Nas (minus a few mediocre seasons), trading or letting great talent walk away, sure they throw big money at one guy every now and again, but that, IMO, is just keep up appearances and stay at the cap floor! Meanwhile at the same time CHI, DET, ANA, and PIT have to make tough personnel decisions to stay under the cap.

I think this explains a lot as to just how long you've been really paying attention. Nashville is a cellar dweller every year? Really? They have picked in the top 10 ONCE since the lockout. Hell, they rarely make the top 20. And yes most salary-capped leagues have "cellar-dwellers". Inept management/ownership do have a large role in that.

[Hockeymom1960 5,107]

The NHL doesn't care about how good the team is, it cares about how much revenue it can bring in. When you say "parity" do you think they are talking about the competition? No. They are talking about revenue and salary parity. The NHL wanted a cap so the Detroit's of the league can not sign all the big names anymore. They wanted the smaller markets to be the only ones who can sign the big names so they can generate more revenue with those names. Why do you think Minnesota was able to sign the Olsen Twins over the summer? Do you think for a minute that id there was no salary cap that those guys would have gone to Minnesota? You make it so the successful franchises cannot sign the big names, now the small markets get to give them $14M a year and people buy the Parise and Suter jersey's. But when it comes down to it, the team is so mismanaged that they still aren't as good as the same top 6 teams that are always there. Now Minnesota is probably going to be forced to buyout a top player and all of a sudden the team isn't even as good as it was this past season.

If we had league parity on a talent scale, then there would be different teams in the final 4 every year. (at least more than there is now.) But no, the 5 remaining teams where the last 5 Stanley Cup winners.

It's all about generating a couple years of profits in a city, its not about winning. At least to the NHL. To the fans, once they realize their team still sucks, even with the superstar on their team, they stop going to the games...especially in places like Nashville, Florida, Phoenix and Carolina. You see how well it did for the Preds when they signed Weber to that huge contract... Sure, fans will go for a couple of seasons to see if the teams gets better around Weber, but it won't and they will stop coming....again.

This is what I meant.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

Why make teams play back to back in the conference finals, when if you schedule the eastern conf to start on Friday you could have had a game every night with no back to back games?

There was a scheduling conflict; a bunch of old guys had first dibs on renting the United Center.

More teams in the playoffs?! Why! over half of the teams already make the playoffs? The way they are talking all but 10 teams would make the playoffs.

Mo' playoffs = Mo' money...mostly for the owners.

Uncle Gary's main objective is to make the most money for the owners as possible.

Crappy television coverage on what is basically a second-rate network? He doesn't care because he makes more money.

Questionable calls by on-ice officials? He doesn't care because games are called the same from the first game through the last game of the season. At least that's what he's spouted and what he's always wanted people to believe.

Having the support of the "greatest sports fans in the world"? He doesn't care, it's just a label. He's more concerned with building up the "war chest' for all of the upcoming lockouts, on the backs and out of the pockets of the "fans" he claims to love so dearly.

Edited June 4, 2013 by cusimano_brothers

[Z Winged Dangler 2,082]

There was a scheduling conflict; a bunch of old guys had first dibs on renting the United Center.

Mo' playoffs = Mo' money...mostly for the owners.

Uncle Gary's main objective is to make the most money for the owners as possible.

Crappy television coverage on what is basically a second-rate network? He doesn't care because he makes more money.

Questionable calls by on-ice officials? He doesn't care because games are called the same from the first game through the last game of the season. At least that's what he's spouted and what he's always wanted people to believe.

Having the support of the "greatest sports fans in the world"? He doesn't care, it's just a label. He's more concerned with building up the "war chest' for all of the upcoming lockouts, on the backs and out of the pockets of the "fans" he claims to love so dearly.

Mark my words, Pens and Kings will win game 3 even if they don't deserve to. The refs will immediately kill the B's and Hawks momentum with a fluffy call and Bettman will sit in the crowd with that smug s***eating look on his face thinking to himself, some players make more than me now, more game 7's could get me a raise. Hurr durr skippety derp Go Bettman!

He should be on the cover of NHL 14 with the players, owners and the NHL logo on puppet strings.