• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
frankgrimes

Stan Bowman (CHI) on CBA troubles

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Meh, I think that's a bunch of crap. If spending the most was the only factor, the Yankees would win every year, and so would the Wings pre cap. But that obviously didn't happen.

Well there are other teams that are 'buying a championship" in both those situations. Yankees haven't had the highest payroll for the last few years.

Before the cap, we were often outspent: A random year chosen for an example 02-03: by the Blues, Stars, Rangers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_team_payrolls_in_the_NHL#New_Jersey_Devils

Without a cap, the winners are pretty much limited to the few big spenders. The top few have a relatively even playing field and then other factors come into play.

Edited by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know as though that is factual or not. Does spending more really increase the probability? I also don't think there's any lack of "respect" for a team who wins it all, no matter how much they spend. That mostly comes from sour grapes fans and media from other teams.

If we are talking a non cap world, I think its pretty safe to say that "money helps a team win" is a fact. Having the ability to retain your star players is going to help you, having the ability to sign the top UFA's is going to help you, having the ability to not be hurt by a bust and being able to just send him down to the minors and sign someone else is going to help you. Money in no way guarantees a championship, but it helps.

I also don't get your sour grapes argument, did you read my first post? The post was about a Wings fan I knew who was turned off with the Wings spending. Sour grapes would not apply here.

I'm not even going to get into the Yankees, that's a whole different argument for a different place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if teams have to pay for other franchises to keep them above they should have some benefits from it otherwise why do it? It just makes winning the cup harder.

Did the Wings have higher payrolls than most teams ? Of course but the rangers had even higher ones and didn't win as much. As long as big spenders also feature home grown talent, local heroes and bring in great players there is nothing wrong and an unnatural system like the CBA is like telling an owner you can't spend because other's aren't able too..I mean what the f***? Then don't spend but don't cry foul if others that do will get to keep the top guys.

That's why I hope Fehr will advise the players to desertify before the next lockout so this stupid CBA can be a thing of the past, if some teams can't compete and have to relocate the better, I mean let's be honest some franchises

Just don't have enough hockey interested fans but why should teams like the Wings, Leafs or rangers suffer because of that?

It's unbelievable some hawks fans are blaming Toews and Kane for taking the money lol. Show me a person that would sign for less written they crab make more during their limited career that could end every time. Maybe next time join the likes of Mr. I and criticize the current system. Bring in a hockey guy to run thisf****** league and send that damn New York based midget back to the nba whenever Stern retires.

Personally I would have liked nothing mute than to see the Wings take the Blackhawks success personally and spend whatever it takes to ruin their back to back championship chance. It would be much more satisfying to do it against a staged than a decimated one.

Edited by frankgrimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker

You make some good points. I remember back in 2006 I was talking to a casual friend, and I brought up the Wings. He told me he was a HUGE fan back in the 90's, but when it seemed they started having their pick of whoever they wanted in the early-mid 2000's it really turned him off. He said that he couldn't respect a team that won just because its owner spent more money. At the time I really didn't listen to what he said and I completely disagreed, but looking back on it I can see how someone would have more respect for a team doing it the way its done now.

Did anyone out side of Yankees fans really respect the Yankees back in 2009 when they won the world series and their payroll was around 200,000,000 while the second highest payroll was closer to 100,000,000? Now the Yankees were an extreme, but my point is I'm starting to get his train of thought.

This is what I was responding to. You say that on one respected the Yankees because they spent a lot. There is no asterisk by their names or the Wings 2002 Championship. They won. That's what people respect and care about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker

I think if teams have to pay for other franchises to keep them above they should have some benefits from it otherwise why do it? It just makes winning the cup harder.

Did the Wings have higher payrolls than most teams ? Of course but the rangers had even higher ones and didn't win as much. As long as big spenders also feature home grown talent, local heroes and bring in great players there is nothing wrong and an unnatural system like the CBA is like telling an owner you can't spend because other's aren't able too..I mean what the f***? Then don't spend but don't cry foul if others that do will get to keep the top guys.

That's why I hope Fehr will advise the players to desertify before the next lockout so this stupid CBA can be a thing of the past, if some teams can't compete and have to relocate the better, I mean let's be honest some franchises

Just don't have enough hockey interested fans but why should teams like the Wings, Leafs or rangers suffer because of that?

It's unbelievable some hawks fans are blaming Toews and Kane for taking the money lol. Show me a person that would sign for less written they crab make more during their limited career that could end every time. Maybe next time join the likes of Mr. I and criticize the current system. Bring in a hockey guy to run thisf****** league and send that damn New York based midget back to the nba whenever Stern retires.

Personally I would have liked nothing mute than to see the Wings take the Blackhawks success personally and spend whatever it takes to ruin their back to back championship chance. It would be much more satisfying to do it against a staged than a decimated one.

If you're going to make offensive comments like calling someone a midget, at least get your facts straight. Not sure where you have been, but David Stern retired. Heard of Adam Silver. Bettman isn't going anywhere because he is very successful at what he does.

Hey, great idea, have the players sit out a year to get rid of the cap! I'll bet that'll work. In case you forgot, they did that already. We lost an entire season of hockey, the players (headed by Red Wing Brendan Shanahan) caved in after losing an entire year of their career and a year's worth of salary, the owners are making more, fans are watching more and the players are making more. I'm sure they're more than willing to give up a year of their careers to get rid of the cap.

As a Wings fan, I'd kind of like to see the Wings beat the Hawks by being able to be successful under the same system. What have they really sacrificed? If 3 Cups in 5 years is sacrificing, bring it on. They've made bold moves and its worked. I hate the Hawks, but I'm envious of what they've been able to do. I'd like to think that these moves are going to really hurt them, but I'm not all that sure that's the case. Like it or not, they've done it the right way, gambled and won, and won, and won. The Wings aren't in cap trouble, great, but they also haven't made it very far in the playoffs either. Holland keeps making room but the big signings or bold trades never happen. I think you have to give it to guys like Bowman and Belichick who just go for it and do what needs to be done and don't worry about what the fans or anyone else thinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to make offensive comments like calling someone a midget, at least get your facts straight. Not sure where you have been, but David Stern retired. Heard of Adam Silver. Bettman isn't going anywhere because he is very successful at what he does.

Hey, great idea, have the players sit out a year to get rid of the cap! I'll bet that'll work. In case you forgot, they did that already. We lost an entire season of hockey, the players (headed by Red Wing Brendan Shanahan) caved in after losing an entire year of their career and a year's worth of salary, the owners are making more, fans are watching more and the players are making more. I'm sure they're more than willing to give up a year of their careers to get rid of the cap.

As a Wings fan, I'd kind of like to see the Wings beat the Hawks by being able to be successful under the same system. What have they really sacrificed? If 3 Cups in 5 years is sacrificing, bring it on. They've made bold moves and its worked. I hate the Hawks, but I'm envious of what they've been able to do. I'd like to think that these moves are going to really hurt them, but I'm not all that sure that's the case. Like it or not, they've done it the right way, gambled and won, and won, and won. The Wings aren't in cap trouble, great, but they also haven't made it very far in the playoffs either. Holland keeps making room but the big signings or bold trades never happen. I think you have to give it to guys like Bowman and Belichick who just go for it and do what needs to be done and don't worry about what the fans or anyone else thinks.

If we're getting our facts straight, the players didn't sit out a year to get rid of the cap. They were locked out by the owners so the league could implement a cap. One is a strike by players, which didn't happen, the other is a lockout by ownership, which did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, they lost out on a lot of guys they wanted, but back then the third or fourth option was still good. Now the fourth option is a #4 d-man or a forward you hope scores 20 goals

This is more due to the CBA rules on contracts than the cap itself. If there were a four year limit on contracts you'd see a much bigger free agency frenzy. It's these career long contracts that have killed the offseason excitement and led to stagnant teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to make offensive comments like calling someone a midget, at least get your facts straight. Not sure where you have been, but David Stern retired. Heard of Adam Silver. Bettman isn't going anywhere because he is very successful at what he does.

Hey, great idea, have the players sit out a year to get rid of the cap! I'll bet that'll work. In case you forgot, they did that already. We lost an entire season of hockey, the players (headed by Red Wing Brendan Shanahan) caved in after losing an entire year of their career and a year's worth of salary, the owners are making more, fans are watching more and the players are making more. I'm sure they're more than willing to give up a year of their careers to get rid of the cap.

As a Wings fan, I'd kind of like to see the Wings beat the Hawks by being able to be successful under the same system. What have they really sacrificed? If 3 Cups in 5 years is sacrificing, bring it on. They've made bold moves and its worked. I hate the Hawks, but I'm envious of what they've been able to do. I'd like to think that these moves are going to really hurt them, but I'm not all that sure that's the case. Like it or not, they've done it the right way, gambled and won, and won, and won. The Wings aren't in cap trouble, great, but they also haven't made it very far in the playoffs either. Holland keeps making room but the big signings or bold trades never happen. I think you have to give it to guys like Bowman and Belichick who just go for it and do what needs to be done and don't worry about what the fans or anyone else thinks.

Responsible for 3 lockouts, failed franchises, destroying the ASG and now even the former cashcow known as Winter Classic I bet he doesn't even know what icing is and gifting such a terrible company like Rogers the NHL rights in Canada ?

I think you need to get your facts straight here: The players can desertify if the majority of them votes to do so it is purely NHLPA related the NHL itself (i.e. Bettman and the owners) can do nothing about it. Desertification would mean that a lockout is illegal and the CBA would be a thing of the past, Also the owners locked out the players so it's not the players fault if the players decided not to play it would be a strike like harold explained.

Beating under the Hawks under the same system would mean, the Wings would have to try to be as bad as possible for a few years and get gems like Toews, Kane and Keith then watching them mature and strike big with UFAS like Hossa. Given that starting next year all top 3 picks will go into the lottery even that will be harder going forward. People can argue that spending big is "unfair" but guess what icing a cheap product year after year and getting rewarded with top 5 picks isn't the nature of sports also. While beating the Hawks would be extremely nice lets be honest it's not going to happen for at least a few more years, as long as their core is still in their prime or not too far out of it they'll be too much for the current Wings team (not saying that couldn't change but man a lot would have to go right for the Wings...) Like people already mentioned there should be some sort of a cap relieve for home-grown talent teams are investing a ton of money and time into developing them and then not being able to sign these players because of an unnatural system just sucks...yeah we might be all laughing at the Hawks troubles but keep in mind it could also hit the Wings at some point in time so I'd rather see teams being able to keep their players if the owners are prepared to open their massive pockets and then face a perfectly healthy Hawks roster and seeing them dismantled in 6 games by a Red Wings team that is equal to the ones Red Wings expect to see on the ice.

I give Stan Bowman a lot of credit but let's not forget who his father is having Scotty as an advisor is going to make the job of every GM easier.

What really killed Free Agency Frenzy and to some extent even the trade deadline is the contract limit on years coupled with that stupid "variation" clause" since then ew CBA. I mean a lot of people are already dreaming of how great next years class will be when at the end of the day ALL the big guns will re-signed and we'll end up with an even worse group than this year that's the sad new reality of July 1.

Edited by frankgrimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's unbelievable some hawks fans are blaming Toews and Kane for taking the money lol. Show me a person that would sign for less written they crab make more during their limited career that could end every time. Maybe next time join the likes of Mr. I and criticize the current system. Bring in a hockey guy to run thisf****** league and send that damn New York based midget back to the nba whenever Stern retires.

Pavel Datsyuk and Nick Lidstrom.

*note* sorry for posting 3 times in a row, it wasn't letting me copy and paste quotes into one window. Every time I pasted Playmakers quote, it was saying Frank wrote it.

Edited by kliq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I was responding to. You say that on one respected the Yankees because they spent a lot. There is no asterisk by their names or the Wings 2002 Championship. They won. That's what people respect and care about.

Never said there was an asterisk next to it, they won fair and square. But like I said, when you spend roughly 100,000,000 million more the the second highest spending team, you are not going to earn the respect that other teams do. Wings never did that, while the Wings did at times spent the most or were in the top 5, they weren't double the payroll of the team in 2nd.

I read back my comments, and it did sound like I was saying nobody respected the Yankees, I take that back as I should have said a lot of people didn't respect the Yankees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players can desertify if the majority of them votes to do so it is purely NHLPA related the NHL itself (i.e. Bettman and the owners) can do nothing about it. Desertification would mean that a lockout is illegal and the CBA would be a thing of the past, Also the owners locked out the players so it's not the players fault if the players decided not to play it would be a strike like harold explained.

You always talk about this Frank, but you realize that there are a lot of downsides to the players if they do this:

Here are a few I read in an article on cbc.ca

http://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/hockey/opinion/2012/11/answers-to-nhlpa-decertification-questions.html

OK, what are the downsides for the players?

"There are a few downsides," Feldman said. "The basic downside is the players lose protection of labour law and... the protection a union gives you. Any other industry would celebrate this [because it allows the owners to] implement whatever rules and conditions we want. It would hurt a significant number of players. [You have] exposed yourself to the mercy of NHL owners."

Guaranteed contracts? Health benefits? Pensions? Minimum salaries? All of that could be affected. During the NBA's 2011 labour battle, Ron Klempner, associate general counsel of the National Basketball Players' Association, said the players were better off without a union.

"That may be true for superstars, maybe not for others," Feldman said.

"The third risk," he added, "is if you lose. You've spent a tremendous amount of money on legal fees, [there's a] cancelled season and you've lost all leverage. [Decertification] is most powerful as a threat, because there's still uncertainty. If you fire off your weapon and there's no damage, you're weaponless."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You always talk about this Frank, but you realize that there are a lot of downsides to the players if they do this:

Here are a few I read in an article on cbc.ca

http://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/hockey/opinion/2012/11/answers-to-nhlpa-decertification-questions.html

OK, what are the downsides for the players?

"There are a few downsides," Feldman said. "The basic downside is the players lose protection of labour law and... the protection a union gives you. Any other industry would celebrate this [because it allows the owners to] implement whatever rules and conditions we want. It would hurt a significant number of players. [You have] exposed yourself to the mercy of NHL owners."

Guaranteed contracts? Health benefits? Pensions? Minimum salaries? All of that could be affected. During the NBA's 2011 labour battle, Ron Klempner, associate general counsel of the National Basketball Players' Association, said the players were better off without a union.

"That may be true for superstars, maybe not for others," Feldman said.

"The third risk," he added, "is if you lose. You've spent a tremendous amount of money on legal fees, [there's a] cancelled season and you've lost all leverage. [Decertification] is most powerful as a threat, because there's still uncertainty. If you fire off your weapon and there's no damage, you're weaponless."

I'm not saying it's the best thing ever but if the union is only used as a method to keep the lockouts legal and get more and more power shifts for the owners what's the point?

I think owners want the best possible hotels and comfort for their players because if they don't provide it others will.

Yes there are risks like always but if the NHL is really going for a fourth lockout then this might be a better option.

And as I've said leagues would be better without commissioners and just have someone who represents the owners and the players side for example a mediator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker

If we're getting our facts straight, the players didn't sit out a year to get rid of the cap. They were locked out by the owners so the league could implement a cap. One is a strike by players, which didn't happen, the other is a lockout by ownership, which did.

I didn't say they were on strike. They sat out because the players said they'd never, ever, under no circumstances agree to the salary cap the owners insisted upon. So an entire season was lost and the players blinked. So the cap is now in place, the league is doing as well as it ever has, the players are making more than they ever have, so 10 years later, after coming back with their tail between their legs, the players are going to band together and rise up against the salary cap because a few Wings fans have chafed asses over it? The players have very little power. That's been proven time and again.

Thanks for posting, kilq. I couldn't for the life of me figure out what "desertify" was.

Responsible for 3 lockouts, failed franchises, destroying the ASG and now even the former cashcow known as Winter Classic I bet he doesn't even know what icing is and gifting such a terrible company like Rogers the NHL rights in Canada ?

I think you need to get your facts straight here: The players can desertify if the majority of them votes to do so it is purely NHLPA related the NHL itself (i.e. Bettman and the owners) can do nothing about it. Desertification would mean that a lockout is illegal and the CBA would be a thing of the past, Also the owners locked out the players so it's not the players fault if the players decided not to play it would be a strike like harold explained.

Beating under the Hawks under the same system would mean, the Wings would have to try to be as bad as possible for a few years and get gems like Toews, Kane and Keith then watching them mature and strike big with UFAS like Hossa. Given that starting next year all top 3 picks will go into the lottery even that will be harder going forward. People can argue that spending big is "unfair" but guess what icing a cheap product year after year and getting rewarded with top 5 picks isn't the nature of sports also. While beating the Hawks would be extremely nice lets be honest it's not going to happen for at least a few more years, as long as their core is still in their prime or not too far out of it they'll be too much for the current Wings team (not saying that couldn't change but man a lot would have to go right for the Wings...) Like people already mentioned there should be some sort of a cap relieve for home-grown talent teams are investing a ton of money and time into developing them and then not being able to sign these players because of an unnatural system just sucks...yeah we might be all laughing at the Hawks troubles but keep in mind it could also hit the Wings at some point in time so I'd rather see teams being able to keep their players if the owners are prepared to open their massive pockets and then face a perfectly healthy Hawks roster and seeing them dismantled in 6 games by a Red Wings team that is equal to the ones Red Wings expect to see on the ice.

I give Stan Bowman a lot of credit but let's not forget who his father is having Scotty as an advisor is going to make the job of every GM easier.

What really killed Free Agency Frenzy and to some extent even the trade deadline is the contract limit on years coupled with that stupid "variation" clause" since then ew CBA. I mean a lot of people are already dreaming of how great next years class will be when at the end of the day ALL the big guns will re-signed and we'll end up with an even worse group than this year that's the sad new reality of July 1.

So if no free agents are available, that means that homegrown players aren't leaving teams that develop them. If I'm recalling correctly the "home team" does have the advantage of being able to offer a longer term contract than an outside team.

The Hawks have 3 Cups. I'm sure as hell not laughing at them. I don't feel like the Wings were successful all those years because they bought the most free agents. Like the Hawks, they had a good homegrown core of players, made good trades (Shanahan and Hasek) and added complimentary pieces. I also think Wings fans are assuming that when Mr. I passes, that Chris or whoever takes over will run things the same. Will fans be as opposed to the cap if Chris is a cheap ass? Bill Wirtz's kid isn't running things the same way he did (in a good way for Hawks fans), so there's no guarantee that the Ilitch kid(s) will follow in their father's footsteps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say they were on strike. They sat out because the players said they'd never, ever, under no circumstances agree to the salary cap the owners insisted upon. So an entire season was lost and the players blinked. So the cap is now in place, the league is doing as well as it ever has, the players are making more than they ever have, so 10 years later, after coming back with their tail between their legs, the players are going to band together and rise up against the salary cap because a few Wings fans have chafed asses over it? The players have very little power. That's been proven time and again.

Thanks for posting, kilq. I couldn't for the life of me figure out what "desertify" was.

And as I said, they didn't sit out. They were locked out.

Also, players aren't making more than they ever have. Lidstrom made $10.5 million in 2003. Forsberg made $11 million in 2004. Star players salaries are just now approaching what they were pre-cap, especially adjusted for inflation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if no free agents are available, that means that homegrown players aren't leaving teams that develop them. If I'm recalling correctly the "home team" does have the advantage of being able to offer a longer term contract than an outside team.

The Hawks have 3 Cups. I'm sure as hell not laughing at them. I don't feel like the Wings were successful all those years because they bought the most free agents. Like the Hawks, they had a good homegrown core of players, made good trades (Shanahan and Hasek) and added complimentary pieces. I also think Wings fans are assuming that when Mr. I passes, that Chris or whoever takes over will run things the same. Will fans be as opposed to the cap if Chris is a cheap ass? Bill Wirtz's kid isn't running things the same way he did (in a good way for Hawks fans), so there's no guarantee that the Ilitch kid(s) will follow in their father's footsteps.

Chris has already taken over. Assuming that, when Mr. I passes, Chris will get pa's companies outright and continuing running the ship the way he has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker

And as I said, they didn't sit out. They were locked out.

Also, Jonathan Toews is now making as much as Nick Lidstrom made in 2003. Players aren't making more than they ever have. Crosby, Ovechkin, pick virtually any star player and they're making less than top earners did pre-cap.

They chose not to play because they didn't agree to the owner's terms and then eventually chose to agree to the owners terms. It also doesn't make calling someone a midget any less offensive.

Not to mention, with the current CBA in place until 2021, the players would have to strike to try and "desertify" to get rid of the horrible cap that supposedly everyone is against.

This addresses how much "less" the players are making now as a result.

http://www.lfpress.com/2012/10/25/dollars-and-sense-in-the-nhl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They chose not to play because they didn't agree to the owner's terms and then eventually chose to agree to the owners terms. It also doesn't make calling someone a midget any less offensive.

Not to mention, with the current CBA in place until 2021, the players would have to strike to try and "desertify" to get rid of the horrible cap that supposedly everyone is against.

This addresses how much "less" the players are making now as a result.

http://www.lfpress.com/2012/10/25/dollars-and-sense-in-the-nhl

Oh yeah a Steve Simmons article is for sure going to be 100 % correct.

Just as an example do people honestly believe the Wings wouldn't have paid Hossa and the Mule without the cap? I'm pretty sure they would have.

Also stop this crap about offensive you can choose not to use the word - it just means someone is a very little person which in fact is true - if it bothers you that much Jesus ******* christ. No the players wouldn't have to strike they can just wait till they are locked out again (for a record breaking 4 time in a row) and then start the process. Will it happen ? Who knows but almost everything is better than going through a lockout because all of a sudden the current system doesn't work anymore...

Yeah the Hawks have won 3 cups in 6 years great succes and sadly a great story which is why I want to see the Kings winning it this year which would mean 3 cups in 5 years !

Edited by frankgrimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I'd change is having some kind of break towards the cap for home grown talent. Parity is nice and all, but it is kind of a bummer when teams who draft and developed well are punished because of the cap. The cap should prevent teams from buying championships. Not force them to lose homegrown talent.

So players that are on their drafted team should get a bonus that doesn't count against the cap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So players that are on their drafted team should get a bonus that doesn't count against the cap

Another option I have heard is that if you are on your original team on your first stint, only 85% of your cap hit actually counts against the cap. (I made up 85% as I couldn't remember the actual number, but I'm sure everyone gets my point).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker

Oh yeah a Steve Simmons article is for sure going to be 100 % correct.

Just as an example do people honestly believe the Wings wouldn't have paid Hossa and the Mule without the cap? I'm pretty sure they would have.

Also stop this crap about offensive you can choose not to use the word - it just means someone is a very little person which in fact is true - if it bothers you that much Jesusf****** christ. No the players wouldn't have to strike they can just wait till they are locked out again (for a record breaking 4 time in a row) and then start the process. Will it happen ? Who knows but almost everything is better than going through a lockout because all of a sudden the current system doesn't work anymore...

Yeah the Hawks have won 3 cups in 6 years great succes and sadly a great story which is why I want to see the Kings winning it this year which would mean 3 cups in 5 years !

Yeah, and just calling a person the N word just refers to a person of color, right?

No, the Wings wouldn't have signed Hossa, He most likely would have stayed with the Penguins and never came to the Wings in the first place because then they could have paid him if there were no cap.

Fans can ***** all they want about the lockout, but most came crawling back when they were over. It really doesn't discourage lockouts when that happens. So you can blame Bettman all you want, but that's the only power that the fans have is to not watch, not go to games, not to buy merchandise. Most teams saw attendance rise. He's been able to get the owners just about everything they want, keep the fans and the revenue keeps rolling in and the ratings are going up. So while you may see lockouts as a bad thing, don't think the owners do.

As far as Ilitch goes, the Tigers don't have a hard cap and he chose to let Max Scherzer go to a team that was willing to pay more. So you can't assume that Mr.I/Chris or whoever is automatically going to have an open checkbook and pay or overpay every free agent that is out there. They've spent a ton of money and still haven't won a World Series. You can say he's willing to "do anything" and "pay anything" to win, but letting a Cy Young winning pitcher in his prime go doesn't seem to indicate that money is no object.

So few players, and even fewer quality players ever get to free agency, I don't see why there's any issue with giving more of an advantage to the home team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, and just calling a person the N word just refers to a person of color, right?

No, the Wings wouldn't have signed Hossa, He most likely would have stayed with the Penguins and never came to the Wings in the first place because then they could have paid him if there were no cap.

Fans can ***** all they want about the lockout, but most came crawling back when they were over. It really doesn't discourage lockouts when that happens. So you can blame Bettman all you want, but that's the only power that the fans have is to not watch, not go to games, not to buy merchandise. Most teams saw attendance rise. He's been able to get the owners just about everything they want, keep the fans and the revenue keeps rolling in and the ratings are going up. So while you may see lockouts as a bad thing, don't think the owners do.

As far as Ilitch goes, the Tigers don't have a hard cap and he chose to let Max Scherzer go to a team that was willing to pay more. So you can't assume that Mr.I/Chris or whoever is automatically going to have an open checkbook and pay or overpay every free agent that is out there. They've spent a ton of money and still haven't won a World Series. You can say he's willing to "do anything" and "pay anything" to win, but letting a Cy Young winning pitcher in his prime go doesn't seem to indicate that money is no object.

So few players, and even fewer quality players ever get to free agency, I don't see why there's any issue with giving more of an advantage to the home team.

I don't know what a N word is but whatever if you don't like the word midget don't use it instead of making a big deal out of it. And that's all I have to say to that irrelevant OT stuff.

Hossa left the Penguins because he thought he had a better chance with the Wings to win the cup back then and that's why he signed on a 1 year contract and not taking Pittsburgh's 7x7 offer.

Like I said spending is just one part, teams also need the right people in the front office a team that has chemistry and a strong development system. Being a big spender doesn't implicit being stupid with money, so even without a cap I don't see any of the current UFA players getting much more because the class simple wasn't that impressive.

I agree the fans crawled back which was a mistake because it will mean there's going to be another one.

Edited by frankgrimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They chose not to play because they didn't agree to the owner's terms and then eventually chose to agree to the owners terms. It also doesn't make calling someone a midget any less offensive.

Not to mention, with the current CBA in place until 2021, the players would have to strike to try and "desertify" to get rid of the horrible cap that supposedly everyone is against.

This addresses how much "less" the players are making now as a result.

http://www.lfpress.com/2012/10/25/dollars-and-sense-in-the-nhl

Incorrect. They were locked out by ownership so they could not play. Play semantics games if you like, but it doesn't change the fact that the players were locked out by ownership. I don't understand why you're arguing this fact.

Then there's your massive oversimplification of the lockout. There were many offers rejected by both sides. But that doesn't exactly fit with your "the players chose not to play" scenario.

And I wasn't saying anything about name calling. It has nothing to do with the point. You're calling someone out for not having their facts correct but insist on misrepresenting what was clearly a lockout.

That article doesn't actually address how much less the players are making. It cherrypicks contracts of players and uses percentages to make it seem as if overall they didn't take a massive paycut when the cap was implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So players that are on their drafted team should get a bonus that doesn't count against the cap

Pretty much. Just have a percentage of home grown talents contracts not count VS the cap. It would reward teams that build through the draft, instead of having them get blown up like the Blackhawks have had to do twice now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much. Just have a percentage of home grown talents contracts not count VS the cap. It would reward teams that build through the draft, instead of having them get blown up like the Blackhawks have had to do twice now.

I wouldn't really say they've been blown up twice. They lost a lot of pieces twice but still kept the main core. They won 3 cups in 6 years so I don't think management is too upset

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this