T.Low

I agree with you on this:  It's not fair that a team has to pick last because they finihsed first.

Aside from that...  I think you need to lay off the Republican Kool-Aid

Nice to see you agree with the first part, but the Republicans have been very bit as Keynesian and darn near as socialist as the Democrats for a while now.

Now your saying two different things. You want to consider the NHL a business entity, whose primary focus is to make money, but consider the franchises to be game entities whose primary focus building the most competetive team. You can't have it both ways.

No idea where this came from. I said the NHL is an industry, not a business entity. As for the rest of that sentance, what the hell were you reading?

If we consider just the sporting apect, then an arbitrary limitation on the resources that can be devoted to player salaries is no different than any of the other arbitrary rules governing competition.

Now you are duplicitous.  By definiton, you can't talk about just the sporting aspect if you are going to talk about resources devoted to players salaries.

If you consider just the business aspect, then you could to an extent consider it socialist. But if the primary motivation for the operation of a franchise is to make money as a business, there is strong evidence suggesting that the salary cap in those best interests. No hockey team could make any money without opponents to play against nor a championship to play for, so membership in a league is vital to the success of any franchise. Furthermore, whatever is in the best interests of the league to which the franchise belongs is also in the best interests of the franchise. Evidence suggests that parity is a benefit to the league, and that the salary cap promotes parity. Ergo, the salary cap appears to be beneficial to the franchises in the NHL, from a business perspective. Current revenue trends support that conclusion.



While 'being in your best interests' does not mean that it isn't socialist, you can't totally separate the game aspect from the business either. So the cap must be considered in the complete terms. An arbitrary rule governing competition in a sporting league, which does not appear to impact the earning power of member franchises, nor restrict in any way outside of league competition the freedom of those franchises to 'reap their fruits'. It's similar in many ways to any other franchise-based business. There's a million different burger joints out there, but if you want to own a McDonald's (and all the associated benefits that come with the franchise) you have to abide by their rules. There's a lot of hockey leagues out there, but if you want to be in the NHL, you have to abide by their rules.

In regards to the legality of the contract, it is true that the contract as written is most likely within the rules as stated. But we are only assuming there is no unwritten agreement and only assuming that both parties entered the deal in good faith that all the terms would be fulfilled as written. If either of those assumptions is false, then one or both of the parties is guilty of violating the terms of the CBA.

Furthermore, the section of the CBA I quoted earlier seems a clear attempt to preserve the integrity of the CBA against exactly these types of violations of the 'spirit'. We are basically a judgement call from an abritrator away from NJ and/or Kovy being guilty of circumvention even without proof of any violations, as the CBA at least had the forsight to try and protect itself from these types of loopholes.
[/quote]

Remember that we are talking about a game here. A sport, nothing more. A competition between teams conducted within a very specific set of standards and regulations.    

Hockey is a game.  The NHL is infact a $3billion industry.  

also that increased parity in the league, I don't like the cap, but I freely admit that it's only because otherwise the Wings would have an advantage over almost all other teams.
The only reason the Wings would have an advantage is because of the hard work the Illitch family has put in over the last 20 plus years of owning the business. They built it, they should reap the fruits of their labor.


you nor anyone else here knows if he followed the letter of the law or not.
It's common knowledge that the contract follows the letter of the law; that is the entire premise behind the term "loophole".It's perfectly legal according to the letter of the law even if is not in agreement with the spirit of the law.  Thats why so much time is spent on the language of a contract and/or a government bill.



Further more, the draft is socialist too.  It's not fair that a team has to pick last because they finihsed first.  The only fair way to determin a draft order is to have a totally random lottery.  But i know thats to heavy for most of you sheeple to even fathom.

The problem might arise when he is older and not as good but doesn't want to retire. Obviously thats the worst case scenario, but with a deal that long its a problem you might run into.

Exactly. So let the free market work itself out. Let the GMs decide for themselves.

I want less regulation, as in no cap, but why have cap rules if your not going to enforce them. It just shows the ineptitude of Bettman and his minions.

There is nothing enforcably wrong with what Lamo did.  Like J.T. says, he totally followed the letter of the law, if not the spirit of the law.  And until the letter of the law and the spirit of the law are the same, a GM would be irresponsible to not do the same because the bold GMs will and the conservative GMs will be left behind.
http://habsloyalist.blogspot.com/2010/07/letter-of-law.html

My issue is this:

What's to stop a team from signing a player to a 30 year contract?  Of course the easy answer is to say that is unreasonable, there is no way a player would play for that long, etc.  However, where is the line drawn?

How reasonable is it to expect Kovalchuk might play until he is 44.  Consider that there has only been 1 player in the last 36 years to play to that age.  The answer is that there is a 99.99% chance he doesn't play out the contract, which to me, makes it an unreasonable one.

I agree a hundred percent. But so what if it's unreasonble.  That's the owner's problem...let him try it. Why not?  After all, he is following the letter of the law.

And again I agree; "Where is the line drawn?".  I thought 7 years was risky for Zetterberg on a lot of different levels. But I don't want rules in place saying Holland can't do that if he wants to.


So if 7 is infact reasonable, how about 8 yrs? Yes? Well then 9 years?

socialism is what we have now with the cap and parody in the league.

Yet, you cry for more regulation, not less.  You want to close even more aspects of the market, not open them.  Who are you to tell NJ how to spend their money?  What's it to you if they sign him until he's 34, 44, or 54? (In retrospect, Illitch could have saved quite a bit of money with a long term Chelios deal and put that money somewhere else!)

If that's a risk NJ is willing to take, then who are you to ask for more impedance on their sovereignty as a business entity?

NJ has had a great franchise for many years, and cannot reap the fruits of their own labor, the rewards they deserve for their hard work.  Instead, they have to give their hard earned money to ill concieved, unorganized franchises in rediculous southern markets, and are only allowed to spend what a governning body has centrally planned they can spend.

Yet, this doesn't satisfy you. You want to impose more rules on business owners and how they can go about acguiring their assests.  

Central planning and overegulation.  I repeat; Spoken like a true Socialist.

I really hope the NHL closes the loophole which allows teams to give ridiculously long contracts, such as Kovalchuk's 17 year deal, to save cap space.

Instead of averaging the yearly salary, the cap hit should be whatever the player makes that year. These contracs are getting ridiculous, and that includes Franzens 11 year deal.

Anyway thoes are my thoughts, What do you guys think would you like the NHL to step in and put a stop to the madness.

Spoken like a true socialist.

My grandparents live 5 minutes away from the Devil's Soup Bowl. Love that place. Awesome that you brought it up.

Ha!  Was one of my favorite places to ride in the Lower Penn.


Oh, and incase you can't tell by my avatar, since my bike is black with red and white, I usually wear a Wings practice jersey when trail riding my GasGas (which is a lot!).

How can I lobby to get you to change your avatar? lol

I must say, I'm part of the demographic DatsDeke is lobbying for.  

I actually wish the Wings would win the Cup in early April; there's just way too much stuff to do in the summertime.  Our TV is rarely on this time of year.  

This is probably an hours ride from my garage.

LMAO. Is this sarcasm? First of all, the Bowmans didn't "go for broke" and sign a million players, that was the all-knowing Dale Tallon, the Bowman's simply inheretid that mess after the deed was done.

In what way are they doing a good job at all? They've already lost about every single player that could.  They only reason they are getting picks is because they literally do not have any other financial option but to dismantle their entire team...

I love the Bowmans but... a used band-aid could be doing what they are doing right now...

Take off your Homer glasses and see the facts: Chicago Blackhawks 2010 Stanley Cup Champions. Detroit Red Wings 2010 also rans.

That is the Hockey's Holy Grail grabbed by the nuts.  Mission accomplished. Talon, Bowman & Bowman, whoever, hockey is back in Chicago after a long, long absence.  They could have farted around like Toronto and not gone anywhere and not gotten any picks in return for going no where.  But instead, Chicago took the bull by the horns and won the frickin Stanley Cup.   And now they have a 2010 Stanley Cup and better picks than the Wings do.

The Bowman's were handed a great roster that would self destruct at the stroke of midnight after the '09-'10 season, and they are getting a lot more out of the scrap pile than anyone thought they would.

A core group of awesome talent (a ton of Olympians), and some periphery players to fill in and step up.  Where's the sarcasm you're hoping for?

It's one thing to hate your rivals, but it's another thing to underestimate them.

I will give Chicago props for getting tons of picks to restock their farm system. As long as picks pan out they will have a swarm of young kids coming up again soon.

No doubt.

I think the Bowmans are doing a great job of restoring that franchise. Most teams try a longer range plan to someday win the Cup.  Instead, they took their young guys and added expensive veterans and went for broke and won a frikin Stanley Cup. It seemed like they went from crap to winning the Cup in only two seasons.  Vancuover's going on 40 yrs without winning the Cup.  Now they have to lose a lot of guys, but they are restocking the farm while they still have a stud nucleus on the ice to remain competitive.



I for one say good job Chicago, good job Stan and Scotty.

Yup.

This is a good example of the salary cap leading to less talent in the NHL.  Hopefully it will remain a rare case.


EDIT:  and off topic, who's the idiot who keeps rating all the threads one star?

Does anyone else see the irony of the N. American hockey league using a centrally planned system (salary cap) and the Russian using more of a free market system for a team's roster based on supply and demand and simple cost/benefit projections?.

Sheesh.  What's this country coming to?

Agreed.

I've always felt he was a respectable 5/6 Dman on this team, he paired quite well with Lilja, and IMO was better than Meech...Is Burke looking to replace Ian White's speed on the blueline?

Now with that said - Burke probably could've gotten him for $1 million per season.


I recall a few ex-Leaf Dmen help our beloved Red Wings to a few Cups

I agree.  I predict he's gonna go Quincy in Toronto.