If Weber truly wanted out of Nashville, you would have to think he wouldn't have signed a 14-year offer sheet with another team. Rationale being that it woudl be close to 100% that Nashville woudl match and he'd then have a 14 year contract with Nashville (doens't mean he's stuck there for 14 years, but you know....).
If Weber thought he'd be getting out of Nashville by signing an offer sheet, he got bad advice. From everything I've heard though, he has no issues with Nashville.
Not trying to come across as purely disagreeable, but my question to you would be... how does revenue sharing help fix the problem of teams in a weak hockey market that cannot sustain themselves? The only way that revenue sharing would ever *potentially* be viable is if a team in a strong hockey market experienced a local disaster that effected revenues and needed support for a few years until it became financially soluble again. A team that's just in a weak market offers no reasonable guarantee that it will be soluble, and revenue sharing therefor becomes a perpetual band-aid at the expense of successful teams.
I guess we are probably looking at it differently. I don't necessarily see revenue sharing as a "fix" to a temporary issue for which the smaller market team will come out of. I see it more of a permanant thing whereby teams share revenue since overall revenues are driven by the league, not necessarily individual teams. I'm not suggesting you take all the revenues and divide it evenly amongst all the teams in the league (though I'm sure there are people out there that might suggest that), I just think there shoudl be sharing of revenues that are not necessarily team specific. A team can't make money if they aren't playing another team.
To use an extreme example, if the league was made up of 2 teams and they just played each other all the time and the only revenues being generated were from the gate, if one team was in a different geographic region, different economic factors, etc., they might be bringing in significantly more revenue than the other team. In that model, it would make sense for one team to be bringing in more money, but it wouldn't make sense if there was an enormous disparity between the two.
Look, I think the ultimate solution is to get rid of the teams in struggling markets, but I think we need to forget about that, it is not an available option.
In the event that there are no favourable markets to move a team to, the franchise should be eliminated entirely. In summation, financially insolvent teams should be eliminated or moved to a market where they can be solvent.
Won't make the players very happy at all, for every team that is eliminated, there would be "x" number of players out of a job.
I think revenue sharing needs to exist to some exit. I agree with the notion that if a market simply isn't working, you need to deal with it (move to a better market), but I think sharing needs to exist because the generation of revenues by each individual team are not solely do to their individual efforts. I think elimination of franchises is the absolute last resort and would be avoided at all costs (both sides, players and owners, probably agree with that).
The correct answer is that any ramifications from the new CBA will be dealt with in the new CBA, so no one really knows at this point. If I were to guess, I'd assume the cap will be unimpacted inititially and the structure will just move from their based on how they structure the new deal. That said, it is entirely possible that they agree to move the 57% down to 54% or 52% or 50% of league revenues for players. They could take that downward movement and lower the cap proportionately and also then lower all existing contracts down proportionately as well.
I'm pretty confident in saying that the new CBA should not cause teams to have to get rid of any existing players.
WOW are you even serious???? .... Crosby, Ovechkin, Heatly, Hossa and Kovy put up on worse teams than the BJs in their past.???????
those players put up better numbers and they were on worse teams than columbus???how the hell was pittsburgh,washington,san jose etc... worse than columbus?? columbus is a laughing stock , and who the hell did rick nash ever have to play with???? all those players you mentioned above ALL had someone to play with
rick nash has been a lone ranger in columbus his whole career
Crosby had 39 goals and 102 points in his rookie year on a god awful team. 44pts ahead of the #2 scorer on his team (same could be said for Ovie in his first cuople years).
The thing is, if you are a 3rd or 4th liner and then you get to play with the top line, get top line minutes and top line situations, your stats should grow significantly, but if you are the star player on your team, getting top minutes and playing top situations, playing with better players shouldn't increase your stats astronomically. I don't want to say you wouldn't have better stats, because you probably would, but it likely wouldn't be as signficant as some think. The bigger impact of playing with better players would be having a better record as a team.
That said, Nash is a winger and as a general rule, wingers tend to need "help" producing, someone to feed them the puck. Centres should be able to crease offense on their own. This is of course a huge generalization, but I'm not afraid to throw it out there. Great centres will produce no matter who they play with, some upside if you plug in better wingers. Great wingers will produce as well, but if you plug in a great centre with them, I suspect their production would increase as a much higher rate than the other way around.
yep... talk about HHOF offices being in Toronto and this being no how correlated with votes...
If you think about it though, what arguments do you have for Shanahan over Sundin? Yes, he scored more goals, but Sundin still had 564 goals. Sundin scored the same number of points (give or take a few) in almost 200 less games. I also think Sundin's international experience is a little more accomplished than Shanny's.
I think Shanhan's very low points per game stat hurt him. He'll get in eventuall though. If you look at this year's list, I could argue Shanny over Sundin, Oates or Bure, but you could argue the other way too. The only non-argument would be that Sakic is a lock over them all.
Oates...much better ppg than Shanny, but after that, not much to say.
Bure....the question mark there is the fact his career was cut short....did he do enough? I think his talents were superior to Shanahan's, his gpg and ppg stats blow Shanny's out of the water, but that has been shown in the past not to matter much when you are talking about shorter careers. Bure waited awhile to get in though.
Burrows is anything but a goon. He's a spot-picking rat. Had a "goon" been on the ice, I doubt Burrows goes after Kopitar.
But yes, the rough stuff after clean hits is annoying as hell. In essence, it deters hitting.
That's exactly the point. When someone on your team gets hit hard....clean or not, you want to send a message that they will need to pay whenever they do that.....try to deter hitting the future, that's exactly what they are trying to accomplish. To be honest, I'd be unhappy if my team didn't respond to hard hits, you have to show that you won't get pushed around.
Another thing to think about....I bet that hit isn't made of it wasn't Sedin...they target star players and try to punish them, you need to respond. If the hit is dirty, the response would be a lot more violent.
the responses on here are hilarious. this one is my fav:
"All the american teams,cannot skate or play hockey with the Canucks , so they try to even things up by sending their goons after our star players. Nowadays it is the dirtiest , filthiest team that is 'awarded' the Stanley Cup , notice i did'nt say 'win' the cup , cause no american team is capable of 'winning' the Stanley Cup."
Now, I'm assuming that response is from a Canadian....I am now embarrased to share a country with someone like that, but anyway, his/her statement is so ironic:
Last year's playoff teams:
Vancouver - 14 Canadians, 5 Americans Boston - 15 Canadians, 1 American
The '96 Wings team lost to another power house, the Avs. It's not like the Avs snuck into the playoffs, they were #2 in the west by a large margin.
The '09 Sharks lost to Anaheim, a team that was 2 years removed from a cup. The same team that came close to beating the Wings.
The '09 Wings lost to the Pens, in game 7 of the finals. The Pens were #2 in the East, and had made the finals the year prior.
Essentially what I'm trying to say is those examples don't really showcase the "anything can happen" mentality. The teams that won had every right to win. You rarely see low seeds winning the Cup. They are a low seed for a reason. The '09 Anaheim team is probably the best 8 seed in the past decade.
'96 - yes, teh Avs were #2 in the West, but the West was pretty s***ty, #3 had 94pts. They were 10pts up on #3, but Detroit was 27pts ahead of them.
'09 - Anaheim was not only the 8th seed in the West, they were actually the worst team (points wise) going into the playoffs (East and West combined) that year.
It is true...anything can happen in a 7 game series, nothing is guaranteed. There are several examples of that, some of which apply to Detroit (2006 is another good example). How about the '86 Oilers. They scored 424 goals in the regular season, they finished 30pts ahead of the team that beat them in the playoffs.
Crosby is arguably the best offensive player in the game right now. But He's not far and away better than others. Gotta be careful how we can get carried away with that. There are talents close to that level as well in the NHL.
With that said, I'm looking forward to him getting Kronwalled in the finals .
If you are talking pure offensively, yes, he is far and away better. If he hadn't gotten hurt last year, he would likely have scored close to 65 goals and won the scoring title by 30+ points. If healthy this year, probably even more than that.
17 pts, +12 in 10 games. Pretty impressive after all the time he's missed. What he showed before getting hurt last year and in the small sample size this year, no one is even close offensively. He's good defensively as well, just not the best. Why do so many people try to argue defensive ability is so much more important than offensive when you are talking about best all-around forward? I can understand when you are talking about a one-dimensional player, but he's not.
Another point of reference....the players voted him the best a few weeks ago even though he had only played 8 games a few months before the poll.