That model doesn't seem to work in hockey though.


Or football really.


Baseball and basketball, where there's only half a dozen teams with a legit shot to win each year... Really only 2-3 in basketball.... Seem to certainly favor the huge spenders.

But we are hockey fans I think.
- robin_steele264

Then chew on this.

If the NHLPA is gone, the cap is gone. Which would also mean there no longer is a draft. So all players who would be draft eligible would be FA's. Teams will have to buy their players, and success, so only the strongest will survive. The Oilers would not be the strongest. They cant even get themselves a new arena.

Also, the reason there are only so many teams with a legit shot in those sports you mentioned is because those teams are the ones spending the big money.

What you are saying here seems like it makes sense to you and no one else.
- robin_steele264

Wait. Did MJL get an Alt acct?

Actually they have won 7 total. They have been consistently the top spending team in the MLB since 2000 and they have 2 as you put it. That sure is the formula for winning championships.
- ruttager17

We're talking recently.

Yea, two championships in 12 years is horrible.

They werent the only ones spending in those years, and more often than not, the teams they lost to were all top spenders. That sure isnt a formula for success though.

To the best of my knowledge, the only teams in the NHL it's ever worked for is the New York Rangers in 1994.
- LeftCoaster

That's the only example I was thinking... But I'm not sure how many they actually signed, and even their best player during that run was a Rangers product.

Then chew on this.

If the NHLPA is gone, the cap is gone. Which would also mean there no longer is a draft. So all players who would be draft eligible would be FA's. Teams will have to buy their players, and success, so only the strongest will survive. The Oilers would not be the strongest. They cant even get themselves a new arena.

Also, the reason there are only so many teams with a legit shot in those sports you mentioned is because those teams are the ones spending the big money.
- systemtool

I think there might be a negative aspect of that for the players.

I think there might be a negative aspect of that for the players.
- robin_steele264

I cant see what that could be.

Owners have shown they cant control themselves and their spending. Id be more worried for the NHL seeing as how they always need someone to save them from themselves.

If given free reign, id be worried and nervous to see how much teams would be paying for guys like Monohan, Mackinnon, Barkov, Shinkaruk, Jones etc

Good blog, Now I was listening to the team 1260 and Ched yesterday and if I heard the end result right and what happened in the MLB If the players were to win their antitrust cases a couple things would happen.
1) It would become a true free market system like baseball( where they did end up still with contracts to their teams and there is a MLB draft), but the soft cap/luxory tax would be like the days of before the Hard cap the Rangers of the world could spend much like the NY Yankees, but would pay a luxury tax to the poorer teams.
2) The players would be recieving a package from the teams that of three times the total of their salaries. That is what the MLB players recieved when the won their anti-trust cases on callusion.
The NHL( they were ready for this day) beat the NHLPA to the punch and filed two differht cases against the NHLPA.
1) To have the Lock-out recognised in New York (A pro-business state) making it hard for the NHLPA to file in a pro player state like California Smart Move.
2) They filed an anti-trust case against the NHLPA for bargining in bad faith citing the players wanted to file a DOI or Decertifcation all along to break the Owners backs for beating them during the last lock-out. Among the things that would happen if this came to pass would be the dissolosionment of all existing contracts.

This is really starting to look like a train wreck and f*ck me I can't keep my eyes off of it.

That's the only example I was thinking... But I'm not sure how many they actually signed, and even their best player during that run was a Rangers product.
- robin_steele264

Regardless if they were traded for or signed as a UFA, they're still spending or taking on a lot of dollars to ice the team. Only Richter and Leech were Rangers draft picks that year.

We're talking recently.

Yea, two championships in 12 years is horrible.

They werent the only ones spending in those years, and more often than not, the teams they lost to were all top spenders. That sure isnt a formula for success though.
- systemtool

When you do the math on how much money they spend Vs. championships they win??? I think the Florida marlins have them and the yankess beat winning in 2003
with a payroll ranked 20th in the league, hell they have won as many time as the red sox have in the last 100 years. Your theory is flawed. Plus we are talking hockey here and you are saying spending money wins championships. please provide examples

I cant see what that could be.

Owners have shown they cant control themselves and their spending. Id be more worried for the NHL seeing as how they always need someone to save them from themselves.

If given free reign, id be worried and nervous to see how much teams would be paying for guys like Monohan, Mackinnon, Barkov, Shinkaruk, Jones etc
- systemtool

You can't see anything bad about this for the players? Nothing?

When you do the math on how much money they spend Vs. championships they win??? I think the Florida marlins have them and the yankess beat winning in 2003
with a payroll ranked 20th in the league, hell they have won as many time as the red sox have in the last 100 years. Your theory is flawed. Plus we are talking hockey here and you are saying spending money wins championships. please provide examples
- ruttager17

The Florida Marlins are the exception, not the rule. Thats a rare case. Why focus on the Marlins and ignore the Giants, Yankees, Red sox, Phillies and Cardinals?

You can't see anything bad about this for the players? Nothing?
- robin_steele264

I can, but in the grand scale of things it benefits players more than the owners. Given how the owners havent been able to control themselves or their spending.

I can, but in the grand scale of things it benefits players more than the owners. Given how the owners havent been able to control themselves or their spending.
- systemtool

So losing a couple hundred jobs for the players would be worth it for the top guys getting paid more?

So losing a couple hundred jobs for the players would be worth it for the top guys getting paid more?
- robin_steele264

Who said anything about losing jobs? If you're talking team contraction, thats a whole other issue.

Teams need to ice the same number of players, so if one guy loses a job its to another player. It happens even with the CBA in place. Why are these "couple hundred jobs" being lost?

The issue isnt jobs being lost, the same number of jobs will exist unless there is contraction. The only downside would be the lack of guaranteed contracts.

Who said anything about losing jobs? If you're talking team contraction, thats a whole other issue.

Teams need to ice the same number of players, so if one guy loses a job its to another player. It happens even with the CBA in place.
- systemtool

I think a total free for all would kill off a few teams easily.


Also players would no longer have any rights. None.

Here is a theory I have been wondering. Don Fehr still has strong ties with baseball. He is a legend to the players for the money he has helped them achieve. You can't tell me that after all those years, Fehr doesn't still have a special place in his heart for the MLBPA.

Has anyone thought about the possibility that Fehr's approach may be to sink the NHLPA, cause them to decertify, and then use that as a springboard to challenge anti-trust laws? Here is what I am getting at. If that approach is taken, 2 things can happen. 1 is that it works and the NHLPA finally breaks the anti-trust barrier that has plagued all sports. Huge win for all player associations, especially baseball. The other side is that he loses and the players get hammered. To Fehr, no loss. However, if it goes this route, and the NHL gets pummeled, who does it benefit? Well, it benefits the other 3 major sports, especially baseball. Think about it. the big revenue in baseball is at the end of the season, not March - June. However, the big money in Hockey is March - June. If Fehr can deep six hockey, it would lead sports fans to focus on.....Baseball.

Does Fehr have an secondary motive? Is he trying to help baseball at hockey's expense?

I think a total free for all would kill off a few teams easily.


Also players would no longer have any rights. None.
- robin_steele264

Those teams could be relocated to proper markets like they should have years ago.

They also wouldnt have restrictions, like RFA status. Players rights are limited as it is. They're controlled by the team that drafts them for almost half their career if not more. Until the owners show the slightest ability to control themselves and their spending, there is more to gain than to lose for the players.

I completely agree. Im sick of it too.

What I disagree on, and it upsets me when this happens, is taking sides. Both sides are to blame for this mess. One side is not any more, or any less, to blame. While it seems easier to blame the PA right now, lets not forget that under Bettman there has been 3 lock outs. That under Bettmans rule, 9% of the games during his tenure have been cancelled due to CBA negotiations.

Both sides are guilty here. The NHLPA for being too greedy and blind to the damage theyre doing to themselves, but also the NHL for thinking they can just shut the league down everytime they want to have their way.
- systemtool

What you seem to forget (I am not a Bettman guy but I will give the guy his due) yes there have been three lock-outs. But the game under his rule grew from 300m a year to 3.3billion a year. The average player salary under Bettmans watch went from what 550k to 2.5m. Now this is starting in 1993 to now. There have been what 5 union heads since then Eagleson, Goodenow, Kelley, Saskin and now Fehr.
Take it for what you will, and like him or not Bettman has been good for the NHL and he seems to know what the hell he is doing. I don't like the arrogant wiener but he doesn't give a rats ass to what I think.

The Florida Marlins are the exception, not the rule. Thats a rare case. Why focus on the Marlins and ignore the Giants, Yankees, Red sox, Phillies and Cardinals?
- systemtool

Well no its not the exception because its not always the top spending team that wins. Giants had the 8th highest payroll last year, year before St, louis had the 11th highest payroll, year before that the Giants were the 10th highest. So it seems as though its not the teams that spend the most money that always win...

Here is a theory I have been wondering. Don Fehr still has strong ties with baseball. He is a legend to the players for the money he has helped them achieve. You can't tell me that after all those years, Fehr doesn't still have a special place in his heart for the MLBPA.

Has anyone thought about the possibility that Fehr's approach may be to sink the NHLPA, cause them to decertify, and then use that as a springboard to challenge anti-trust laws? Here is what I am getting at. If that approach is taken, 2 things can happen. 1 is that it works and the NHLPA finally breaks the anti-trust barrier that has plagued all sports. Huge win for all player associations, especially baseball. The other side is that he loses and the players get hammered. To Fehr, no loss. However, if it goes this route, and the NHL gets pummeled, who does it benefit? Well, it benefits the other 3 major sports, especially baseball. Think about it. the big revenue in baseball is at the end of the season, not March - June. However, the big money in Hockey is March - June. If Fehr can deep six hockey, it would lead sports fans to focus on.....Baseball.

Does Fehr have an secondary motive? Is he trying to help baseball at hockey's expense?
- dgutzman

conspirasy theories...I love it!

The Florida Marlins are the exception, not the rule. Thats a rare case. Why focus on the Marlins and ignore the Giants, Yankees, Red sox, Phillies and Cardinals?
- systemtool

There is a lot more parity in MLB than people assume. Look at any of the last 5 or 6 years and you would see that half the teams making the play-offs would be low salary teams if they had the same play-off structure as hockey. GMs got smarter.

The point about decertification is that almost all the rules would be gone - draft, cap, etc. Add to this that the owners legal suit called for all existing contracts to be tossed if the PA proceeds and you can see the chaos for a team like the Oilers who would have to bid in an open market for all its young stars.

That was my point in starting this discussion - plus just generally being pissed off at Cloutier.

What you seem to forget (I am not a Bettman guy but I will give the guy his due) yes there have been three lock-outs. But the game under his rule grew from 300m a year to 3.3billion a year. The average player salary under Bettmans watch went from what 550k to 2.5m. Now this is starting in 1993 to now. There have been what 5 union heads since then Eagleson, Goodenow, Kelley, Saskin and now Fehr.
Take it for what you will, and like him or not Bettman has been good for the NHL and he seems to know what the hell he is doing. I don't like the arrogant wiener but he doesn't give a rats ass to what I think.
- longbottom

Bettman has done good, no denying that. He also has done some harm as well. That growth could have still happened without Gary, and might even have had higher numbers than they did. What if we didnt stubbornly fight for teams like the BJs, Panthers and Coyotes. What if the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg sooner?

Once again, both sides are to blame in this mess. None more, or less, than the other.

Well no its not the exception because its not always the top spending team that wins. Giants had the 8th highest payroll last year, year before St, louis had the 11th highest payroll, year before that the Giants were the 10th highest. So it seems as though its not the teams that spend the most money that always win...
- ruttager17

So the 8th highest spending team means they arent one of the top spending teams?


Why are you not mentioning the Red Sox, Phillies and Yankees? Odd...but you mention the Marlins.

I think a total free for all would kill off a few teams easily.


Also players would no longer have any rights. None.
- robin_steele264

Players would not have collective rights negotiated on their behalf by the PA. They would have individual rights negotiated on their behalf by agents. I think impacts on players would be same as on franchises - those with market power do much better and the guys at bottom would do much worse.

Someone like Crosby could see a huge pay raise.

Those teams could be relocated to proper markets like they should have years ago.

They also wouldnt have restrictions, like RFA status. Players rights are limited as it is. They're controlled by the team that drafts them for almost half their career if not more. Until the owners show the slightest ability to control themselves and their spending, there is more to gain than to lose for the players.
- systemtool

They also wouldn't have things like gauranteed contracts.

They'd be chewed up and spit out at the teams whim.

Top players? Sure they'll cash in.... But the other 80-85% might not be so happy.