Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
NHL set to scrap troubled season
- Thread starter wdlove
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pittsburg
Not at all. You have quoted me out of context. i was responding to a poster who who was concerned that small market teams would likely die regardless of a salary cap. He cited Pittsburg as an example of a team with a salary too low to even begin to ice a team. his thought was that a team like that wouldn't effectively benefit from a salary cap in the long run.
I disagreed with the prmise of his argument. What I said, in effect, was that I agreed with him that a team like Pittsburg, in their CURRENT CONDITION wouldn't merit the trouble. HOWEVER, it would be erroneous to judge the potential of Pittsburg to be a successful NHL city by their team payroll dollars from last season because they wouldn't be playing under the old CBA, but under a new system that would allow them to restructure, and market their product with a much greater degree of support than in the past. This new system, when we resolve the current crisis, will hopefully lead to greater possibilities for all.
I do not want to see any teams go by the wayside unless absolutely necessary. If teams meet minimum standards set by the NHL for in-house capacity, season tickets, minimum payroll spending, etc. then I believe they all deserve a chance to, and ultimately should, succeed, be it Pittsburg or whoever.
Koodauw said:
Not at all. You have quoted me out of context. i was responding to a poster who who was concerned that small market teams would likely die regardless of a salary cap. He cited Pittsburg as an example of a team with a salary too low to even begin to ice a team. his thought was that a team like that wouldn't effectively benefit from a salary cap in the long run.
I disagreed with the prmise of his argument. What I said, in effect, was that I agreed with him that a team like Pittsburg, in their CURRENT CONDITION wouldn't merit the trouble. HOWEVER, it would be erroneous to judge the potential of Pittsburg to be a successful NHL city by their team payroll dollars from last season because they wouldn't be playing under the old CBA, but under a new system that would allow them to restructure, and market their product with a much greater degree of support than in the past. This new system, when we resolve the current crisis, will hopefully lead to greater possibilities for all.
I do not want to see any teams go by the wayside unless absolutely necessary. If teams meet minimum standards set by the NHL for in-house capacity, season tickets, minimum payroll spending, etc. then I believe they all deserve a chance to, and ultimately should, succeed, be it Pittsburg or whoever.
paulypants said:
While I agree that the players need to be realistic about how popular their sport really is, it's silly to blame them for taking the money. That "horribly lopsided CBA" was so terrible that the owners extended it twice and only decided a couple years ago that it was a bad deal.
paulypants said:
In this case, you're wrong. Sports is part of the entertainment industry, where it's very common for performers' salaries to take up a large proportion of business expenses. Why? Because the performers are the draw. There's a reason that minor-league hockey is so cheap. It's because the players aren't nearly as good. People pay more for premium entertainment. If the owners went with replacement players next season, they might as well rename them the AHL, because that's how good the product will be. And people won't pay NHL prices for AHL games.
People like to compare rich athletes to employees at small businesses because that's closer to their real-life experiences, but that comparison doesn't work. It's like saying that Aston Martin shouldn't be able to sell any cars because they're too expensive. The NHL is a luxury item, like an Aston Martin. It's not necessary at all and many people prefer minor-league or college hockey, but enough people like the NHL and pay money for it that it has survived and thrived for a long time. But if they come back with replacement players, they'll be trying to sell us a Delorean instead. Some people will say, "Well, it's cheaper than the Aston Martin though" and they'll be right. But they also won't have the Aston Martin.
But wait, there's more, The season might be saved after all.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1994750
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1994750
stcanard said:
I'm with you
I dont even want there to be a season. It would be so ridiculus (i know its spelt wrong), the Stanley Cup would mean nothing.
Money talks and that is what's bringing them back to the table. Somebody must be hurting since comprimise is in teh air. It's important for this reason also.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2005/02/19/that_empty_feeling/
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2005/02/19/that_empty_feeling/
For the love of hockey, I've been hoping against a season ever since a deal was no reached in January.
Why? Here's my thoughts as posted on the Rodent's site:
By the time details were ironed out, free agents signed and a shortened schedule took off, we would have been well into what's normally playoff time.
Too many players are not in NHL game shape. Even less are in practice with teammates. None have been working with the team coaches.
Draft picks are unsigned and have never played pro hockey. Can't throw them straight into the fire with the playoffs two months away.
We would have seen sloppy play, bad passing and no functional coaching.
NHL hockey would be reduced to looking like a pick-up game. Casual fans paying big money for playoff tickets (and let's face it -- just about any team could end up in the playoffs) would be treated to a shoddy product and many would forever be turned off to the game.
The season was dead when a deal wasn't reached by mid-January.
With each passing day from then on, I increasingly began hoping against an agreement to "save" the season.
Ro, one of your recent rants said something about it being midnight, not the 11th hour. I read your statement and thought "it's more like quarter to one." Indeed it seems so.
Let's hope there's a deal before the sun comes up. The world's best hockey is waiting to be played.
Why? Here's my thoughts as posted on the Rodent's site:
By the time details were ironed out, free agents signed and a shortened schedule took off, we would have been well into what's normally playoff time.
Too many players are not in NHL game shape. Even less are in practice with teammates. None have been working with the team coaches.
Draft picks are unsigned and have never played pro hockey. Can't throw them straight into the fire with the playoffs two months away.
We would have seen sloppy play, bad passing and no functional coaching.
NHL hockey would be reduced to looking like a pick-up game. Casual fans paying big money for playoff tickets (and let's face it -- just about any team could end up in the playoffs) would be treated to a shoddy product and many would forever be turned off to the game.
The season was dead when a deal wasn't reached by mid-January.
With each passing day from then on, I increasingly began hoping against an agreement to "save" the season.
Ro, one of your recent rants said something about it being midnight, not the 11th hour. I read your statement and thought "it's more like quarter to one." Indeed it seems so.
Let's hope there's a deal before the sun comes up. The world's best hockey is waiting to be played.