Lock Out Year: What a Waste of Time

[DarkStar50 679]

It seems like every time I hear another player being signed for $1Mil+ or $2Mil+, I wonder about the lock-out year. The players effectively threw away a year of salary and their careers to stand behind the paper tiger, Bob Goodenough. My point is that a year later it seems like everybody is back to being overpaid at salaries not exactly related to the true value of some players. The players could have figured this all out 18 months ago, signed for the salary cap, played 04-05, and never have lost a penny. The owners have mainly their own GMs to blame for these overpaid contracts, even with the salary cap. I guess the bottom line is that NHL games will still be too expensive for the average Joe and the family to go to if these contracts continue to go up. I'll just sign up for the NHL Center Ice TV package again. That was worth the money, not going to a game and spending $20 for a beer and a dog!

[Langenbrunner15 0]

That's the truth. It is kinda sad that it wasn't worth it and now it's all back to a mone game. Bit it only takes one peson/team to mess up the whole league, who IMO was Tampa Bay and who ever it was with them.

[RadioGaGa 162]

That's the truth. It is kinda sad that it wasn't worth it and now it's all back to a mone game. Bit it only takes one peson/team to mess up the whole league, who IMO was Tampa Bay and who ever it was with them.

That...and as soon as the lockout ended Atlanta signed Bobby Holik for an insame amount of money.

[Jason Harris 31]

I agree the players should have agreed to the cap immediately and fought on some other issues, but I don't agree with how little it's effected salaries..

Regardless how crazy some contracts may be, teams still have to be under the cap. Consequently, the premium becomes how well the organization is run, from drafting to valuing positions and players. No team has been better than that in the salary cap era than the Patriots. They understand that depth is crucial to winning championships, so they play a value of, say, 13% to the secondary or 16% to the offensive linemen. Thus, they won't go beyond a certain figure regardless how good a player is, because it will negatively impact their depth. Interestingly enough, people think they are cheap, but I read this weekend that they have the 7th highest actual payroll -- just lower signing bonuses.

In any event, the teams that are overspending on salaries today -- the Bruins with Chara, although they needed to do so for goodwill -- will end up having seven AHL players on their rosters.

[trucks 0]

Well Bradys not very happy with their 'cheapness' right now. Branch is demanding a contract extension similar to Reggie Wanyes in Indy and the Pats dont want to pay him that much. Hes Bradys favourite receiver and theyve already let all their other receivers go so if they dont sign Branch Bradys got no one to throw to. And it also helps that theyve got in my mind the best quarterback and my favourite player in the NFL (Michigan kid) whos willing to take paycuts so his team can sign better layers, not many pro athletes I know would do that. Its a shame he plays for the Pats because the Colts are my team but Im a huge Brady fan. ANYWAYS to get back on topic I think this was bound to happen with NHL salaries, owners are just stupid rich guys who dont understand. They should just give the GMs all the cap money and let the guys who understand the game work it out. The thing is even though these salaries are getting high again teams do still need to be under the cap. If there was no cap you can add a few more million to players salaries because the market would include all teams and would drive prices up even more. It should be interesting to watch what happens in a few years when these long term contracts really start to hurt people and teams are going to need more Brady-like players who are willing to make less then players they are better then so they dont hurt their chances of putting a full championship quality team together.

[Eazy_b97 1]

I agree the players should have agreed to the cap immediately and fought on some other issues, but I don't agree with how little it's effected salaries..

The players weren't sure how the league would be accepted. Lets face it, the NHL isn't really a hot commodity. It had a big bounce back year this past season, but the players had to be very careful on what they were willing to sign. All of these "Expensive" signings were really only possible because the cap went up so much this past season. The players made some huge concessions seeing something like this coming. This about the rollback and Goodenow saying they'll have made it back in 2 years. Seems like he was bang on. They weren't stupid enough to go into a system which didn't allow their salaries to grow at all.

It's the owners who are spending the money, it takes one bad contract and it causes a huge ripple effect. This system was supposed to be fool-proof.

[hamstercaster 2]

The cap does limit some damages but most of all it helps all 30 teams to be competitive. At some point big name players will have to sign elsewhere cause there will not be enough room under the cap to keep all your elite players. This system will be good for the good GM's and the teams with a good scouting system implemented. Teams who will draft well and will be smart enough to sign their young and upcoming stars to long term contracts will be the teams who will prevail in the near future. Also, we shoudln't see another NY Rangers trying to buy a cup as they won't have enough room under the cap. Sure, I hate to see some players making 8 million $ a year, but at leat they are limited to 20% of the cap in terms of maximum salary per player. But still, I think 1 million $ is already too much to play hockey. How can a professional athlete make more money than a doctor who saves lives? Anyway, that's a debate I'm not sure I want to get into. I have long ago taken a decision that I would never a penny again to go see professional sports live as I will not pay crazy amounts of money for a good seat for a game that may end up being a real sleeper.. although with the new rules we do get better hockey but it's just not worth a day of pay to be at the game

[DarkStar50 679]

Don't be so gullible, DS!  The owners are the biggest crooks during the whole thing.

The owners now pocket more money than ever, the GM's still sign out of whack contracts, and the common Joe is as screwed over as ever.

Theo,

I don't have a horse in this race so while you feel the owners are the bigger crooks, that still makes the players crooks, too. The cap is good that it will keep the Rangers and Red Wings from overspending and dragging up the Hawks and Pens to spend money on players to try and be competitive. Making those lower tier teams spend wisely is another story, see Hawks/Havlat! I just think this all could have been accomplished without the year off. It was Goodenough who forced the issue and wouldn't sit down to talk. I'm not going to start the Goodenough/Bettman argument, though. My point is they basically ended up in the same place they could have been in September 2004, instead of last year and today with role players signing contracts above their value to the team(see Sean Avery, among others). The best thing to come out of the lock-out were the rule changes. The NewNHL made all the difference in making the game better to watch.

The only time I'll be at the arena is also on a free pass. I won't drop $100 for a game ever again.

[DarkStar50 679]

The NFL'ization of the NHL is weird. Arnott to Preds, Lindros to Stars, Chara to B's, and others is just strange. So, in the end the NHL becomes like the other sports, players come and go, meat on the hoof. And, actually, they always were. Its just that the old school hockey owners when they were in bed with Eagleson had the players over the barrel. The worm has turned. That is all the cliches I have for now.

[Hooah4 12]

It seems like every time I hear another player being signed for $1Mil+ or $2Mil+, I wonder about the lock-out year. The players effectively threw away a year of salary and their careers to stand behind the paper tiger, Bob Goodenough. My point is that a year later it seems like everybody is back to being overpaid at salaries not exactly related to the true value of some players. The players could have figured this all out 18 months ago, signed for the salary cap, played 04-05, and never have lost a penny. The owners have mainly their own GMs to blame for these overpaid contracts, even with the salary cap. I guess the bottom line is that NHL games will still be too expensive for the average Joe and the family to go to if these contracts continue to go up. I'll just sign up for the NHL Center Ice TV package again. That was worth the money, not going to a game and spending $20 for a beer and a dog!

The lockout was never about keeping the average fan in the game it was a way for the owners to put the screws to the players. I agree with the Center Ice package deal, I'll spend the $150 for thw whole season rather than for 1 game. I'll use the savings to take my kids to a Bears or Royals game.

[kosydar 0]

Why not just cut 6 or 8 teams from the league? This would severely lower the demand for players and as a result their salaries would go down. Obviously not all 30 teams in the league are making money. If you cut down the number of teams you obviously cut down the number of players who will be signed by an NHL team. Assuming their are 20 rostered NHL players per team, I can easily think of 120-160 who really shouldn't be in the NHL. Assuming the 22-24 teams in the league are all able to financially support themselves, what need is there for a salary cap? Why not just have a UFA salary cap? That way a team isn't punished for drafting well, or aquiring and developing top prospects. This will still not allow teams to absolutely load up on UFAs, but it shouldn't hurt them otherwise.

More better players on a team= a better team. Better teams= better games. Better games= more market interest, more successful financially.

[donkey87 0]

Why not just cut 6 or 8 teams from the league? This would severely lower the demand for players and as a result their salaries would go down. Obviously not all 30 teams in the league are making money. If you cut down the number of teams you obviously cut down the number of players who will be signed by an NHL team. Assuming their are 20 rostered NHL players per team, I can easily think of 120-160 who really shouldn't be in the NHL. Assuming the 22-24 teams in the league are all able to financially support themselves, what need is there for a salary cap? Why not just have a UFA salary cap? That way a team isn't punished for drafting well, or aquiring and developing top prospects. This will still not allow teams to absolutely load up on UFAs, but it shouldn't hurt them otherwise.

More better players on a team= a better team. Better teams= better games. Better games= more market interest, more successful financially.

The only problem with your idea is determining which teams to cut. I don't think any of the owners would want their team to suddenly be cut from the league. Plus even the newest teams in the league have been around for several seasons. While your solution is logical, I think that simply not expanding any further is the more realistic idea. Keep the teams you have, but make them successful.

[kosydar 0]

But what else can be done to help them be successful? Why should the successful teams have to suffer even more so that teams who have shown their markets won't support a team might start to make money? People need to come to the realization that the NHL cannot support 30 teams in 30 markets. If people actually liked hockey in the US they could, but unfortunately thats not the case. The owners who are losing money shouldn't object if the NHL offered some sort of a buy out. After all, these teams are losing money. All the owners in the league have to be at least somewhat decent businessmen to get to where they are. They should know when to dump a bad investment. I don't think it would be that hard to figure out what teams need to go, the numbers speak for themselves. Unforunately fans think of this from a sentimental point of view rather than a business one. If you say a team like Pittsburgh should be cut from the league after being given numerous chances to get their act in shape, fans will come back with "but we had Mario! We have Sidney! We have a history!"

[trucks 0]

I wish getting rid of teams was that easy. I can think of one solution but it would be very tough to implement. If you consider the NHL an A league, the AHL a B league, and the ECHL a C league you could punish teams like is done is some European soccer leagues. If a team finishes in the bottom of the NHL make them play in the lower tier league for a season. This is just a basic solution, Im sure with more thinking it could be implemented or maybe it makes no sense. It would force owners to field competitive teams so they could stay in the NHL and it would make AHL owners want a top AHL team so maybe they could make it to the NHL. Players would sign to a franchise which consists of a team from each league and the best players would stay in the NHL at the AHL teams request while they could also bring some of their players up. I dont know if any of that makes sense to anyone, I just figured its how its done in the Italian soccer league I think so it could be worth a shot. I guarantee the NHL would never do it though.

[kosydar 0]

But what people are failing to realize is that in some cases it isn't about being good or being bad, its about being in the right market. The Maple Leafs, the Senators, the Habs, the Red Wings, the Avalanche, the Flyers, the Rangers, ect. could all be the worst teams in the league and still sell out games. The Wild have been shitty the last couple of years and they still sell out every game. Look at the South East division. They've won the last two Stanley Cups. How are their attendance numbers? They are some of the lowest in the league. The only team in there that consistantly sells out is TB. If the attendance numbers aren't great, then one can just assume that the TV numbers aren't good, the merchandise numbers aren't good, and the team, overall, just isn't making enough money from the market.

[DarkStar50 679]

Kosy,

I know why you are thinking what you are thinking: make the NHL better but what pro sports league ever cut franchises and was successful? These are great ideas to kick around in the forum but unfortunately would never happen. The Blue Jackets stink but haven't they sold out like crazy? The Ducks used to sell-out but now they are very competitive so lets see how many show up. The Devils win 3 Cups in 9 years but are in over saturated sports and entertainment market. They play to sparse crowds with a very good team every season. The Isles have some loyal fans but they are being driven away by the crazy owner. Just imagine the Pens moving to KC.That sounds about as exciting as moving to Nashville. No offence to Preds fans but how many people live in metro Nashville? The NHL is stuck with 30 teams. Hopefully things will improve financially but I wouldn't count on it. It will be interesting to see who does screw themselves in a few years with contracts they are writing this summer.

[kosydar 0]

The NHL dug its own grave by expanding as much as it did in the 90s. Do I think that any teams will ever be cut from the NHL? Mostly likely not. Its unfortunate that it won't happen, too. I'm not familiar with the NY area at all, so hopefully those of you who are will chime in. Is there really a need for three teams so close together? The Rangers get something like 99% attendance, while the Devils and the Islanders get 74% and 77% respectively. Is that because the Rangers have the best fan base? With the exception of this past year, its not like the Rangers have been good yet they still sell out. This is what I was alluding to earlier. I don't claim to be an expert in economics or business or anything of the sort. All of this just seems very simple to me. Eliminate the teams that can't support themselves. Teams who can't draw a consistant fanbase throughout the season shouldn't be catered to by the league. Yes, ticket prices are very, very high, and that is a major sticking point around the league. But what messes people up is that throughout the league, half of the teams have tens of thousands of fans willing to pay these absurd prices game after game.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2006

[cobrAA 0]

I think that the NHL shouldn't be the NHL... i would like to see a canadian league and a USA league.Be proud of your country or whatever you want. face it. Hockey is nothing in America, all those big salary started with the american teams.

Look at the football league. I don't think the CFL have overpriced salary. Okay, the game is maybe a bit slower or whatever(i'm not a football fans at all).

But in Canada, ever ever a CHL could be worse than any hockey league,we have enought player to make an excellent league. And player who want big salary, they could go away.

[cobrAA 0]

i may sound a bit anti-american but oh well...I don't remember when but i think it was in 2004, ESPN or something like that had better audience when it was poker champ. than NHL....

[DarkStar50 679]

I guess you forget when all the CANADIAN players signed with teams in the US and also did not want to get traded to Canadian teams because the Canadian $ was so bad and Canadian taxes also killed their paycheck. I know the $ has changed since then but it could always swing back. I am not trying to sound anti-Canadian cobrAA but I know you are bit young and may not know about this. BTW, hockey is something in America.

[Chadd 916]

It seems like every time I hear another player being signed for $1Mil+ or $2Mil+, I wonder about the lock-out year. The players effectively threw away a year of salary and their careers to stand behind the paper tiger, Bob Goodenough. My point is that a year later it seems like everybody is back to being overpaid at salaries not exactly related to the true value of some players. The players could have figured this all out 18 months ago, signed for the salary cap, played 04-05, and never have lost a penny. The owners have mainly their own GMs to blame for these overpaid contracts, even with the salary cap. I guess the bottom line is that NHL games will still be too expensive for the average Joe and the family to go to if these contracts continue to go up. I'll just sign up for the NHL Center Ice TV package again. That was worth the money, not going to a game and spending $20 for a beer and a dog!

Admittedly I haven;t read all of the posts so I apologize if any of this was covered. The NHL's original cap was much lower than the final figure. They also refused to move on a number of issues relating to "hockey revenue" until late in the process as well. Had the players agreed to any deal before the season was finally cancelled, salaries would have been a lot lower than they are now. In all honesty, I think both sides are going to be unhappy with the results of this CBA when all is said and done.

[Chadd 916]

Why not just cut 6 or 8 teams from the league? This would severely lower the demand for players and as a result their salaries would go down. Obviously not all 30 teams in the league are making money. If you cut down the number of teams you obviously cut down the number of players who will be signed by an NHL team. Assuming their are 20 rostered NHL players per team, I can easily think of 120-160 who really shouldn't be in the NHL. Assuming the 22-24 teams in the league are all able to financially support themselves, what need is there for a salary cap? Why not just have a UFA salary cap? That way a team isn't punished for drafting well, or aquiring and developing top prospects. This will still not allow teams to absolutely load up on UFAs, but it shouldn't hurt them otherwise.

More better players on a team= a better team. Better teams= better games. Better games= more market interest, more successful financially.

Reducing the number of teams will reduce the NHL's footprint in the US. You don't create new fans by making yourself smaller and making yourself harder to find.

[kosydar 0]

I've given up hope on creating new fans in new markets. There will always be hockey fans in New York, Detroit, Minnesota, Boston, Colorado, LA (due to sheer size), etc. I'm just not convinced that there will be flourishing markets with tons of new fans each year in places like Carolina, Nashville, and Florida.

[Chadd 916]

I've given up hope on creating new fans in new markets. There will always be hockey fans in New York, Detroit, Minnesota, Boston, Colorado, LA (due to sheer size), etc. I'm just not convinced that there will be flourishing markets with tons of new fans each year in places like Carolina, Nashville, and Florida.

Carolina will be a good test. They won the cup and should get a big boost this year. Tampa got hosed and never had a chance to enjoy their post-cup bump.

[Jason Harris 31]

Kosy, the main reason all the sports leagues expanded over the past twenty years is it increased their demographics for TV. The higher the potential viewers, the higher the potential contract. For the other three sports, income from the networks is the greatest source of revenue, but the hockey contract is negligible because of their poor numbers. Still, it's obvious that cities with teams will develop fans, which makes the league more appealing to the networks. (By the way, I've been told by friends that Colorado wasn't much of a hockey region until the Avs came and won almost right away.)

Chadd, I don't understand why you think both sides will regret the CBA. The majority of the teams can peg their salaries at X percent, which is the desire of virtually all other industries. If incomes grow, they'll give raises; if incomes sink, they'll retract. It seems the only ones who might feel a pinch are the smaller markets if they feel the cap has grown beyond their means. Although that is obviously a good sign for the league overall, it could cause them to lag by paying closer to the cap's floor. However, a gap between the Haves and Have Nots doesn't seem to be any different than the circumstances of two years ago.