Friday, July 06, 2007
Can A Small Market Team Win In this CBA?
The pre-lockout CBA was criticized because it was supposed to have made it hard for small market teams to win. This was supposed to be because bigger markets had an advantage because they could have larger payrolls then the small markets. This theory had many people believing that you could buy a Stanley Cup championship. This is in spite of the evidence to the contrary. In fact, the final Stanley Cup under the old CBA was won by smaller market Tampa Bay who defeated smaller market Calgary. Teams had to develop a young talented core to be serious Stanley Cup contenders. Detroit did it. Colorado did it. New Jersey did it. Dallas did it. They all had to be strong enough hockey markets to be able to afford to keep that talent as they got older and required raises, but they could not buy a championship. The New York Rangers tried that for years and failed. Instead of developing a core of young players they bought free agents and they continually missed the playoffs. This was because free agents were 31 years old or older and usually into the decline phase of their careers.
The NHL world changed after the lockout. There was a salary cap. A salary cap which was sold as one to level the playing field as it prevented the rich teams from buying a championship (which they never could before). A salary cap which was tied to revenues and would soon rise to the point that only the rich could afford to spend at that level. Coupled with this was liberalized free agency that allowed players to move to new markets at ages as young as 25. Now there are players available for purchase that are young enough to play the best hockey of their careers after they are bought. Now it becomes possible to buy top level players. Now teams are forced to spend even more money to keep their talented young cores together as they develop, giving the smaller market teams less chance at winning the cup.
The two best examples of successful small market teams in the early two years of the current CBA are Buffalo and Nashville (which I cited in this post). Both of these teams are being hit hard by this CBA this summer. Buffalo has lost Daniel Briere to big market Philadelphia and Chris Drury to big market New York as free agents. They are struggling with giving restricted free agents Tomas Vanek and Derek Roy the raises that they will deserve. In all likelihood, Buffalo will not be as strong a team next year as they were in this one.
Nashville was hit even harder, although this is due in part to the ownership uncertainty. They have lost Kimmo Timonen and Scott Hartnell (the first 25 year old UFA) to big market Philadelphia, Paul Kariya to traditional free agent buyer St Louis and traded Tomas Vokoun to Florida. This team will also undoubtedly be weaker next year.
These teams show that, while it might be possible to build a good core under this CBA, keeping it together for any significant period of time is not possible, especially in a small market where you cannot spend to the salary cap limit. This CBA is designed to increase player movement and make it hard to keep successful teams together. It has tilted the playing field toward the bigger spenders who can afford to buy big name free agents and spend up to the salary cap. They have better younger free agents to buy.
Realistically, all a GM can do is build a team good enough to be a contender. One of the contenders will win. The more years you contend, the better chance you have of being that winner. If it takes several years to build a young core and they are broken up right as they show they are good by liberalized free agency that allows player to leave up to six years earlier, it makes the chances of winning the Stanley Cup much smaller.
We know smaller markets could win in the old CBA (Tampa Bay did). We know smaller markets could win as long as the salary cap was artificially low (Carolina did). Now that the salary cap is starting to escalate and free agency ages have been lowered is it still possible? I do not see any team that appears on the verge of doing it next year. The bigger markets will likely win. They may not be the biggest markets (New York, Los Angeles), but we appear to be heading in that direction. As Tom Benjamin writes it's just what Gary Bettman wants.
The NHL world changed after the lockout. There was a salary cap. A salary cap which was sold as one to level the playing field as it prevented the rich teams from buying a championship (which they never could before). A salary cap which was tied to revenues and would soon rise to the point that only the rich could afford to spend at that level. Coupled with this was liberalized free agency that allowed players to move to new markets at ages as young as 25. Now there are players available for purchase that are young enough to play the best hockey of their careers after they are bought. Now it becomes possible to buy top level players. Now teams are forced to spend even more money to keep their talented young cores together as they develop, giving the smaller market teams less chance at winning the cup.
The two best examples of successful small market teams in the early two years of the current CBA are Buffalo and Nashville (which I cited in this post). Both of these teams are being hit hard by this CBA this summer. Buffalo has lost Daniel Briere to big market Philadelphia and Chris Drury to big market New York as free agents. They are struggling with giving restricted free agents Tomas Vanek and Derek Roy the raises that they will deserve. In all likelihood, Buffalo will not be as strong a team next year as they were in this one.
Nashville was hit even harder, although this is due in part to the ownership uncertainty. They have lost Kimmo Timonen and Scott Hartnell (the first 25 year old UFA) to big market Philadelphia, Paul Kariya to traditional free agent buyer St Louis and traded Tomas Vokoun to Florida. This team will also undoubtedly be weaker next year.
These teams show that, while it might be possible to build a good core under this CBA, keeping it together for any significant period of time is not possible, especially in a small market where you cannot spend to the salary cap limit. This CBA is designed to increase player movement and make it hard to keep successful teams together. It has tilted the playing field toward the bigger spenders who can afford to buy big name free agents and spend up to the salary cap. They have better younger free agents to buy.
Realistically, all a GM can do is build a team good enough to be a contender. One of the contenders will win. The more years you contend, the better chance you have of being that winner. If it takes several years to build a young core and they are broken up right as they show they are good by liberalized free agency that allows player to leave up to six years earlier, it makes the chances of winning the Stanley Cup much smaller.
We know smaller markets could win in the old CBA (Tampa Bay did). We know smaller markets could win as long as the salary cap was artificially low (Carolina did). Now that the salary cap is starting to escalate and free agency ages have been lowered is it still possible? I do not see any team that appears on the verge of doing it next year. The bigger markets will likely win. They may not be the biggest markets (New York, Los Angeles), but we appear to be heading in that direction. As Tom Benjamin writes it's just what Gary Bettman wants.
Comments:
<< Home
Theoretically it should be easier for small market teams to compete.
Under the old CBA, the top teams spent $65-75 million and the small market teams spent <$30 million. That top teams spent >100% of the small market teams. In year 1 of the new CBA, the top teams were allowed to spend $39 million and the bottom teams had to spend $23 million. That meant the big spenders spent ~70% more than the smallest spenders (if any even went down to $23 million). Next season the top market teams can spend $50.3 million compared to the small market teams at $34.3 million. That means the big spenders can only spend ~46% more than the small spenders.
So, if spending money correlates directly with being able to win, then the small market teams should have a better chance of winning.
But the reality is, no matter how much money you spend it still comes down to making smart hockey moves. The pre-lockout Rangers are an example of spending lots of money and not winning. The Bruins last year spend lots of money and didn't win.
Under the old CBA, the top teams spent $65-75 million and the small market teams spent <$30 million. That top teams spent >100% of the small market teams. In year 1 of the new CBA, the top teams were allowed to spend $39 million and the bottom teams had to spend $23 million. That meant the big spenders spent ~70% more than the smallest spenders (if any even went down to $23 million). Next season the top market teams can spend $50.3 million compared to the small market teams at $34.3 million. That means the big spenders can only spend ~46% more than the small spenders.
So, if spending money correlates directly with being able to win, then the small market teams should have a better chance of winning.
But the reality is, no matter how much money you spend it still comes down to making smart hockey moves. The pre-lockout Rangers are an example of spending lots of money and not winning. The Bruins last year spend lots of money and didn't win.
# posted by 
: July 06, 2007 9:52 AM
: July 06, 2007 9:52 AM
Spending momney does not correlate with winning. This theoretical situation you are discussing is fantasy. This theory is plain wrong.
I'd say your premise is faulty, and your examples are flawed.
Firstly the pre-lockout CBA was justifiably criticized for allowing the Rangers (and others, but the Rangers were the worst offenders) to drop horrific amounts of money on free agents and drive the price up for everyone else in the market place. Stephane Quintal? Valeri Kamensky? Pavel Bure? The list goes on, and on, and on.
This completely distorts the marketplace and forces small market teams like Edmonton to shed talent to the highest bidder.
Then you said;
"Now it becomes possible to buy top level players. Now teams are forced to spend even more money to keep their talented young cores together as they develop, giving the smaller market teams less chance at winning the cup."
Based on the evidence, this is simply false.
Buffalo could have re-signed both Briere and Drury for less - but didn't they felt either that playing chicken with them would lead to a better deal, or that they could afford to do without them. Either way, it was a costly stupidity. Ryan Smyth is another example. Edmonton could have signed him at a reasonable rate for his production ($5.5 or so) and make him a career Oiler like he (and they) wanted. But instead, Lowe played hardball with Smyth, Smyth was subsequently traded to the Islander, and now has a massive contract with Colorado. Meanwhile, Lowe and the Oilers look around and realize they made a HUGE mistake. Both Buffalo and Edmonton could have avoided this disaster by making better decisions.
Then we have Calgary - a well run team by everyone's assessment. They manage to re-sign Iginla AND Regehr before either go to Free Agency. They add Corey Sarich to a long term deal for reasonable money. They add a gritty veteran winger with scoring punch in Owen Nolan. In short, they look like a Stanley Cup contender - one that hasn't seen it's talent base raided by others, and that somehow miraculously managed to make the new CBA work.
The facts are that Briere could have just as easily ended up in Montreal - a small market team - but for the fact that the Flyers already have one of his best friends Martin Biron on the team.
The facts are that the Oilers and Sabres mgt completely miscalculated the leverage they had with their players in salary negotiations and as a result, they have been gutted.
Is this the fault of the new CBA? Hardly. The new CBA has simply exposed a few GMs for the hacks they really are. Given the same set of cards as just about everyone else (give or take a couple of million) the Flames have been able to make themselves into a championship calibre team - meanwhile the Oilers have revealed themselves to be one of the league's worst managed teams.
"The two best examples of successful small market teams in the early two years of the current CBA are Buffalo and Nashville (which I cited in this post). Both of these teams are being hit hard by this CBA this summer."
As I point out, this is factually incorrect for Buffalo (because if they had been managed correctly they would have kept one or both of Drury/Briere).
Nashville is also a red-herring for your argument as the current ownership has given orders to the GM to push the salaries to the minimum league requirement while he tries to sell the team. In short, the talent exodus has absolutely nothing to do with the new CBA.
"It has tilted the playing field toward the bigger spenders who can afford to buy big name free agents and spend up to the salary cap. They have better younger free agents to buy."
If it has tilted the playing field at all, it is back towards a more even playing field. 9 teams were in the bidding for Ryan Smyth - that's 1/3rd of the league! Among those teams were several 'small market' clubs. No, what matters these days is not how much you can spend, it's how nice a destination are you?
New York will be the preferred destination not because they can outspend everyone (they no longer can) but because it's NEW YORK and not crappy Edmonton.
Firstly the pre-lockout CBA was justifiably criticized for allowing the Rangers (and others, but the Rangers were the worst offenders) to drop horrific amounts of money on free agents and drive the price up for everyone else in the market place. Stephane Quintal? Valeri Kamensky? Pavel Bure? The list goes on, and on, and on.
This completely distorts the marketplace and forces small market teams like Edmonton to shed talent to the highest bidder.
Then you said;
"Now it becomes possible to buy top level players. Now teams are forced to spend even more money to keep their talented young cores together as they develop, giving the smaller market teams less chance at winning the cup."
Based on the evidence, this is simply false.
Buffalo could have re-signed both Briere and Drury for less - but didn't they felt either that playing chicken with them would lead to a better deal, or that they could afford to do without them. Either way, it was a costly stupidity. Ryan Smyth is another example. Edmonton could have signed him at a reasonable rate for his production ($5.5 or so) and make him a career Oiler like he (and they) wanted. But instead, Lowe played hardball with Smyth, Smyth was subsequently traded to the Islander, and now has a massive contract with Colorado. Meanwhile, Lowe and the Oilers look around and realize they made a HUGE mistake. Both Buffalo and Edmonton could have avoided this disaster by making better decisions.
Then we have Calgary - a well run team by everyone's assessment. They manage to re-sign Iginla AND Regehr before either go to Free Agency. They add Corey Sarich to a long term deal for reasonable money. They add a gritty veteran winger with scoring punch in Owen Nolan. In short, they look like a Stanley Cup contender - one that hasn't seen it's talent base raided by others, and that somehow miraculously managed to make the new CBA work.
The facts are that Briere could have just as easily ended up in Montreal - a small market team - but for the fact that the Flyers already have one of his best friends Martin Biron on the team.
The facts are that the Oilers and Sabres mgt completely miscalculated the leverage they had with their players in salary negotiations and as a result, they have been gutted.
Is this the fault of the new CBA? Hardly. The new CBA has simply exposed a few GMs for the hacks they really are. Given the same set of cards as just about everyone else (give or take a couple of million) the Flames have been able to make themselves into a championship calibre team - meanwhile the Oilers have revealed themselves to be one of the league's worst managed teams.
"The two best examples of successful small market teams in the early two years of the current CBA are Buffalo and Nashville (which I cited in this post). Both of these teams are being hit hard by this CBA this summer."
As I point out, this is factually incorrect for Buffalo (because if they had been managed correctly they would have kept one or both of Drury/Briere).
Nashville is also a red-herring for your argument as the current ownership has given orders to the GM to push the salaries to the minimum league requirement while he tries to sell the team. In short, the talent exodus has absolutely nothing to do with the new CBA.
"It has tilted the playing field toward the bigger spenders who can afford to buy big name free agents and spend up to the salary cap. They have better younger free agents to buy."
If it has tilted the playing field at all, it is back towards a more even playing field. 9 teams were in the bidding for Ryan Smyth - that's 1/3rd of the league! Among those teams were several 'small market' clubs. No, what matters these days is not how much you can spend, it's how nice a destination are you?
New York will be the preferred destination not because they can outspend everyone (they no longer can) but because it's NEW YORK and not crappy Edmonton.
It has tilted the playing field toward the bigger spenders who can afford to buy big name free agents and spend up to the salary cap.
...
Spending momney does not correlate with winning.
I am confused. Which is it? Do the big market teams have an advantage because they can spend money or does money not correlate with winning?
...
Spending momney does not correlate with winning.
I am confused. Which is it? Do the big market teams have an advantage because they can spend money or does money not correlate with winning?
# posted by : July 06, 2007 12:06 PM
: July 06, 2007 12:06 PM
David: It all depends what is for sale. Spending money doesn't correlate with winning unless there is something to spend the money on. UFAs who are from age 25 and up are far more valuable then those from age 31 and up. Its easier to buy a winning team if more good players in the primes of their careers are for sale. That is the important change.
As for small market teams its much easier to build a winner when you own the rights of your core until age 31 then age 27 or 25. You have to bid more money to keep your players when they approach those ages of freedom. As it stands right now if you draft a player, there is a considerable chance the best year of his career will occur after he has been a UFA. That was not true under the old CBA.
Cameron: I think your problem is twofold. First you have no idea what is meant by a small market team. For the sake of this article lets define it as a team that is unwilling to spend to the salary cap even if they have a good chance to contend for the cup - thats the working definition under this CBA (it is slightly different under the old one). Witgh the increase in the Canadian dollar, these Canadian markets don't appear so small (Montreal never was and Calgary doesn't seem to be small today either).
You may have some 20/20 hindsight scenarios where Buffalo or Nashville could have kept their talent, but the fact is they didn't and it will cost them in the standings next year. There is no small market team in the NHL today that I would call a serious contender next near. None. Is that just a fluke or is it by design of the CBA? Bufaalo and Nashville were the two best examples last year and they are quickly falling by the wayside.
As for the pre-CBA Rangers if they want to spenmd ridiculous money on players that dont help them win who cares? Let them lose and let them be expensive. Somebody else will win. Maybe a small market. However, Bettman saw changes had to be made so that the Rangers could use their financial power to actually< buy sucess.
As for small market teams its much easier to build a winner when you own the rights of your core until age 31 then age 27 or 25. You have to bid more money to keep your players when they approach those ages of freedom. As it stands right now if you draft a player, there is a considerable chance the best year of his career will occur after he has been a UFA. That was not true under the old CBA.
Cameron: I think your problem is twofold. First you have no idea what is meant by a small market team. For the sake of this article lets define it as a team that is unwilling to spend to the salary cap even if they have a good chance to contend for the cup - thats the working definition under this CBA (it is slightly different under the old one). Witgh the increase in the Canadian dollar, these Canadian markets don't appear so small (Montreal never was and Calgary doesn't seem to be small today either).
You may have some 20/20 hindsight scenarios where Buffalo or Nashville could have kept their talent, but the fact is they didn't and it will cost them in the standings next year. There is no small market team in the NHL today that I would call a serious contender next near. None. Is that just a fluke or is it by design of the CBA? Bufaalo and Nashville were the two best examples last year and they are quickly falling by the wayside.
As for the pre-CBA Rangers if they want to spenmd ridiculous money on players that dont help them win who cares? Let them lose and let them be expensive. Somebody else will win. Maybe a small market. However, Bettman saw changes had to be made so that the Rangers could use their financial power to actually< buy sucess.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2927805
I think this makes my point for me. Edmonton extended an offer of $50M to Vanek over 7 years (just over a $7M cap hit per season) - or roughly Iginla money.
Buffalo matches. Yet both are by your definition 'small market teams'.
One small market team extends a max contract offer - the other matches.
Seems likes the current CBA is working just fine if you ask me.
As for Buffalo and Edmonton what made either team think that the market for FA's would make things easier to sign their players rather than harder? Everybody knew what $ figures were being offered to Briere and Smyth (and in Smyth's case we were even privy to how small the amount they were apart was), so was it voodoo to predict that on the open market they would get more?
No. For either team to cry foul and point fingers at the CBA is totally disingenuous - they had a better chance of signing that talent to longer term, lesser money deals than anyone else - and hacked it completely.
As for Nashville, their situation has nothing to do with the CBA and everything to do with Leipold selling the team.
Lastly, what's wrong with 20-20 hindsight?
Isn't it better to review the evidence of what actually happened and make a judgement than to presume it's all Bettman's conspiracy and tailor the evidence we look at to reach that conclusion?
I think this makes my point for me. Edmonton extended an offer of $50M to Vanek over 7 years (just over a $7M cap hit per season) - or roughly Iginla money.
Buffalo matches. Yet both are by your definition 'small market teams'.
One small market team extends a max contract offer - the other matches.
Seems likes the current CBA is working just fine if you ask me.
As for Buffalo and Edmonton what made either team think that the market for FA's would make things easier to sign their players rather than harder? Everybody knew what $ figures were being offered to Briere and Smyth (and in Smyth's case we were even privy to how small the amount they were apart was), so was it voodoo to predict that on the open market they would get more?
No. For either team to cry foul and point fingers at the CBA is totally disingenuous - they had a better chance of signing that talent to longer term, lesser money deals than anyone else - and hacked it completely.
As for Nashville, their situation has nothing to do with the CBA and everything to do with Leipold selling the team.
Lastly, what's wrong with 20-20 hindsight?
Isn't it better to review the evidence of what actually happened and make a judgement than to presume it's all Bettman's conspiracy and tailor the evidence we look at to reach that conclusion?
I mostly agree with what you are saying, but not 100%. With the top players making $7 million and up the difference between the top spending teams and the bottom spending teams is two elite players. Now, that is significant, but I am not sure it is more significant than under the old CBA and player salaries and the cap rises, the difference just gets smaller.
As for small market (or lower spending) teams not being contenders? I am not sure. It is still early and some teams budgets and rosters may still change but I think there are a number of teams that can contend on mid-level budgets. If both Niedermayer and Selanne do retire, Anaheim will be well below the cap and I think they are still contenders. San Jose is well below the cap and they have an excellent team and a chance to contend. Dallas and Pittsburgh are both well under the cap and while I don't think they are top tier contenders I think they are in the mix of second tier contenders. I also wouldn't underestimate the Florida Panthers. I think they could surprise people this year.
One thing we need to remember is before the 2003-04 season no one considered Tampa a top contender and before the 2005-06 season no one considered Carolina a contender.
As for the Rangers, there is one key reason why they improved the past few seasons and his name is Henrik Lundqvist.
As for small market (or lower spending) teams not being contenders? I am not sure. It is still early and some teams budgets and rosters may still change but I think there are a number of teams that can contend on mid-level budgets. If both Niedermayer and Selanne do retire, Anaheim will be well below the cap and I think they are still contenders. San Jose is well below the cap and they have an excellent team and a chance to contend. Dallas and Pittsburgh are both well under the cap and while I don't think they are top tier contenders I think they are in the mix of second tier contenders. I also wouldn't underestimate the Florida Panthers. I think they could surprise people this year.
One thing we need to remember is before the 2003-04 season no one considered Tampa a top contender and before the 2005-06 season no one considered Carolina a contender.
As for the Rangers, there is one key reason why they improved the past few seasons and his name is Henrik Lundqvist.
# posted by : July 06, 2007 1:03 PM
: July 06, 2007 1:03 PM
I intend to write about Vanek probably tomorrow I will have time. Buffalo could not have matched and kept Brier and Drury even under your 20/20 hindsight scenario. I think Edmonton knew they were not going to get Vanek anyway. Regier claims he told them so last night. I think for Kevin >Lowe this was an attempt to look like he did something this summer when he failed in landing his star player he promised. In the end Edmonton is no contender and Buffalo probably wont be either. The CBA did that. Possibly along with less than 100% perfect GMs (of course 100% perfect GMs dont exist - thats why 20/20 hindsight saying something could posssibly have been done to show that there is no CBA problem - if nobody ever does it what difference does the faint chance that in hindsight you can still find make?)
The CBA had nothing to do with Edmonton's demise.
Consider;
- they had Pronger - but lost him, not because of the CBA, but because Edmonton sucks.
- they had a battle tested third liner in Peca, and lost him, not because of the CBA, but because Edmonton sucks.
- they could have signed Smyth for $1M less than he got on the open market - but they played hardball with him instead, and dealt him away rather than pay him what in retrospect was a fair price. Why did this happen? Poor mgt.
Throw into this the shortsighted decision to trade a 1st rnd pick for a 36 year old goaltender if limited upside (now a rapidly aging 38), passing on Zach Parise to move down and draft MA Pouliot, etc. And the pattern is clear, it is not that the team can't spend what it needs to to keep it's players, it's not that the CBA somehow strangles the team, it's that Kevin Lowe is an idiot.
How about Buffalo?
- Could have re-signed at $1M less than he got on the open market - but decided not to.
- Could have re-signed Drury for about what he got on the open market (and I for one believe he is WAY overpaid at that price), but chose to let him leave as a UFA.
- Zubrus? Was a rental player anyway - so it wasn't someone they were building around.
- Vanek. Here they grow some balls and decide to match the Oilers offer.
But wait a minute, aren't small market teams supposed to be prevented from doing so?
Now you are right to suggest that there was no way the Sabres could have kept all of their talent and stay under the cap. But they could have kept both Drury and Briere (or just Briere and be further ahead cap space wise), let Vanek go for 4 1st rnd picks (a fair price), be under the cap and competitive for years to come.
But to say that their problems are caused by the cap is ludicrous. They were caused by short-sighted mgt decisions regarding the fair value on Briere and Drury.
Consider;
- they had Pronger - but lost him, not because of the CBA, but because Edmonton sucks.
- they had a battle tested third liner in Peca, and lost him, not because of the CBA, but because Edmonton sucks.
- they could have signed Smyth for $1M less than he got on the open market - but they played hardball with him instead, and dealt him away rather than pay him what in retrospect was a fair price. Why did this happen? Poor mgt.
Throw into this the shortsighted decision to trade a 1st rnd pick for a 36 year old goaltender if limited upside (now a rapidly aging 38), passing on Zach Parise to move down and draft MA Pouliot, etc. And the pattern is clear, it is not that the team can't spend what it needs to to keep it's players, it's not that the CBA somehow strangles the team, it's that Kevin Lowe is an idiot.
How about Buffalo?
- Could have re-signed at $1M less than he got on the open market - but decided not to.
- Could have re-signed Drury for about what he got on the open market (and I for one believe he is WAY overpaid at that price), but chose to let him leave as a UFA.
- Zubrus? Was a rental player anyway - so it wasn't someone they were building around.
- Vanek. Here they grow some balls and decide to match the Oilers offer.
But wait a minute, aren't small market teams supposed to be prevented from doing so?
Now you are right to suggest that there was no way the Sabres could have kept all of their talent and stay under the cap. But they could have kept both Drury and Briere (or just Briere and be further ahead cap space wise), let Vanek go for 4 1st rnd picks (a fair price), be under the cap and competitive for years to come.
But to say that their problems are caused by the cap is ludicrous. They were caused by short-sighted mgt decisions regarding the fair value on Briere and Drury.
PSH: Possibly along with less than 100% perfect GMs (of course 100% perfect GMs dont exist - thats why 20/20 hindsight saying something could posssibly have been done to show that there is no CBA problem - if nobody ever does it what difference does the faint chance that in hindsight you can still find make?)
CH: Well, consider how small market teams like Calgary (and despite your contention, they are definitely still a small market team - and can't be considered any different than Edmonton except in terms of slightly better climate and much better organization) have handled themselves I'd say hindsight is possible.
Edmonton and Buffalo played hardball with their star players and drove them away. Calgary and San Jose played nice with their star players, sewed them up to long term deals, and left themselves cap-room to address other issues. Who would you suggest did better? Did being a small or large market team make any difference?
If being a large market team with money to spend were all it took under the new CBA to succeed, then what in heaven's name is going wrong with the Islanders? (or are you going to suggest that New York is a 'small market'?)
CH: Well, consider how small market teams like Calgary (and despite your contention, they are definitely still a small market team - and can't be considered any different than Edmonton except in terms of slightly better climate and much better organization) have handled themselves I'd say hindsight is possible.
Edmonton and Buffalo played hardball with their star players and drove them away. Calgary and San Jose played nice with their star players, sewed them up to long term deals, and left themselves cap-room to address other issues. Who would you suggest did better? Did being a small or large market team make any difference?
If being a large market team with money to spend were all it took under the new CBA to succeed, then what in heaven's name is going wrong with the Islanders? (or are you going to suggest that New York is a 'small market'?)
For the sake of this discussion I am defining small market as a market which will not spend to the cap even when they have a contender. By that definition, Edmonton is clearly showmn top be small market. Calgary is not., Both are in the upper half of the NHL in revenue and Calgary is willing to spend more than Edmonton.
Yes its an imperfect definition. The exact same market can change with new owners. In princiuple a stingy Rangers owner could make the Rangers a small market team by this definition - but it is highly unlikely that would ever occur.
The point is that those teams that won't spend up to the cap in this CBA have a greatly reduced chance of winning. I think its a lesser chance then they had in the old CBA b ecause they cannot even keep their core players for the primes of their careers.
As for the Islanders, they seem willing to spend money, just unable to attract players while their management situation looks stupid.
Yes its an imperfect definition. The exact same market can change with new owners. In princiuple a stingy Rangers owner could make the Rangers a small market team by this definition - but it is highly unlikely that would ever occur.
The point is that those teams that won't spend up to the cap in this CBA have a greatly reduced chance of winning. I think its a lesser chance then they had in the old CBA b ecause they cannot even keep their core players for the primes of their careers.
As for the Islanders, they seem willing to spend money, just unable to attract players while their management situation looks stupid.
A discussion of ignorant homers... oh joy.
Lowe's Vanek offer sheet rebalanced the CBA. Rangers can no longer buy a Cup as they were trying this summer because RFA prices have become equivalent to UFA prices.
The CBA works - the cap is fixed to revenues. Big market teams have only a slight advantage in that they can spend to the cap while some are $5-10 mil under it. But what can't happen is bigger market teams buying all the talent up because now RFAs can't be lowballed (i.e Phaneuf / Semin / Bouwmeester next year will be paid).
Lowe's Vanek offer sheet rebalanced the CBA. Rangers can no longer buy a Cup as they were trying this summer because RFA prices have become equivalent to UFA prices.
The CBA works - the cap is fixed to revenues. Big market teams have only a slight advantage in that they can spend to the cap while some are $5-10 mil under it. But what can't happen is bigger market teams buying all the talent up because now RFAs can't be lowballed (i.e Phaneuf / Semin / Bouwmeester next year will be paid).
# posted by : July 06, 2007 9:51 PM
: July 06, 2007 9:51 PM
TPSH: "For the sake of this discussion I am defining small market as a market which will not spend to the cap even when they have a contender."
- That doesn't make any sense. If the Rangers don't spend to the Cap they become a small market team? That's just silly.
TPSH: "By that definition, Edmonton is clearly showmn top be small market. Calgary is not. Both are in the upper half of the NHL in revenue and Calgary is willing to spend more than Edmonton."
- You are going to need to recalibrate your argument based around which teams are at the bottom, and which are at the top baed on your new definition. Is Washington a small market team? Anaheim? Vancouver?
- That doesn't make any sense. If the Rangers don't spend to the Cap they become a small market team? That's just silly.
TPSH: "By that definition, Edmonton is clearly showmn top be small market. Calgary is not. Both are in the upper half of the NHL in revenue and Calgary is willing to spend more than Edmonton."
- You are going to need to recalibrate your argument based around which teams are at the bottom, and which are at the top baed on your new definition. Is Washington a small market team? Anaheim? Vancouver?
nike air max, north face, true religion jeans, longchamp pas cher, ralph lauren pas cher, mulberry, vans pas cher, hollister, michael kors, timberland, sac longchamp, michael kors, oakley pas cher, hermes, air max, ray ban pas cher, coach factory outlet, hogan, burberry, ralph lauren uk, true religion jeans, air jordan pas cher, michael kors, abercrombie and fitch, nike roshe, lacoste pas cher, north face, air force, tn pas cher, nike air max, nike air max, nike blazer, kate spade handbags, louboutin pas cher, nike free run uk, coach purses, michael kors, lululemon, nike roshe run, converse pas cher, coach outlet, hollister pas cher, true religion jeans, new balance pas cher, coach outlet, vanessa bruno, true religion outlet, ray ban uk, sac guess, nike free
Post a Comment
<< Home
