Why Uneven is Right.
I feel that the NHL has paradoxically lost a lot of it’s appeal to the casual hockey observer by ushering in a salary cap and establishing the presence of relative parity. The prospect of competitive balance within the sport of hockey was long viewed as the ideal scenario, assuring the opportunity to succeed in any given season for even the least moneyed franchises and as a direct result providing these franchises with the means to draw new fans out of their tepid markets. It all sounded good on paper. But the league has lost a valuable dynamic that in my estimation plays a large part in the success of other major sports leagues and associations within North America.
Parity, we can all agree, was intended to draw non-hockey sports fans to hockey games in weak hockey markets by providing those teams with a competitive and balanced economic landscape in which to operate. DGB put it perfectly, however, when discussing in his blog the current hot button topic of fighting; it’s Business 101 that, as nice as it is to expand your present audience, you don’t sacrifice some of your current customer base in order to do so. And I do feel the NHL is losing a very valuable dynamic and could, over time, cost the league some of it’s following. Perhaps not the hardcore types that are reading and the one writing this very blog – the special breed that couldn’t imagine life without hockey, those that would gripe and complain if they didn’t like the current state of the NHL but would by no means abandon it all together – but moreso the upcoming, current and older generations of casual hockey fans. That dynamic is dynasties.
The days of the 1980s Oilers have most certainly waned into the NHL’s distant rearview. During Wayne Gretzky’s reign, the Great One skated alongside the likes of Paul Coffey, Glen Anderson, Jari Kurri and Mark Messier, all of whom hit the 50 goal mark during their respective stays. With the modern player salary, I challenge even Lou Lamoriello to fit a combination of just two or three of those assets under his cap.
There’s some chance of a repeat of the Detroit Red Wings’ semi-dynasty of the late ’90s to early 2000s over the next few years. Their ability to stay atop the hockey standings without any form of relapse in the form of a re-build/tool can be attributed to an astounding ability to identify and draft NHL-worthy talent on the part of front office personnel combined with astute behind-the-bench management from their coaching staff. It truly is a fine oiled machine of an organization, with a scouting department that has a knack for finding players that will blossom within the coaching staff’s efficacious system. I’d be willing to bet that, without the constraints of a salary cap, the Wings would be in the midst of a full out dynasty right now. They wouldn’t have to tradeoff assets while trying to keep in tact as much of the roster as possible and could actually sign a pricey number one goaltender to strengthen their defensive game that much further. Another major factor that may indeed contribute to future repeats of last year’s success is the winning culture and reputation of excellence that exists in Hockeytown, which inspired Marian Hossa to take a paycut to join the championship fold last summer. The Red Wings’ era of success will one day dissipate and it’s hard to envision a club ascending to the peak of the hockey world to take their place as the indubitable best team in the NHL, let alone one-upping them and forming a dynasty. All of this said, the Red Wings happen to play a monotonous brand of hockey that appears requisite to consistent success in the modern day NHL landscape and that’s not overly appealing to fans. There isn’t the sense of the big, bad Red Wings coming to town that can get casual fans excited and willing to buy tickets to see if their hometown heroes can slay hockey’s leviathan. More likely, fans will think “great, the Red Wings are coming to town to slowly and systematically suck the life out of my team while I fall half-asleep.”
On this topic, I’ve found something on which I actually agree with Bob McCown. In his book “McCown’s Law, The 100 Greatest Hockey Arguments,” the blustering radio host points out in his 25th argument that many of a sport’s greatest historical moments are defined by dynasties. Think the Cowboys, the Steelers, the Bulls, the Yankees, the Packers, the Patriots. McCown points out that it’s also true of individual sports. I know, while a causal observer of the PGA tour, I never truly cared about the tour before Tiger Woods stepped onto the scene. Before hand, the winners from tournament-to-tournament just seemed way too all-over-the-map to even pretend to care. Either you tune in as a fan of Tiger, or to see who might rise to the occasion and beat Tiger this weekend. And McCown is again bang on when he says that the lack of a dominant force in the current heavyweight class has played a major role in the ongoing decline in boxing interest.
If you’re trying to convince one of your non-hockey fan friends to start watching the sport, as McCown says, you will probably show them highlights of the 1980s Oilers or the Canadiens of the 1970s. If the friend decides to tune into a few games, he probably won’t last long when he realizes there isn’t a team anywhere close in terms of appeal. And the casual fan might well start to lose interest as the Lightning, the Hurricanes, the Senators and seemingly the Pittsburgh Penguins and Anaheim Ducks come and go faster than a fart in the wind.
To bring it back to home, the prospects for the Maple Leafs’ re-build are brought into question. The Lightning, the Penguins, the Hurricanes and the Ducks built up their squads over a number of years only to have but one or at best two real shots at the Cup before some of their secondary cast had to be sacrificed in order to retain their stars. Ottawa had opportunities pre-lockout before having but two shots afterwards because of cap issues. The Maple Leafs appear to be going the way of building through the draft. One can only worry that their window of contention will be similarly ephemeral. As it stands, it’s hard to envision the Leafs having more than just a couple of seasons in which to capture Lord Stanley’s mug, with the continuation of an enduring drought and the hopes of a famished fanbase standing in the balance.
Furthermore, don’t the fans of a team with a sold out building at record high prices deserve the right to contribute to a dynasty?
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Amen!
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:54 pm
I’m a fan of a soft cap. If the big spenders want to spend, let them. In an effort to “preserve” parity, include, as the MLB does, a penalty for those teams that go over the cap to be distributed amongst the bottom 5 teams or so.
I think dynasties are part of the magic of any sport. The NBA enjoyed it’s greatest popularity during the dynasties of the Bulls and Lakers. MLB’s recent upshoot in popularity could very well be a byproduct of the mini dynasty being developed by the Red Sox. The NFL is a different animal, but the dynasties of the 80s in San Francisco and Dallas are still viewed with a fair degree of longing.
All sports like to talk about the dynasty of a team. The added bonus of a dynasty is that it encourages band-wagon jumpers. It’s in those band-wagoners that new die hard fans can be born.
It gives exposure to the sport, and that is something the NHL is in dire need of.
Great post.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
That argument is spot on.
It’s nice though that some teams still have an over-all character to them. Like if Philly comes to town you can expect a physical affair. Or when Washington and Pittsburgh roll in you know you’re going to see some skilled play. I have to admit, being a Leafs fan in Windsor, ON and having to hear about the success of the Red Wings all the time makes me cheer against them all the more and that was the main reason I watched last year’s finals – to hopefully see them lose because I’m sick of their winning ways.
I think a dynasty is possible though. The key is not to lose your top talent to UFA status. Some hard decisions will have to be made but you have to trade that player to acquire a new young player that will be cheap for a few seasons. So to start a dynasty you have to start young with rookies and sophmores and acquire as much of that nucleus of the same age group within a couple of years. Then add through free agency when the window of opportunity is open. Making those trade deadline acquisitions that cost an arm and a leg is what robs a team of their depth and subsequently costs a team of their ability to repeat; see: Red Wings vs Penguins. One made a big trade, the other didn’t; look at the standings today.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:57 pm
I think we’ll see a soft cap as soon as Bettman is gone.
February 2nd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Great suggestion on the soft cap, I’ve always thought it made a lot of sense/cents.
A rising tide lifts all boats. Imposing a soft cap with a luxury tax (like the MLB) may be the solution that accedes to the most demands and interests.
February 2nd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
As a baseball fan, I’d like to casually give “the finger” to the soft cap.
Sure since the Leafs are a big market team, they can go on about how sexy it would be to potentially have a dynasty.
But when you’re talking about Major League Baseball, and you know what it feels like to be constantly outspent and outbid by the big boys year in and year out, you get unimpressed with the Yankees’ dynasty awfully quickly.
February 2nd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
In addition, it’s Sports Economics 101 that competitive balance ensures maximized league-wide revenue.
This topic has been studied ad nauseum using regression analyses from a multitude of situations, teams, eras, etc, and the result is always the same.
The closer the parity in terms of difference in winning percentage, the more fan interest there’s going to be and thus the more revenue you’re going to get.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:00 pm
hard time believing that’s the case for the nhl, alex, for instance it hasn’t worked at all in phoenix despite their success on the ice, tampa’s another example
but even if it is, doesn’t ignore the fact that its organizations like the Leafs earning all the money that’s going into redistribution… hardly fair
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Alec, I don’t usually disagree with you, but here I strongly disagree. You listed as proof of how great it is to have dynasty a multitude of NFL football teams. The NFL uses a salary cap and what makes it so special is that from year to year you never know who will end up in the super bowl because there is relative parity from year to year, excluding the Patriots with Tom Brady and the Lions as they are anomalies. On the other hand, I enjoy baseball as a sport, but I could not care less about the MLB because its pointless when a team like the Yankees can afford to give one player a salary that is equal to another team’s entire roster’s salaries. I find the MLB to be a joke due to the complete lopsided spending and I for one thought the one good thing to come out of the lockout was the salary cap.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:40 pm
You can’t really compare the NFL and the NHL in terms of the realities of a salary cap. Single positions in the NFL matter a great deal more than they do in the NHL, maybe save for the goaltender. Thus, it’s easier to have a good team based around a few high paid players. That’s proven not to be the case in the NHL.
What I think draws so many fans into the NFL is the week-to-week intensity of the sport.. how much can ride on a single game, a single play. And that’s what makes the playoffs intense too… it’s one game that decides it all. So it’s tough to compare, as blurr says above it’s a different animal. But there’s plenty of examples of dynasties in the history of the NFL that are indeed viewed with a longing by many football fans.
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Real teams in real leagues don’t want any part of the cap system. Does Manchester United or Real Madrid care about the financial health of the minnows they play? no way… and they shouldn’t.
If you want to charge major league prices, then the fans have the right to demand top tier talent for their ticket money. It might actually good for the league to have a few franchises fold every few years, rather than keeping them on life support to appeal to a few Outdoor Life network viewers?
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:58 pm
I could not agree more with this blog. Great job.
Extreme wendel over mats, but I think you’re right. More reasonable, if every team can only spend to a certain amount they should only be able to charge a certain amount as well proportionally.
The soft cap seems the best of both worlds. There’s subsidizing to weak markets to keep them on Bettman life support and the rich teams are allowed to inject as much money into icing a competitor for the fans that are paying through the teeth for their tickets
Alec you’re right about the business premise that you’re supposed to look after your current base first. I actually think the NHL has already forgotten this as soon as it implemented a cap. Who got the shaft? The successful teams that keep the team running with their great fans. The NHL’s got it so backwards
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:58 pm
In that last sentence, replace team with league. Typo.
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Vesku, I agree with you that there are some extremes that are really hurting the league, but I don’t think the cap structure is the issue. And let’s keep in mind that small market Tampa has already brought home a Cup in recent years. I’m in favor of contraction, or relocation of some of those teams, but I’m not in favor of turning it into a superpower dominated bidding war for talent.
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:33 pm
yes, alex, and that it didn’t help the market become any stronger despite of it
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:14 pm
This is a really interesting and timely post.
Many words have been cast on the best way to build a contender, especially as the Leafs find themselves at the very beginning of that curve, but I haven’t read much on strategies for maintaining a competitive team – never mind building a dynasty.
Certainly the Lightning and Senators appear to be prime examples of what not to do and, to a lesser extent, Anaheim is finding itself on the outside too.
Conversely, I don’t know that Detroit is a model that can be replicated.
Doug Riseborough was recently quoted by Jeff Blair in the Globe on the need to mitigate risk in a hard-capped environment by signing multiple cheaper players to replace those who can demand higher salaries (e.g. signing five players to replace 3 UFAs: Rolston, Demitra and Parrish). Unfortunately, Blair didn’t pursue this topic any further and I really wish he had.
I think it’s going to be very interesting to see if the GMs who have talked about new and different ways of building teams, guys like Gillis, Risebrough, Scott Howson (and to a lesser extent Dough Wilson) can actually find success and more importantly – figure out a way to maintain it in a hard capped environment.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
This I have to say is the first time I do not agree with you. Let’s take the northeast division for example. Without a big market and parity in the league the Buffalo Sabres would be struggling even more to attract quality UFAs and retaining pending ufas. Toronto as much as I love the team, could take the easy way and rebuild the team on july 1.
When I think of a league that lacks a cap, I think of MLB. Now how sad is that league. You have Toronto that struggles to attract quality talent and have to compete with Boston and New York that will pay threw the roof to at least secure a playoff spot, which in itself is quite a challenge.
I like where the NHL has gone, it has made GMs accountable for the moves they make. There’s and added importance to the drafting and development of young talent, that as we’ve seen on this website has gained the interest of the fans since the cap era has begun. Before the cap era, I think fans were more excited about july 1 than the NHL entry draft. The focus should be on the ability of a scouting staff to draft quality future NHLers instead of a team with countless riches outbidding 99% of teams to get a good player.
When there were fewer teams in the nhl, the dynasty was realistic, but times have changed, I think the dynasty term will just have to be re-defined. Instead of the 70s Habs winning cups as the benchmark for being coined a dynasty, maybe we could say that in the new NHL detroit has had a dynasty since ’97 due to a few cups, regular season dominance and it’s ability to draft stars.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:56 pm
You’re right Alec, NFL is different from NHL. However, I still don’t like the MLB model where teams like Toronto can’t compete with the likes of the Yankees and Red Sox simply because they don’t have the finances. Besides, the Leafs have proven that they can’t build a winner in a cap free world, so lets see if Burke can do it now with the cap.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:15 am
In terms of the MLB, Carlton and others seem to be looking at the situation through a Blue Jays lens, who happen to be in a terrible divisional situation more than anything, and are forgetting that the Tampa Bay Rays and Colorado Rockies were recent participants in the World Series. It’s not like the Yankees are going on their tenth straight title or anything.
Certainly, the NHL wasn’t on the same level as the MLB pre-lockout either. It’s proven that injecting dollars upon dollars into a hockey franchise doesn’t guarantee success in this sport (Rangers, Leafs). There are too many other factors at play in hockey that money can’t buy… more intangible factors such as chemistry, coaching systems, leadership etc. that play more of an integral role in the game of hockey than other sports because of hockey’s highly team-oriented nature.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:54 am
I would say that the salary cap and the parity it creates helps franchises attract more interest locally, while the inability of dynasties to form stymies interest nationally. Which is fine with the NHL, since they’ve shown time and again that they’re more concerned with the fate of expansion teams than the overall good of the game. However, let’s not forget the way the cap was orignally sold to us here in Canada: it was presented as a way to save small-market hockey franchises like Buffalo and Edmonton from relocation. Which ties in to why a soft cap would be a bad idea – pre-lockout, clubs like the Oilers were treated as glorified AHL teams by the richer franchises. The Oilers would draft players, develop them, and as soon as they became too good to afford (Guerin, Weight) they would be snapped up by a richer team (a common situation in the MLB as some people have pointed out above). I believe the NHL needs a hard cap but that alterations to that cap system can be made to allow teams which actually build a champion squad to mantain it. A proposal: Teams attempting to re-sign players they have drafted receive a discount in ‘cap dollars.’ That way while a player like Zetterberg might be signed to a contract that pays him 7.4 million next year, a ‘hometown discount’ of say 25% would make it only eat up 5.55 million in cap space. With the hard salary cap ensuring that player salaries remained at manageable levels across the league, teams that drafted well would find themselves rewarded with additional cap room. Of course this system depends on the salary cap actually being within reach of all franchises, which we know it isn’t, but that’s a whole other issue to address (fire Bettman).
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:58 am
In response to people saying no cap hurts baseball, baseball is considerably more popular in North America than ice hockey, and teams like the Cubs, Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies have nationwide fanbases. Additionally the Rays showed everyone last year that you don’t need to spend a lot of money.
In terms of hockey, I have to imagine that Toronto going to the playoffs and the associated bandwagon fans that would draw would be better for the league than sustained success in Phoenix or Florida, but let’s not kid ourselves Leafs fans, it’s not like Toronto won a pile of cups when there wasn’t a salary cap post-expansion.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
I’m going to take a different POV and suggest that the NFL is a good comparison. I don’t buy the “build around a few positions” argument … as a lifelong NFL fan I am trying to remember the last team that won the SuperBowl without good players at every position. Maybe Baltimore when they won it in 2000 with Trent Dilfer at QB … but even then the rest of that team, especially the defense, was full of star players. Baltimore winning the SuperBowl, as an example, is no different than New Jersey winning the Stanley Cup without a player in the top 25 in league scoring. So the argument that it is different because of how you build a team really doesn’t hold.
Competitive balance is what has allowed the NFL to gain the massive success it has earned in the past 15 years. The NFL was by no means a huge sport outside of the US until the mid-90s (its fans were still largely comprised in regional pockets). Competitive balance is largely what got them to that point. Fans in any city have a legitimate hope of their team becoming a winner year in and year out … largely due to the hard cap, which prevents teams from “buying championships”. Even the Patriots couldn’t do that … with the exception of Moss (whom they have not won a championship with) the key free agents they brought in (Vrabel, Harrison, Walker) were not star players. The Steelers, with two championships in the past four years, have drafted something like 75% of their team, and their only impact player brought in through free agency is James Farrior.
The point of the NFL/NHL comparison is to suggest that a league which enables equal footing (or close to it) for all its teams to build, is better able to move from regional pockets of fans to league fans spanning the entire country. In Canada, we don’t really have this problem, but in the US, the fanbase does only exist in certain pockets. And yet, when you see a team like Nashville or Florida make the playoffs, those half-filled arenas are filled up (and sold out) in a heartbeat. We’ve seen from past playoff successes of small market teams that fan interest will carry over into the next season … but not necessarily beyond (Carolina is a great example of this … great attendance the year after their Cup win, interest tailed off after that).
And the only way for the league to sustain that interest is to ensure those teams are able to remain competitive.
After all, it’s easiest to convert fans to a sport if the team that represents their home city/state has a chance to win. If you want to have NHL fans in Nashville, for instance, that simply won’t happen if Detroit wins four straight Stanley Cups and the Predators never sniff the playoffs. You may get some fans out of that … but not enough to sustain the team. Whereas if the Predators are able to be a playoff team three years out of four, and are able to win a few rounds in those years … then you have a chance of keeping some of those fans around long-term, because you’ve given them something worth cheering about. The local team has a much more personal connection, always, and it is that personal connection fans feel toward their team of choice which keeps them coming back for more.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:25 pm
but Garrett those buildings empty right out again after the playoffs. there just flat out isn’t interest in some of these markets and as soon as the NHL realizes it the better
that bit of playoff revenue for those teams may mean something, but not enough to sell out the fans that have been dedicated to the league’s product night in and night out
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Vesku, what I would say to that is look at the influx of California born players that have been drafted in the last few years, they are the age group that grew up in California during the Gretzky years. While you may say that places like Atlanta or Nashville don’t have enough support, I would be willing to bet there are young guys who love to play hockey in those areas that would never have considered it if they didn’t have a hockey team there. This will increase the talent pool the NHL has to choose from 15-20 years down the line. I mean, look at what the San Jose Sharks are trying to do in China. China is by no means a hockey hotbed, but by helping out with the Chinese teams in Asia, hopefully somewhere down the line there will be talented Chinese players in the league to help increase the talent level in the NHL. Increasing, not decreasing the level of exposure the NHL gets is the right way to go. While I may agree that there may be a few too many southern teams in the NHL that could be moved into Northern cities to improve the NHL financially, they are trying to get the game more exposure so that it isn’t beat by NASCAR in viewership.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Following up on the Yankees debate (funny how major league cap discussions always boil down to this franchise), luv ‘em or hate ‘em isn’t it great this franchise is run by a megalomaniac hell bent on success?
It makes beating them even sweeter. Every small market team that lasts deeper in the play-offs than the pin-stripes is my new favourite team. It’s what dynasties are all about – more fans usually end up hating them than supporting them….and it all adds to the drama!
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Alec:
I am a huge fan of your work. I think (and this may be off topic) that one negative thing that resulted from the changes that had the biggest negative impact is the lack of trades. No The fact that trades happen on 2 days during the year (deadline and draft days) really hurts a league where the fans are so electronically tuned in.
I think Burke is on the right path that salaries should be trade able up to a certain amount.
http://torontosportsmedia.com
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Vesku,
The attendance tends to spill over into the next season. After Nashville made the playoffs for the first time, their season-ticket sales skyrocketed for the following year. Florida had good ticket sales for a few years after they got to the Final — the attendance from 1996-1999 was great — but not making the playoffs for several years’ straight, and having teams that were no fun to watch, eventually killed their ticket sales. In Carolina, the same thing is starting to happen now.
Los Angeles at least had Gretzky for close to a decade, and the team was competitive for most of those years. New fans were introduced to the game when he arrived in California, and many have stayed on … despite the team’s poor showing the past few years, there has been no talk of the Kings moving or experiencing money problems of any sort.
See, it’s the amount of time a sports team is competitive, that will create life-long fans in areas dominated by other sports. In Nashville, we’ve seen fans unite to try to keep the team in place (not unlike Winnipeg in the mid 90s) … which goes to show that people can become passionate about the game of hockey anywhere in the US. The question is, can enough people become more than just casual fans? The answer to that lies in whether or not the team can give them a reason to cheer. And only sustained success will do that.
Note that the Original 6 markets in the US (Bos, NY, Det, Chi) have a huge fanbase. Why? Because they’ve been around so long, they’ve been a part of the culture of those cities, and they’ve won. Maybe not often (Chicago), but they have won, and have been competitive for long stretches.
The spill-over from that success is evidenced in nearby markets: Long Island, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New Jersey, Washington … all have passionate and devoted fan bases. All but Washington have a history of winning the Stanley Cup, and both Pittsburgh and Washington have superstar players who provide hope for a championship every year.
In Tampa Bay, it was hoped that the Lightning’s Cup win would help teams like Florida and Atlanta, in terms of fan spill-over. It might have … had the lockout been averted. Instead, the year off killed any momentum moving forward off that win. It is worth noting that the Lightning still do have a very solid and supportive fan base.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Garrett – pre-lockout NHL had more competitive balance than the NFL does.
The Flames and the Lightning squared off in the Stanley Cup final in 03/04 and both were ranked below the average league payroll. Anaheim, Minnesota and Ottawa were all competitive.
The NFL meanwhile had the Patriots winning in three out of four seasons. The Eagles never won but they were mainstays in the Conference Finals for several years as well.
As I said above, in addition to the fact that hockey is a sport in which intangibles play a more integral role in the success of a team, the NHL had the minimum UFA age set above 30 years old to assure that poorer teams weren’t getting outbid for their talented players as they were entering their prime. You look at the Rangers and the Leafs and there were two teams that were overspending on over-the-hill players and ultimately failing to win anything.
So, it was clear towards the lockout that the NHL was by no means terribly imbalanced, even compared to sports with salary caps. And there was still the potential for a dynasty should a team be able to assemble the right parts.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
^^ Bingo
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Alec I think you really missed the mark here with your idea of the salary cap and the fact that the NFL is not a comparable source for the NHL. I think that is why when Bettman is gone they are going to bring in former NFL personal to bring the NHL into a new era. The soft cap in baseball doesn’t create interest because even when teams like Tampa win the world series they are systematically picked apart by the big money teams, i.e. Florida when it won the championship. i do agree that dominance helps but the patriots did it and the steelers look like they could as well, but if you think that the Patriots are just Tom Brady well then you need to watch more football, they where missing a big chunk of their team this year. The hard cap allows a team to be able to hold onto those assets and even if they loose a piece or two go out and grab them back in free agency(equal opportunity). Also it helps the notion of finally getting another small market team in Canada such as in Manitoba or even Southern Ontario. In the NFL this is why a team such as Jacksonville is able to stay competitive in the middle of Tampa, Miami, and Atlanta. I think where the NHL has missed out in terms of expansion franchise’s is the fact that they wait to long before they move failing teams, look at how many times the Rams, Raiders, and Cardinal’s have moved in the last 20-30 years. Even the beloved Brown’s were moved when they had more then enough time to prove they are a contributor not a hindrances to the league. On the flip side they were given a second “you don’t know what you got till its gone” chance. In the NHL’s case it’s to ridged to think that Winnipeg would not let go of their team if given a second chance while Atlanta gets theirs….that’s the slap in the face to the casual hockey fan. The cap is a way to keep the casual fan interested in terms of “wow its Carolina vs. Calgary” and not always Detroit vs. Montreal, Toronto , New York. That in my opinion would be the death of hockey as we know it. By the way I don’t remember having a dynasty in Toronto without the cap either. Where the leauge should step in to reward the fans is setiing a cap on how much a team can charge to see their team that would bring in the casual fan in even big markets like Toronto. Even go as far to cap the season tickets that can be sold so you have a real fan base sitting in the ACC and not a third of the seats empty for 5 + minutes at the start of the 2nd and 3rd.
Oh and comparing the NHL to FIFA makes no sense……your talking about the biggest sport in the world vs. one that is trying to survive. When there are 5 different leagues that all have competitive teams then maybe but there is on league and its the NHL that has the majority of the talent…… Ask anyone from england and I guarantee that you’ll beat them with your knowledge of soccer compared to theirs of hockey, and that goes for most places in the world.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:30 pm
HBM that was very well said. I agree with your points. In the end, I think that the hard cap is essential for the survival of most of the teams in the league. It may be the end of the traditional dynasties, but that doesn’t have to be a bad thing. Every team has an equal chance to build a contender with the right personnel and that parity is what we should be proud to have in our game.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:40 am
HMB, Florida’s owner Jeffrey Loria is notoriously cheap. The Marlins weren’t picked apart, they were destroyed by their owner because he thought he could maximize profit by not paying his players anything and enjoying the rush of attention after winning the World Series.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Oops, “HBM”, sorry for the typo.