D1g1talMan Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 I'm going to need to buy one of those magazines with all the new rosters at the beginning of the season. This is insane. Huge names are moving all over the place. 586316067[/snapback] Seriously...The Capitals were my bastion of sanity, as the roster was pretty much set from season to season. So much for that! :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted August 3, 2005 Veteran Share Posted August 3, 2005 It will settle down next season probably, right? Just this year is a huge shakeup cause of the new CBA, I am guessing. 586316075[/snapback] I assume/hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Like the big market teams were responsible under the old CBA. 586315572[/snapback] You obviously do not understand the situation. Big-market teams were not ruining the sport under the old CBA... they were advancing it. Colorado, Detroit, Dallas, New York... all of these teams have high payrolls, yet all of them all lure in fans. Ever wonder why that is? Smaller market teams didn't have the balls to take some risks (other than in drafting) and sign some explosive free agents. Now, when there is supposed to be "cost certainty", small-market teams have SUDDENLY found money and are SUDDENLY making the aforementioned "big moves"... only now they're doing it at the absolute worst time possible. They're giving free agents who are good players, yet not top-tier, GIANT contracts, in terms of the new CBA. You DO know that there is a $39 million cap, correct? Bearded Kirklander: No, it won't. It will make them screwed in terms of what they can give to other players, thus ruining their season before it even begins. These small market teams are also ruining it for everyone else by jacking up the "bar" of what free agents are going to cost -- especially since none of the players signed have even been the really big names yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearded Kirklander Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Bearded Kirklander: No, it won't. It will make them screwed in terms of what they can give to other players, thus ruining their season before it even begins. These small market teams are also ruining it for everyone else by jacking up the "bar" of what free agents are going to cost -- especially since none of the players signed have even been the really big names yet. I don't understand that. I must be missing something. All the teams have to have the same minimum cap and maximum cap right? They want it to be about Parity, right? Plus, there is a max salary per player that they can pay, right? So each team should be able to afford great players now, shouldn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Yes, all teams have the same minimum and maxiumum cap. But it is a HARD cap... there is no flexibility at all. Thus, if they blow too much money on free agents, they're screwing themselves when it comes time to fill up the rest of their roster -- so basically they're playing with 5 players and a revolving cast of a bunch of minor leaguers (for example). And, yes, there is a maximum salary (roughly $7 million)... but my point is, these small market teams are giving too much to merely "good" players. A great player doesn't even need to be making $7 million -- $4 million would be a good price for a top-tier free agent, and these clubs are just throwing money around like it's nothing. You cannot do that anymore. Maybe in the old CBA, but not this one. They're only raising the price that people are going to want around the league and screwing the entire system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearded Kirklander Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Yes, all teams have the same minimum and maxiumum cap. But it is a HARD cap... there is no flexibility at all. Thus, if they blow too much money on free agents, they're screwing themselves when it comes time to fill up the rest of their roster -- so basically they're playing with 5 players and a revolving cast of a bunch of minor leaguers (for example). I guess I don't understand how that is a problem? All the teams are in the same circumstance, which is a good thing, right? And, yes, there is a maximum salary (roughly $7 million)... but my point is, these small market teams are giving too much to merely "good" players. A great player doesn't even need to be making $7 million -- $4 million would be a good price for a top-tier free agent, and these clubs are just throwing money around like it's nothing. You cannot do that anymore. Maybe in the old CBA, but not this one. They're only raising the price that people are going to want around the league and screwing the entire system. Nobody is forcing those teams to over pay. I guess I still can't understand your point. I don't see how your logic gets from point A to point B. It just doesn't make sense to me. Guess I'm just not on your level. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted August 3, 2005 Veteran Share Posted August 3, 2005 Big-market teams were not ruining the sport under the old CBA... they were advancing it. Colorado, Detroit, Dallas, New York... all of these teams have high payrolls, yet all of them all lure in fans. Ever wonder why that is? Smaller market teams didn't have the balls to take some risks (other than in drafting) and sign some explosive free agents. 586316112[/snapback] Well, I'd specifically say that NJ, under the old CBA, was perennially the best at getting value for money. Year after year of competitive teams with a few Stanley Cups thrown in there. They never squandered draft pics and they always had a core of players in their mid-to-late 20s. The veterans they had were effective and they seemed pretty good at developing talent. Essentially they did everything my Leafs didn't do and vice versa. The Leafs tried to compensate with a higher payroll but it never worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steffan Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Since there's a salary cap now, the lower market teams can finally afford the big name players. This will balance out the playing field. The NHL is turning into the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearded Kirklander Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Since there's a salary cap now, the lower market teams can finally afford the big name players.? This will balance out the playing field.? The NHL is turning into the NFL. I hope all the contracts in the NHL are fully guaranteed though. That is one thing about the NFL that I think sucks:(:( I guess I do like the idea of a salary cap in terms of national sports organizations. With taxpayer dollars going to fund stadiums and the like, it is nice to know that small market teams will be on equal footing in many ways with large market teams. There is public money and resources involved in these sports, and I think parity may end up resulting in a public benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bayrider Posted August 3, 2005 Author Share Posted August 3, 2005 Bearded Kirklander: because of the new cap and the 24% roll-back on salaries, your 2nd tier player should be worth anywhere between 1-3million max. which is the basis to the entire CBA agreement, to cut prices and reduce teams that spend tonnes of money and hog up the entire talent pool. Now that all teams have the same spending restrictions on payroll you're seeing 5-6 teams bidding against eachother for a single 2nd tier players. This is driving up the overall value of all players causing teams to max out their payroll ebfore even building a decent team. Also what it is doing is making the cap unrealistic since you're seeing 2nd tier players having their prices at the 4-5million range. A salary fit for many top tier players!! Now what are the top tier players going to get paid? Also u might see a lot of less talented guys being replaced by farm team players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Bearded Kirklander: because of the new cap and the 24% roll-back on salaries, your 2nd tier player should be worth anywhere between 1-3million max. which is the basis to the entire CBA agreement, to cut prices and reduce teams that spend tonnes of money and hog up the entire talent pool. Now that all teams have the same spending restrictions on payroll you're seeing 5-6 teams bidding against eachother for a single 2nd tier players. This is driving up the overall value of all players causing teams to max out their payroll ebfore even building a decent team. Also what it is doing is making the cap unrealistic since you're seeing 2nd tier players having their prices at the 4-5million range. A salary fit for many top tier players!! Now what are the top tier players going to get paid? Also u might see a lot of less talented guys being replaced by farm team players. 586316892[/snapback] Thank you, that's exactly what I mean. And, yes, it is a good thing that the playing field is even between the teams now. But my point is that these teams are paying far too much money for players that are not of an amazing quality. Sure, they're good, but they are not franchise players. They do not deserve to be getting that kind of money. It is a good thing that teams are on an even playing field... ...it is a bad thing in how these small market teams are giving players silly amounts of money -- they're increasing the market cost for all players, screwing everyone over in the process -- players, teams, everyone. They're ruining the "cost certainty" that the game was supposed to have under the new CBA. Now if top-tier players see this and think they deserve the top $7 million, no one's going to sign them. And players are simply going to demand so much money things are going to get out of hand, when you have second-tier players making $4 million... in the new CBA, that should be top-tier price. But it's not going to be because these small-market teams are ruining the marketplace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bayrider Posted August 3, 2005 Author Share Posted August 3, 2005 Seems like Ottawa has signed Martin Lapointe 4yrs 2.1m (i think thats per year seems too low for 4yrs) Modano stays in Dallas, 5yr contract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearded Kirklander Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 It's up to each time to use the money wisely. It should have nothing to do with small market vs big market. It's about smart management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bayrider Posted August 3, 2005 Author Share Posted August 3, 2005 (edited) thats the problem, they're not using it wisely, spending absurd amounts for 2nd tier players when they fough so hard to have lower salaries. It just yields the entire system useless. if you think about it, if the GMs worked together they could be getting players like Aucoin, Holik and Foote which got paid 4-4.5m each per season for much less, closer to the 2-3m range but their insane bidding wars are driving up the avg cost of all players.... if a player like Naslund earned 5.25m last year, this year with the 24% roll-back teams should be offering him roughly 4.23m. My bet is that naslun will sign for 6m, earning more than he did before the CBA, because 2nd tier players are getting 4.5m Edited August 3, 2005 by bayrider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearded Kirklander Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 thats the problem, they're not using it wisely, spending absurd amounts for 2nd tier players when they fough so hard to have lower salaries. It just yields the entire system useless. I don't see how it would render it useless. If they waste money on players that suck, the team will suck, right? Sucky teams usually have lower attendance. Lower TV ratings. Lower revenues. They may realize they overpaid and manage money better. If they pay that high money for a couple of awesome players and the players perform and the team wins games, that's a good thing. If the team doesn't win a ton of games but the players are major fan draws, then maybe attendance will be good, TV ratings will be good and they will do just fine anyway. Look at the LA Lakers. They had Shaq and Kobe and like - who else? Two huge salaries and they won 3 championships. Look at the Spurs and Detroit. They spread their money around to all the players and they win championships. Look at Minnesota. They forked all that cash on Garnett - no progress into the playoffs. Baseball teams over-pay and sometimes they rock and sometimes they suck. Boston has a HUGE payroll and they won the world series. The Marlins had a sorta lower payroll and they won. The Oakland A's have a low payroll and they won. New York Yankees have a HUGE payroll and this year they kinda suck. It doesn't seem right to generalize and condemn things just because some players get good contracts. Lots of things can happen. I think you guys are spazzin' out over not much. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bayrider Posted August 3, 2005 Author Share Posted August 3, 2005 But the salary cap will protect them from making totally horrible moves endangering the profitability of the franchise, right? 586315589[/snapback] i dont think u understand. Do u realize how many unsigned players there are in the NHL as of right now? look: Western Conference Eastern Conference now, try to fit all those big names (besides the ones u hear about floating around) in a 39m cap, with the average price of 2nd tier players rising beyond that of many 1st tier players from before the CBA... whats the point? a lot of players r gonna get cut, replaced, some teams r gonna have 1 or 2 top players with 2nd, 3rd, 4th, D and G line players from the minors or the beer league. I do realize its the mistake of the teams, but it's going to be a huge problem in the NHL in the future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Bearded Kirklander, I have to agree with bayrider, I don't think you understand the logistics and economics of the situation. It's not us "spazzing out", it's economic principals. Your logic and reasoning simply doesn't make sense. So, because they sign a player for too much money means that there will be no rammifications other than that they will "manage money better"? How on Earth can they do that when they've already mismanaged their money and screwed the entire league over? By them paying this amount of money to second-tier players, they're (willingly or unwillingly) setting the new industry standard, or the "bar", if you will. When other players see these guys -- who had worse seasons than them, and are not franchise players -- making that kind of money, don't you think their agents are going to ask for unreasonable amounts? Your comparisons to Shaq and Kobe are utterly asinine. This is not the same situation at all. When Shaq and Kobe were together it wasn't a hard cap (and it still isn't) in the NBA. There are luxury taxes for that, and if you go over the payroll you simply pay the luxury tax. This isn't a "luxury" (pardon the pun :p) that NHL teams have. And to say that Kobe and Shaq were the only two on the Lakers is silly. Not only that, but you're comparing second-tier (how many times are we going to have to go over this part) to Kobe and Shaq, two of the best players in the NBA! You can't keep using your NBA arguments for the NHL. It isn't the same, and you simply do not understand the economics of the situation, from the looks of your posts. I mean, you can't honestly be arguing about this situation when you then use the MLB -- a league that doesn't even HAVE a salary cap -- to bolster your argument. Your comparisons are comparisons to the old CBA, not the new one. Teams can't have "smart management" when these smaller-market teams keep screwing over everyone else. There is no "cost certainty" with these signings, and the "bar" is raised, as I've been trying to explain to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CactuzJak Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Edmonton just picked up Chris Pronger Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVER85 Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Edmonton just picked up Chris ProngerSource 586317289[/snapback] I was about to post that, but you beat me to it. :p Anyways, this should easily bolster Edmonton's lackluster defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearded Kirklander Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I'm not into continuing conversations when people start name calling or attacking or getting hostile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Not to sound rude, but when did I start name-calling? I simply don't think you understand the new CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bayrider Posted August 3, 2005 Author Share Posted August 3, 2005 (edited) me niether... just carrying on a conversation, never attacked or got hostile. anyways, some news for today: Modano is not yet a Star, Boston pushed a last minute deal and Modano is still considering what team to sign to. Kariya is strongly rumored to go to the Sharks Martin Skoula signed with Dallas Pittsburgh is making a big push for Niedermayer, Vancouver and Calgary are involved as well (but i dont see Calgary making a big push since they still have Iginla to sign) Berdusco: you and I might be excited about this one, Habs and Kovalev are pretty close to wrapping things up. I personally would love to see Kovalev-Koivu-Zednik tear it up in the regular season like tehy did in the Boston playoff series. Naslund: 3yrs $18mil with vancouver. So the bar has been set, it seems like 1st tier players are getting 6 Edited August 3, 2005 by bayrider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berdusco Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Zhitnik signed with islanders "As reported on Sportstalk 980 in Vancouver, Markus Naslund would've agreed on a new deal with the Canucks. Financial terms were not released as of yet. A news conference is apparently scheduled either tomorrow or for Thursday..." source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berdusco Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 bayrider i am deeply rejoiced with your news about the habs is there anything about satan or forsberg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bayrider Posted August 3, 2005 Author Share Posted August 3, 2005 Probably not Forsberg, can't say much about Satan right now, i doubt Gainey will sign both Kovalev and Satan since we have a gap to fill on D. And i have a delicious little rumor that before the trade deadline in the 2003-04 season we almost had a deal with Tampa for Lecavalier, we would given up Koivu and Hainsey, but Tampa wanted Koivu and Komisarek instead. That offer is going to be pushed sometime late this year with Tampa getting Hainsey + Koivu so Tampa can free up some cap space while we keep ours low by only signing Kovalev OR Satan and a good D-man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts