|
|
|
Posted on 02/18/2005 11:35:24 AM PST by Alberta's Child
I know this will be treated as blasphemy, but..."The Wayne Gretzky era" was already in it's decline in 92-93. The Mario Lemieux era began in 1988 when the young star led team Canada to a victory in the Canada Cup. Then led the Penguins to back-to-back Stanley Cup victories in 90-91 and 91-92. The Penguins continued to be the winningest team in the NHL until 95-96 season when Detroit took the mantle.
Little known NHL fact: After Marcel Dionne won the scoring title in 1979, no one NOT named Gretzky, Lemieux or Jagr would lead the league in scoring for the next 22 years.
That's really a myth about the NHL. The Montreal Canadiens have played the trap for decades, and were often among the top-scoring teams in the league during their dynasties. And the New Jersey Devils, who are often seen as the modern-day equivalent of those "trapping" teams (mainly because of the influence of former players and coaches from the Canadiens like Jacques Lemaire, Larry Robinson, and Pat Burns), were at or near the top of the league in goals scored in their first two Stanley Cup years.
What has made hockey almost unwatchable has been the manner in which teams play the neutral zone trap but don't mount a counter-attack out of this defensive system. This is largely a function of the lack of talent in the NHL, not the defensive style of play.
Was that picture taken before or after Dino was arrested for walking around on his balcony wearing a sweater -- and nothing else? LOL.
I love watching hockey games live, but on TV the excitement doesn't translate very well. Baseball is also more enjoyable live, but I can enjoy the game on TV. Football, in my opinion is better on TV. Of course, I've never really had great seats.
Bourque wasn't a rental, because they kept him for the next season, and would have kept him after that if he hadn't retired. The true rentals the team that gets them at the deadline make no attempt to resign them, they're there for one Cup run and how ever that turns out they won't be wearing that jersey next year.
I don't see anything awful with the NFL system except for the true career players. Players could be cut at any time LONG before the salary cap went in place. The real source of the bogus long term contract in the NFL isn't the cap but what I call the "respect clause". Some players feel they're not getting respected unless there's a huge bottom line to the contract, so teams give them these huge backloaded contracts that they have no intention of honoring after 3 years, but at least the player is getting "respect" so his agent can't put a bug in his ear, and they'll renogiate things later.
Only 24 year-old unrestricted free agents I see are the under peformers like Cryin Ryan.
|
|
|
Three major issues are being constantly overlooked in this debate vis-a-vis players salaries:
1. The issue is not the marquee star making 8 million bucks a year, since most teams in the league are lucky to have one or two players of that stature. The issue is the 8-12 guys on the roster making between 2-4 million bucks a year. We live in an era where a mediocre player can command that kind of moeny because of what's known as "comparative production" numbers.
It only requires one mediocre player to push the case that 8 goals last season pales in signifigance when matched against his +30 rating in a defensively-oriented league. One dumb GM will come along who puts a premium on that statistic to give the man his raise and suddenly, all players who fall into that category or close enough, start demanding similar salaries from their teams.
In another scenario, a decent player at the end of a contract and nearing free agency can make a demand on his team. The team is forced into a dilemma: we can keep a player we like (or who is at least a known entity) at an inflated cost, or try to trade him and get nothing for him (even a 1st round draft pick takes several years to develop), or try to go to salary arbitration with him and hope not to get raped too badly. As the Free Agency rules stand now, an unrestricted free agent (10+ years in the league, making less than the league average) has the advantage. His team must pony up to keep a known entity, trade for a player whose team does not want a similar situtaion in two years with another player, or spend the time to develop talent in a sport that demands winning now in order to keep butts in the seats. This is why every GM in the league hopes the NY Rangers will throw ridiculous money at their mediocre veterans and take them off their hands. It also raises the league median salary for the next round of free agents.
This does not excuse teams like the Rangers, who have more money than sense, from doing other stupid things, like signing a meatheaded Eric Lindros to an $8 mil per contract when the next hit he takes could be his last. The larger markets with the cash to spend are artificially inflating salaries. A luxury tax would seem to be in order if the current system is to continue, something the owners will never agree to. The players have to give on this one.
2. The second issue is the comparative value of the Canadian versus the U.S. Dollar, as well as Canadian tax rates and work rules. With a Canadian dollar worth about 25% of a US dollar, and even less after the exhorbitant Canadian taxes, the better players who can command the money naturally migrate south, making Canadian teams less competitive, and consequently, money-losing propositions (unless we're talking the major cities of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, which have a larger fan base and nothing else to offer). The Canadian government has to give on this one.
3. The salary cap offer put on the table by both the players and the league would have been somewhat equitable except for one fact: it was all about the higher end of the salary structure and not the lower end. In fact, there was no "floor" in the salary cap discussions. The reason being that without an agreement on the lower end, the owners would feel free to push "take-it-or-leave-it" contracts on the players. Both sides have to give on this one.
And just for good measure:
4. Gary Bettman can talk about all the new rules changes that will take effect whenever the league deigns to play again, but it's just a different shade of lipstick on the same pig. Taking out red lines and rounding off goalie equipment does not make the sport any better, nor more exciting. In light of the recent rules changes (extra two-feet behind the net, obstruction penalties, faster face-offs, regulating the size of goalie's pads, the instigator rule, etc), fiddling with the structure of the game is not the answer (although I would accept a widening of the ice, say 6', and increasing the size of the net by a couple of inches).The answer is to have more competitive franchises in more places.
What the NHL fails to understand is that many fans will watch a 1-0 defensive battle provided the competitive angle still exists. That competitive angle no longer exists: the game is all about slowing everything down because the talent no longer exists the way it did 10 years ago, in part due to expansion, just to stay competitive standings-wise.
Restructure free agency, put a hard cap (top and bottom) in place, remove some of the more ridiculous rules changes, contract by a minimum of four teams, and let the guys play, and this sport will go back to what it always was: a fast-moving spectacle of skill, toughness and endurance.The fans will come back, the question is whether the people who want them back actually know what the fans want?
-- almost half the Vezina Trophy winners for top goalie (six times for Hasek, plus once for Olaf Kolzig);
-- four different league MVPs (Federov, Hasek, Jagr, and Forsberg);
-- almost half the Calder Trophy winners for rookie of the year; and
-- arguably the best defenseman in the NHL today (Niklas Lidstrom).
In additon, these European stars are now disproportionately represented among the top goal scorers. Since Brett Hull last led the NHL in goals scored in 1992, only five of the fifteen league leaders in goals scored (including those who shared the lead) have been North Americans -- Mario Lemieux, Keith Tkachuk, Jarome Iginla (twice) and Rick Nash.
This league is going to be in a world of hurt if this modern brand of European player stays home.
Oh, goodness -- the glowing pucks. LOL!
Along with "Caddyshack" and "Major League", "Slapshot" has to be one of the funniest sports movies ever.
The Montreal Canadians won 24 Stanley Cups with a neutral zone trap. The Rangers can't beat it in New Jersey and all of a sudden it becomes "boring hockey'.
Let's call it what is : a delayed forecheck. Your first forward onthe scene would normally go into the offensive zone and forecheck. Instead, he stays high, waits for the first D to D pass to figure out which way the puck is going, and then closes on the puck carrier. The rest of the team then follows suit. The puck carrier then has to make a second pass up the ice through a tangle of legs and sticks in order to get up the ice.
The Canadians lived and died by it, and in recent years, so did the Devils and the Wings. Because you can no longer put a murders row on the ice (like the Oilers and Islanders of old) thanks to free agency and expansion, we now have 30 teams that play some variation the theme. There are not enough skill players, on any team, that can be put on one or two lines, that are capable of breaking this system with finesse, great passing or skating.
Here's another interesting NHL fact . . . Only eight different teams won the Stanley Cup in the 32 years between the 1961 Chicago Blackhawks' championship season and the and the 1994 New York Rangers' championship season. This included 12 by the Montreal Canadiens, 5 by the Edmonton Oilers, and 4 each by the New York Islanders and Toronto Maple Leafs. The 1988-89 Calgary Flames have the unusual distinction of being the only team to win a single Stanley Cup in that era.
You're right about hockey -- it's not a good sport to watch on television. The puck is too small, and television doesn't give you the kind of overall view of the ice surface that you really need to appreciate the game.
>> I guess we could move Carolina back to Hartford. Why did they move in the first place?
As I understood it, the owner was not satisfied with the facilities and wanted a new arena. So he moved to Carolina, and they went from getting (from memory, could be off on the numbers) 11-12,000 fans game in, game out to 5,000. Eventually they picked up some steam and were back at Whalers level. Then they went to the SC finals and really started bringing in fans, but the next year they were horrible again and attendance dropped. They were always horrible in Hartford, but still drew in a decent fan base to the games.
Maybe they could be contracted. If Karmanos lost his shirt and was kicked around by the other owners, that would be enough for me.
I still think of Bourque as a "rental," mainly because I'm convinced he would have retired -- and the Colorado management knew this when they traded for him -- if the Avalanche had won the Cup in 2000.
I don't see anything awful with the NFL system except for the true career players. Players could be cut at any time LONG before the salary cap went in place.
What you didn't have was young players starting in the NFL before they were ready -- especially quarterbacks (Eli Manning, Ben Roethisberger, etc.) -- simply because the teams that drafted them may not be able to afford them after their first three-year contract expires. THAT kind of idiocy is a function of the salary-cap era.
I'm not sure I agree with everything you've suggested, but that's a great summary you posted there.
Look.. to put the same thing in perspective in terms of baseball..I'm using round numbers here..to make the point....Yankees draw 4 million, have a $200 million payroll..ticket prices are insane..I go to about 4 games a year...because I get tickets from some peopel who I do business with. I can fortuately easily afford to attend more games..but no way in hell will I spend $500 to take 4 people to a Yankees game..it's insane..So let's have a salary cap of $100 million..you figure theplayers would scream, the fans would bitch..but let the Yankees announce that they are cutting EVERY ticket by $25..across the board..( 100 mill/4, OIOW)..and the fans would rejoice.. Infact, baseball has MORE leverage than hockey..because hockey players can go overseas..there's no place baseball players could go and earn even 25% of what they make now..
One of the things I liked about games on ESPN were the sort of overhead view, from right about the glass behind the goalie. You really got a good sense of how the play was developing. Of course I'd been watching the game for 20 years or so by that point and it's hard for me to NOT understand what is happening on the ice, just from the way the players move.
They need to have some creative directors come in and help design a good way to present the sport on TV to get around it's inherent limitations for newbies.
Marquee players making 8 million bucks is a definite part of the problem. That's what marquee players in the NFL are just starting to make, and their teams have a solid 3 times the revenue. Even Roenick has admitted that marquee NHL players probable shouldn't be making more than 5 mil. Now the 2nd teir guys don't help matters any, but their salary is "in line" if you assume the marque guys should be making 8 (half the talent, half the pay, that works).
Canada's tax rate certainly doesn't help them. But there's not much the NHL can do about it. I know in 2000 the Canadiens were the lowest taxes team in Canada at $25 mil, which was enough then to get you an all-star 1st line on both offense and defense (now just offense).
Yeah, they need a floor. So does the NFL. IMHO that's the only thing the NBA capdoes right.
In theory caps restore competitive balance, if they're done right. The cap has done wonders for NFL parity, but a bad cap has done nothing for NBA or MLB parity. Only time will tell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
