Do you miss the Pre-Cap Superteams or do you prefer parity?
- Thread starter WarriorofTime
- Start date
IWantSakicAsMyGM
Registered User
To put this another way, 4 of the last 19 Cup winners (aka since the 2004 lockout) are from no income tax states.
Oilslick941611
slapshot into the empty net...utterly irrelevant
its not about on ice parity...
its about the organizations working in the same framework regardless of market status. Its not perfect, but its better than it was. 16ish teams used to the farm teams for the big market teams, it wasn't sustainable.
The Hanging Jowl
Registered User
- Apr 2, 2017
- 10,428
- 12,950
Because Leafs games are, you know, subsidizing a good portion of the league that don't have the same support. Why would I pay $400 for a pair of mid level tickets so Florida can win a Cup?
Last edited:
The Hanging Jowl
Registered User
- Apr 2, 2017
- 10,428
- 12,950
KingsFan7824
Registered User
And in the 16 years before that, there were 4, with even fewer teams.
If you're going to break things down, the NHL in the late early 90's was different to the one in the late 90's. Gretzky was sold to the Kings in the late 80's, but it was shift in how things worked. Money hadn't been that big of an issue before. Scott Stevens ending up on the Devils, when he wanted nothing to to with the franchise(despite ultimately winning 3 Cups there), was really the keystone moment in changing how free agency worked. Half the list you have is different from the other one.
You can say the same with the cap era though. You've got the 13 year contract era, and the 8 year contract era.
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 48,626
- 30,531
I like parity but I don't love the forced roster turnover from internally developed players.
- Jul 3, 2010
- 28,221
- 25,306
The problem here is the baseball issue. Largest markets dominate because they have the most people. In turn why would any other market want to be invested when they know their team has little chance. You seem to imply the leafs just have better fans, but it’s more like the largest market where hockey is the primary sport.
c3z4r
Registered User
I want super-teams back personally.
Or maybe sign a CBA similar to the NFL's where only portions of contract are guaranteed and you can have dead-cap to extend contention window.
I just want to see more retools on the fly; teams becoming contenders over 2-3 year span with good UFA signings and drafting instead of tanking for years on end while waiting to shed bad contracts; even having the franchise tag and bird right in the new CBA would be amazing.
Increase roster sizes, increase the cap and implement an 84 game season, maybe even more.
Let teams run with specialists roles on the active roster; let's say you have a PK and PP specialist that wouldn't count against the cap as long as they only play shifts during those sequences (+/- a reasonable time for them to get off the ice), say you are shorthanded 10 minutes in a game; the specialist can't play more than 11.5 minutes in the whole game and if they do they are suspended from playing for 5 games.
Or maybe sign a CBA similar to the NFL's where only portions of contract are guaranteed and you can have dead-cap to extend contention window.
I just want to see more retools on the fly; teams becoming contenders over 2-3 year span with good UFA signings and drafting instead of tanking for years on end while waiting to shed bad contracts; even having the franchise tag and bird right in the new CBA would be amazing.
Increase roster sizes, increase the cap and implement an 84 game season, maybe even more.
Let teams run with specialists roles on the active roster; let's say you have a PK and PP specialist that wouldn't count against the cap as long as they only play shifts during those sequences (+/- a reasonable time for them to get off the ice), say you are shorthanded 10 minutes in a game; the specialist can't play more than 11.5 minutes in the whole game and if they do they are suspended from playing for 5 games.
The Hanging Jowl
Registered User
- Apr 2, 2017
- 10,428
- 12,950
Because they're teams are getting rich from the larger markets who prop them up their teams to at least make them competitive and entertaining. From the pictures I've seen in recent years with 30% attendance at best in some parks, I bet half the teams in that sport would fold without the luxury tax.
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
I AM him
yea let’s incentivize even less trades and player movement. the league isnt boring and stale enough as it is
Player movement isn't really that interesting. Go play EA if that's all you care about is names swapping. If you want super teams you need to stop artificially breaking them up the moment they become super regardless. Personally I'm fine with the way things are now, just saying if we want dynasties, that's probably what needs to change.
- Jul 3, 2010
- 28,221
- 25,306
Yes North American sports are founded on closed entry socialist type principles to keep the entire league healthy and in turn makes them as big as they are. That’s just how it is so no use griping.
Masked
(Super/star)
This is nonsensical revisionist history.
The successful ownerships that spent, did it because they had really good teams already or they spend foolishly.
There was no stacked deck.
There was no elite free agency. Free agency was guys past their prime getting overpaid because teams, for the most part, held on to their players until they were 31.
There was no correcting mistakes through free agency. The Rangers lack of success was proof of that. You can't win by building a team of players in their 30's.
The Hanging Jowl
Registered User
- Apr 2, 2017
- 10,428
- 12,950
Not griping, just giving my opinion on the question that was asked. Super teams are unfair but it's also unfair that rich teams have to pay for smaller markets just to watch them win Cup after Cup.
Leaf fans parrot the tax disadvantage nonsense but.....they conveniently forget to point out that their players get significant off-ice endorsement money that players in other markets don't receiver.
Similar to how the big Universities in the USA goose player earnings through NIL to their advantage, Leaf players earn $$$$$ that negate the tax advantages that smaller tax free markets have.
As an example, Matthews earns around $5M and I've seen chatter that Leafs will ensure that Knies gets significant off ice $ to ensure that if another team makes an offer it can be negated.
The Hanging Jowl
Registered User
- Apr 2, 2017
- 10,428
- 12,950
Sorry, wasn't a shot at you but rather the bunch of folks in Leaf fan base crying out market tax inefficiencies.
Hippasus
1,9,45,165,495,1287,
Even if there was 10 Cup winners in the last 16 seasons and 10 in the 16 seasons prior to that, it seems there is more turnover in regard to playoff-worthy teams. This is good for a higher proportion of teams in the league to maintain robust fan interest across the league. The tax incentive issue that has cropped-up recently is something that may have to be addressed in the future. In short, I think parity is a good thing. We still get mini-dynasties like Chicago and Pittsburgh in recent years and a high-quality on-ice product. It's like the best of both worlds.
I've always found this to be an interesting topic, being a fan of the big market Blue Jays, medium Raptors, and small market Senators.
I can't ever see the situation changing as 3/4 of teams are small and medium markets, that will never vote for a change.
Jerry Jones often complains about subsidizing Buffalo and Cincinnati, but it is what it is.
Fortunately, baseball tickets aren't that expensive, so I go to 2-5 Blue Jays games per year. I've been to 2 Raptors games ever, but that's more because Basketball is in 4th place for me among major sports.
I have a good friend who's a Leaf fan in the GTA, who's been to 2 Leaf games in his life. He's been to more Sens games, as they are much more affordable.
Last year, I got a 2 for 1 coupon for unpopular mid-week games, and went to 2 games for $50 per person ($25 per game)! It's better for a crappy team to sell tickets for cheap than have empty seats, as people buy parking, beer, food, etc. I love it, getting to go to so many games. I go to 5-6 Sens games per year because they are affordable, it's great! They will get more expensive if the team has success, but they'll still be relatively affordable.
One of my friends went to a Florida Panthers game in January for like $20 US for nosebleeds, and that's for the cup champs, amazing!
A heck of a lot of the money comes from TV, which is magnified a huge amount in football.
There isn't some magical superiority to the Leafs over say the Jets, but that's the nature of being in a huge market in Canada. What is there, 10 million people in the GTA vs. 700,000 in Winnipeg? Yet, somehow the Jets are a better team because of better management.
Another factor; teams like the Leafs or Rangers don't have to have great teams, the rink will sell out regardless. Merchandise sales will always be high. TV viewership will always be high. Whereas teams like the Panthers have to be good, or they lose money, so they make sure they have great management.
Conclusion: it isn't going to change, as like I said before, 3/4 of teams like the salary cap and parity. I'll continue to enjoy going to 5-6 Sens games per year for the price of 1 Leaf game. The ratio will moderate, as the Sens are coming out of an 8 year down period, but I'll still have the tremendous advantage of being able to go to many games for a reasonable price. It's great for us Sens fans!!!
I can't ever see the situation changing as 3/4 of teams are small and medium markets, that will never vote for a change.
Jerry Jones often complains about subsidizing Buffalo and Cincinnati, but it is what it is.
Fortunately, baseball tickets aren't that expensive, so I go to 2-5 Blue Jays games per year. I've been to 2 Raptors games ever, but that's more because Basketball is in 4th place for me among major sports.
I have a good friend who's a Leaf fan in the GTA, who's been to 2 Leaf games in his life. He's been to more Sens games, as they are much more affordable.
Last year, I got a 2 for 1 coupon for unpopular mid-week games, and went to 2 games for $50 per person ($25 per game)! It's better for a crappy team to sell tickets for cheap than have empty seats, as people buy parking, beer, food, etc. I love it, getting to go to so many games. I go to 5-6 Sens games per year because they are affordable, it's great! They will get more expensive if the team has success, but they'll still be relatively affordable.
One of my friends went to a Florida Panthers game in January for like $20 US for nosebleeds, and that's for the cup champs, amazing!
A heck of a lot of the money comes from TV, which is magnified a huge amount in football.
There isn't some magical superiority to the Leafs over say the Jets, but that's the nature of being in a huge market in Canada. What is there, 10 million people in the GTA vs. 700,000 in Winnipeg? Yet, somehow the Jets are a better team because of better management.
Another factor; teams like the Leafs or Rangers don't have to have great teams, the rink will sell out regardless. Merchandise sales will always be high. TV viewership will always be high. Whereas teams like the Panthers have to be good, or they lose money, so they make sure they have great management.
Conclusion: it isn't going to change, as like I said before, 3/4 of teams like the salary cap and parity. I'll continue to enjoy going to 5-6 Sens games per year for the price of 1 Leaf game. The ratio will moderate, as the Sens are coming out of an 8 year down period, but I'll still have the tremendous advantage of being able to go to many games for a reasonable price. It's great for us Sens fans!!!
Ghost of Murph
Registered User
- Dec 23, 2023
- 348
- 3,654
It's fine as is, but I wish there was some way to allow teams to keep internally drafted and developed players more. Maybe giving each team a max of 2 salaries per year of internally developed players that can't count against the cap more than a fixed amount could help in that regard. Just spitballin'.
I see the NHL as one big organism. Maybe parity is unfair in a sense to the bigger clubs, but it helps the overall organism. Hard to grow the game if only a handful of uber-wealthy teams hoard the elite players. Fan bases of the small fish would decrease in size and teams would fold.
Things are very healthy economically now in the NHL. Players are making good salaries, the league keeps expanding, youth hockey is growing in non-traditional areas in the US, and the on-ice product is exciting enough to keep bringing in fans willing to pay exorbitant prices. Parity has much to do with these things.
I see the NHL as one big organism. Maybe parity is unfair in a sense to the bigger clubs, but it helps the overall organism. Hard to grow the game if only a handful of uber-wealthy teams hoard the elite players. Fan bases of the small fish would decrease in size and teams would fold.
Things are very healthy economically now in the NHL. Players are making good salaries, the league keeps expanding, youth hockey is growing in non-traditional areas in the US, and the on-ice product is exciting enough to keep bringing in fans willing to pay exorbitant prices. Parity has much to do with these things.
TheDawnOfANewTage
Dahlin, it’ll all be fine
- Dec 17, 2018
- 12,125
- 21,135
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
Pre-Game Talk: 2025 Playoff Round 1 - Game #1 : Montreal at Washington. Monday April 21st (55 Viewers)- Latest: sandviper
-
-
