Thread: The Official CBA Negotiations/Lockout Super Thread

Originally Posted by pg1067

2012 will mark the ninth time in the last eleven seasons tha the Yankees WON'T be in the World Series. Just thought I'd point that out so that there's SOME good news.

You're not getting the point.

In the 18 Seasons since Fehr's Great Luxury Tax was implemented, the Yankees have Won their division 13 times, been to the World Series 7 Times, and Won it all 5 of those years. It enables them to continue to just overspend by paying the Tax because they make piles of money regardless. Since 2003, they've paid out $206M of the $227M in total luxury tax payments, all the while filling the coffers of their ownership group.

All that does is create a weighted structure where the Flyers, Rangers, Leafs, and maybe Red Wings would overspend for Free Agents and build All-Star teams like they have in the past, and pay out the tax, which would make a profit for those teams that met the cap floor. They'd STILL make piles of money.

That's not Parity, and its not good for the game as a whole.

Originally Posted by Birdman

You're not getting the point.

In the 18 Seasons since Fehr's Great Luxury Tax was implemented, the Yankees have Won their division 13 times, been to the World Series 7 Times, and Won it all 5 of those years. It enables them to continue to just overspend by paying the Tax because they make piles of money regardless. Since 2003, they've paid out $206M of the $227M in total luxury tax payments, all the while filling the coffers of their ownership group.

All that does is create a weighted structure where the Flyers, Rangers, Leafs, and maybe Red Wings would overspend for Free Agents and build All-Star teams like they have in the past, and pay out the tax, which would make a profit for those teams that met the cap floor. They'd STILL make piles of money.

That's not Parity, and its not good for the game as a whole.

Baseball seems to be doing just fine as the Yankees dominated. In fact, do you hear complaints in baseball about changing anything? I don't. Until they change the rules the Yanks are going to continue to do what they do. If it was so horrible for the owners then how come they don't change it?

Also, something that's always bugged me....how is it that "parity" is good for the game? It always seemed to me in hockey the league did just fine whether there was parity (recent seasons) or when it was dominated by a dynasty (Montreal-late 70s, NYI-early 80, Edm-mid/late 80s). Popularity was never gigantic and it isn't even now after a few years of what you might call parity. So where is the evidence that parity is good for the game? If the Kings win the next 3 Cups would that really cause teams to go bankrupt like NYI or PHX becauase they didn't win? Or is the reason these teams have trouble is something else entirely? I'm sure it's good for the fans but if they keep coming to the games then does it matter? I dunno....I've always kind of thought when a team or two dominate it makes the sport more popular like the Bulls in the 90s or Lakers/Celtics in the 80s or the Yanks.

jom

Originally Posted by jom

Also, something that's always bugged me....how is it that "parity" is good for the game?

I agree. I think it's a myth. The hate for the Yankees has in some weird way actually helped MLB. Just about everyone wants to see the Yankees lose, so they watch the game. That obviously helps MLB. I'm sure it works the same way in basketball and football. I think the "team you love to hate" teams creates interest in that particular sport. The only team in the NHL that fits "love to hate them" description is the casucks. But they actually suck, as in haven't won anything ever, so they might be a bad example.

Originally Posted by santiclaws

We keep hearing these BS numbers, based on absolutely nothing, quoted as gospel truth. The ONLY "numbers" ever published was a guesstimate by a Forbes' reporter. That's it. No one really knows and the NHL won't say. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that if they were really losing money, they'd open up their books.

From today's interview:

The Kings opened up the books to "piston" awhile back.

Originally Posted by kingnut

The Kings opened up the books to "piston" awhile back.

One team, a loooong time ago.

Both LeBrun and Friedman think there's traction enough for an agreement. I think they are right.

NHL labour solution could come from auto industry | Hockey | CBC Sports

CBA talks not as dire as it appears - Cross Checks Blog - ESPN

Originally Posted by jom

Baseball seems to be doing just fine as the Yankees dominated. In fact, do you hear complaints in baseball about changing anything? I don't. Until they change the rules the Yanks are going to continue to do what they do. If it was so horrible for the owners then how come they don't change it?

Also, something that's always bugged me....how is it that "parity" is good for the game? It always seemed to me in hockey the league did just fine whether there was parity (recent seasons) or when it was dominated by a dynasty (Montreal-late 70s, NYI-early 80, Edm-mid/late 80s). Popularity was never gigantic and it isn't even now after a few years of what you might call parity. So where is the evidence that parity is good for the game? If the Kings win the next 3 Cups would that really cause teams to go bankrupt like NYI or PHX becauase they didn't win? Or is the reason these teams have trouble is something else entirely? I'm sure it's good for the fans but if they keep coming to the games then does it matter? I dunno....I've always kind of thought when a team or two dominate it makes the sport more popular like the Bulls in the 90s or Lakers/Celtics in the 80s or the Yanks.

jom

Parity creates unpredictability which creates excitement. Fans of all 16 teams that make the playoffs feel like their team has a legit shot. When was the last time the NBA had an 8th place team win it all? Winning means more when you know everyone has an equal chance. The Yankees situation is a joke in my opinion and the Lakers aren't far behind. As a casual fan, I don't find it to be exciting at all when I see teams like the Lakers throwing money at whatever problem they have.

Originally Posted by NastiMarvasti

Parity creates unpredictability which creates excitement. Fans of all 16 teams that make the playoffs feel like their team has a legit shot. When was the last time the NBA had an 8th place team win it all? Winning means more when you know everyone has an equal chance. The Yankees situation is a joke in my opinion and the Lakers aren't far behind. As a casual fan, I don't find it to be exciting at all when I see teams like the Lakers throwing money at whatever problem they have.

I agree. There's a difference between a league doing well financially despite a lack of parity and the excitement of believing your team has a chance or knowing that your team doesn't stand a chance.

Originally Posted by NastiMarvasti

Parity creates unpredictability which creates excitement. Fans of all 16 teams that make the playoffs feel like their team has a legit shot. When was the last time the NBA had an 8th place team win it all? Winning means more when you know everyone has an equal chance. The Yankees situation is a joke in my opinion and the Lakers aren't far behind. As a casual fan, I don't find it to be exciting at all when I see teams like the Lakers throwing money at whatever problem they have.

Parity does one other thing. It creates franchise value for all teams as they have equal opportunity to win in a given year. And that benefits ownership squarely.

The interesting thing to me today and a couple of days ago is it is all about posturing. The league started with an offer first and joined settlement talk to a full 82 game season, giving fans true hope settlement could be gained. Of course the players weren't going to accept the owners next offer and now the league is painting the union as the villains. I hope both lead negotiators (for each side) keep there heads and allow the noise to be just that - noise.