0-3 last night, and 0-3 on the season. Another pretty ugly loss last night. The Flyers aren't getting killed or run out of the building in these losses, but they're sloppy and at times it feels futile. Now some have turned and said "but the Flyers started 0-3 in the last lockout season, and ultimately went to the conference finals!" The reality is that that Flyers team started 3-7-1, and after back to back 3-0 losses to Ottawa and Florida, two of the worst teams in the league at the time, Clarke traded Mark Recchi. I doubt Holmgren has any similar tricks up his sleeve to acquire a #1 defensemen along with a player who would score 50 goals three years in a row.
What is the problem? There are many;
-No chemistry amongst the forwards, and the chances they do get, there's no finish. No one is shooting with confidence or showing any creativity, other than Giroux.
-Young players who played during the lockout look out of sorts. Couturier has really struggled, and Read has been pretty invisible. Schenn has some good moments, but not enough.
-The defense looks haggard. Grossmann is really laboring, struggling with forecheckers, the puck, and notably getting outskated. Timonen isn't doing much. Schenn has been average, Mesz has been pretty good, and Coburn can only do so much himself.
-General disorganization. Failed coverage on faceoffs has led to goals. Failed coverage down low has led to goals. Special teams have been terrible. The Flyers have also been burned by bad changes. All this in 3 games.
-Bad bounces. It's hard to say how much is teams making their own luck, but the first period against the Devils was probably their best this season, yet they trailed 2-0 after it. Against Buffalo, there were 3 questionable calls in the crease directly leading to goals or potential goals, and all three went in Buffalo's favor.
-Bad first periods. The first 15 minutes against the Penguins were terrible, leading to a 2-0 hole. Another slow start in the Buffalo game creating a 1-0 deficit, and another 2-0 hole last night. Outscored 5-0 in the first period so far this season.
I'm not sure what the remedy is here, as Laviolette did the line shuffling prior to the New Jersey game Maybe throw in Leighton and see if the team responds? I think the most important thing right now is to focus on special teams, where they've been outscored 7-1 in just three games. That is inexcusable.
Opinions on NHL topics of the moment, but mostly on the Flyers.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Subban??
Okay, so another trade rumor post, mainly because they're fun to speculate about. The Flyers had a lousy opening weekend, and generally look discombobulated, but I'll refrain from comment until they get another game or two in.
As for P.K. Subban, there may be an opportunity here. Bob McKenzie reports that the sides are still nowhere close on the holdout RFA. The Habs apparently are offering a shorter term at $2.75m. No wonder talks are going nowhere. Undoubtedly, Subban is looking for something in the ballpark of what other highly-rated young RFA defensemen got; Myers - 7x$5.5, Carlson - 6x$3.96, Hedman - 5x$4, Staal - 5x$3.975. He'll demand at least 4 years and $4 million.
As for Subban's game, I think he's a very talented player. I remember the first time I saw him play his rookie year against the Flyers, I didn't know who he was, and I thought to myself, "woah, who is that guy for Montreal!?" Fast, aggressive, skilled, physical; a very exciting player. He's been pretty productive in his short NHL career, but he has rubbed some the wrong way with disrespectful behavior, including a notable spat with Mike Richards. With guys like this, you take the good with the bad. If you believe that his attitude is an issue, that just lessens what you pay him (or for him), but shouldn't exclude him from consideration.
Even with Montreal getting nowhere on contract talks, he will be very difficult to pry away. Quite frankly, the Flyers have very few assets to trade, and Montreal probably would insist on getting Schenn or Couturier. The Flyers current roster needs Schenn, and I personally think Couturier is the Flyers best prospect since Lindros. Similar to their pursuit of Weber, I'd continue to draw the line at including Schenn or Cooter in a trade. After you remove those two guys, you're looking at an ad hoc package of high draft picks and prospects. Would Montreal have any interest in Laughton of Gostisbehere? They are the only 2 Flyers prospects of note, and even then they're not exactly hot properties.
The Flyers usually sniff around any time a talented player becomes available, and I would certainly see if an opportunistic deal could be made. I think it's all a long shot, as Montreal doesn't really want to trade him and his contract demands are uncertain, but I think his abilities are exciting enough to earn a look. He'd be a real shot in the arm to the Flyers defense corps, no doubt.
Friday, January 18, 2013
And We're Back...
Tomorrow, it's finally back to hockey. It should be a pretty fun home opener against the Pens. The Pens of course are coming off their first round loss to the Flyers last year, in which their contempt for the Flyers caused them to completely lose their nerve. 30 goals against in 6 games was the result. Remarkably, this will be the Pens 8th straight game against the Flyers, with no other opponents in between.
But enough about the Pens. The Flyers won't have any time to get in game shape, as its trial by fire with an incredibly busy schedule, kicking off with 5 games in 8 days. Fortunately, there is a lot of consistency with last year's roster, and most player's on the roster have been playing in Europe or the minors. However, with Briere out and Meszaros questionable, the exact lineup is still a work in progress. It appears the Flyers will start the season with the following:
The big questions on my mind;
-That lineup is scary young down the middle. At 25, Giroux is the old man. Cooter, Laughton and Wellwood only have 136 career NHL games between the 3 of them!! Things will look a little different once Briere comes back (with his 921 games played), but in some ways, he is the least reliable of all of them.
-Will Scott Laughton stick around? He was hardly a prized draft pick, but he looks to be one of the few players from this year's draft to play in the NHL this year. After he plays in 5 games, the Flyers must send him back to the juniors, or lose a year on his entry-level contract. Due the condensed schedule, that is only 8 days.
-How much can be expected from Cooter and Schenner? They put up solid numbers on a dreadful Phantoms team in the AHL. That should be expected from top prospects, and basically they were the entire offense for the team. Cooter is still only 19 however. I think it's time for Schenn to live up to his billing from the last few years. I recall that I thought he was the Flyers's best player in game 1 versus Pitt last year, until Asham ran him and slowed him down.
-Who will be the 6th defensemen? Right now it's newly signed Kurtis Foster, who looked to be having a promising career until it was derailed by injuries over the last few seasons. I wouldn't mind seeing the big man wind-up on the PP a few times though. A total x-factor is the possibility of signing Redden. He's been parked in the AHL the last 2 years due to his enormous contract, but the Rangers have now bought him out and he's free to sign anywhere, likely on a one year deal. He's 35 now, and I'm not sure how much he has left, but I presume he could fit in on several teams' bottom pair. I don't know how real the Flyers interest in him may be, but they sniff around everything and there's not much to lose with a one-year deal. Either way we'll find out today. If he does sign, he'll battle it out with Foster for the #6 spot, and Gervais will be the 8th defensemen.
-Can Simmonds match the pace of his career high in goals? Can Hartnell match the pace of his career high in goals? Can Read avoid the sophomore slump? I'll say yes, probably slightly off, and yes.
-Is Bryzgalov focused and ready? It's not unusual for big ticket signings to struggle in their first season in a new town. No doubt, Bryz bungled it in many ways. Still, I think he can turn it around and be a top goalie again. He didn't impress as a third wheel in the KHL during the lockout, and it seems he was never really focused there honestly. It won't all be smooth sailing, but I think he'll have a solid season. If not, I'm not sure what the Flyers will do. Lure Tim Thomas out of his sabbatical?
-Will Laviolette tighten things up defensively? I wrote about this last year, and I was hardly the only one to point it out. This year, it appears that Snider expects the team to tighten up on defense, and help Bryz more. I don't know if they're going to do that, but I think it would be a good idea.
The Flyers are saddled in the toughest division and hockey. The Rangers and Pens are probably the two biggest favorites in the East, and the Devils are coming off a trip to the finals. Expectations for the Flyers won't be as high, and maybe that's a good thing. Either way, it'll be interesting...
But enough about the Pens. The Flyers won't have any time to get in game shape, as its trial by fire with an incredibly busy schedule, kicking off with 5 games in 8 days. Fortunately, there is a lot of consistency with last year's roster, and most player's on the roster have been playing in Europe or the minors. However, with Briere out and Meszaros questionable, the exact lineup is still a work in progress. It appears the Flyers will start the season with the following:
The big questions on my mind;
-That lineup is scary young down the middle. At 25, Giroux is the old man. Cooter, Laughton and Wellwood only have 136 career NHL games between the 3 of them!! Things will look a little different once Briere comes back (with his 921 games played), but in some ways, he is the least reliable of all of them.
-Will Scott Laughton stick around? He was hardly a prized draft pick, but he looks to be one of the few players from this year's draft to play in the NHL this year. After he plays in 5 games, the Flyers must send him back to the juniors, or lose a year on his entry-level contract. Due the condensed schedule, that is only 8 days.
-How much can be expected from Cooter and Schenner? They put up solid numbers on a dreadful Phantoms team in the AHL. That should be expected from top prospects, and basically they were the entire offense for the team. Cooter is still only 19 however. I think it's time for Schenn to live up to his billing from the last few years. I recall that I thought he was the Flyers's best player in game 1 versus Pitt last year, until Asham ran him and slowed him down.
-Who will be the 6th defensemen? Right now it's newly signed Kurtis Foster, who looked to be having a promising career until it was derailed by injuries over the last few seasons. I wouldn't mind seeing the big man wind-up on the PP a few times though. A total x-factor is the possibility of signing Redden. He's been parked in the AHL the last 2 years due to his enormous contract, but the Rangers have now bought him out and he's free to sign anywhere, likely on a one year deal. He's 35 now, and I'm not sure how much he has left, but I presume he could fit in on several teams' bottom pair. I don't know how real the Flyers interest in him may be, but they sniff around everything and there's not much to lose with a one-year deal. Either way we'll find out today. If he does sign, he'll battle it out with Foster for the #6 spot, and Gervais will be the 8th defensemen.
-Can Simmonds match the pace of his career high in goals? Can Hartnell match the pace of his career high in goals? Can Read avoid the sophomore slump? I'll say yes, probably slightly off, and yes.
-Is Bryzgalov focused and ready? It's not unusual for big ticket signings to struggle in their first season in a new town. No doubt, Bryz bungled it in many ways. Still, I think he can turn it around and be a top goalie again. He didn't impress as a third wheel in the KHL during the lockout, and it seems he was never really focused there honestly. It won't all be smooth sailing, but I think he'll have a solid season. If not, I'm not sure what the Flyers will do. Lure Tim Thomas out of his sabbatical?
-Will Laviolette tighten things up defensively? I wrote about this last year, and I was hardly the only one to point it out. This year, it appears that Snider expects the team to tighten up on defense, and help Bryz more. I don't know if they're going to do that, but I think it would be a good idea.
The Flyers are saddled in the toughest division and hockey. The Rangers and Pens are probably the two biggest favorites in the East, and the Devils are coming off a trip to the finals. Expectations for the Flyers won't be as high, and maybe that's a good thing. Either way, it'll be interesting...
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Luongo???
The CBA is still an unsigned "tentative" agreement, training camps haven't started, and the Flyers are already at the center of a juicy rumor and potential goalie controversy.
Yesterday, a report gained some traction that the Flyers were interested in Luongo, whose potential move to Toronto has been dragging on for 8 or 9 years (or maybe it just seems that long). Holmgren immediately shot it down, but some TSN guys, foremostly host James Duthie, insists it's true. My first reaction was, what?
First of all, the fact that Holmgren denied any interest doesn't mean much. Taking a cue from Bobby Clarke, his word on trade denials is basically worthless. Still, why would the Flyers be interested??
Luongo is 33 years old and owed ~$47 million over the next 10 years, carrying a cap hit of $5.33 million. Bryzgalov is 32 and is owed $41 million over the next 8 years at a cap hit of $5.66. These are two of the biggest goalie contracts in the league. Let's have them both?
I think Luongo is generally regarded as the better goalie, but I'm not sure how significant a difference it would be. Both goalies are coming off disappointing seasons, and their ability to carry a team to a cup is being questioned.
Their 3 year performance record isn't very different either:
Bryzgalov:
2010 - 42-20-6, 2.29 GAA, .920 sv %, 2nd in Vezina voting
2011 - 36-20-10, 2.48 GAA, .921 sv %, 6th in Vezina voting
2012 - 33-16-7, 2.48 GAA, .909 sv %, not in Vezina voting
Luongo:
2010 - 40-22-4, 2.57 GAA, .913 sv %, 10th in Vezina voting
2011 - 38-15-7, 2.11 GAA, .928 sv %, 3rd in Vezina voting
2012 - 31-14-8, 2.51 GAA, .919 sv %, not in Vezina voting
It's interesting that Luongo and Bryzgalov were the only 2 goalies in the league to be in the Vezina voting in both 2010 and 2011, and then both dropped out in 2012. To Luongo's credit, if you expand that time window a little more you'll see Luongo being the Vezina runner-up in 2007 and finishing third 2004, and receiving votes in other seasons as well.
Either way, let's take this to mean Luongo is a slight upgrade to Bryzgalov right now. Is this worth giving up assets for? Frankly I have no idea what Luongo commands in a trade these days when he clearly has one foot out the door in Vancouver, but I wouldn't give up much for him if I were the Flyers for what amounts to a small marginal benefit (if the Flyers were still rolling out Bob and Leighton, the marginal benefit would be much larger).
Second, assuming the Flyers make an opportunistic deal at a cheap price, how would it work if he got here? Between his contract and his NMC, I don't think Bryzgalov can be traded, and he cannot be bought out until after the season. So you have Bryzgalov and Luongo trading starts competing for the starting job, and then loser of that competition is paid $25 million to go away after the season? Seems kind of insane to me.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Flyers poked around Luongo's availability, but I don't see the endgame here.
Yesterday, a report gained some traction that the Flyers were interested in Luongo, whose potential move to Toronto has been dragging on for 8 or 9 years (or maybe it just seems that long). Holmgren immediately shot it down, but some TSN guys, foremostly host James Duthie, insists it's true. My first reaction was, what?
First of all, the fact that Holmgren denied any interest doesn't mean much. Taking a cue from Bobby Clarke, his word on trade denials is basically worthless. Still, why would the Flyers be interested??
Luongo is 33 years old and owed ~$47 million over the next 10 years, carrying a cap hit of $5.33 million. Bryzgalov is 32 and is owed $41 million over the next 8 years at a cap hit of $5.66. These are two of the biggest goalie contracts in the league. Let's have them both?
I think Luongo is generally regarded as the better goalie, but I'm not sure how significant a difference it would be. Both goalies are coming off disappointing seasons, and their ability to carry a team to a cup is being questioned.
Their 3 year performance record isn't very different either:
Bryzgalov:
2010 - 42-20-6, 2.29 GAA, .920 sv %, 2nd in Vezina voting
2011 - 36-20-10, 2.48 GAA, .921 sv %, 6th in Vezina voting
2012 - 33-16-7, 2.48 GAA, .909 sv %, not in Vezina voting
Luongo:
2010 - 40-22-4, 2.57 GAA, .913 sv %, 10th in Vezina voting
2011 - 38-15-7, 2.11 GAA, .928 sv %, 3rd in Vezina voting
2012 - 31-14-8, 2.51 GAA, .919 sv %, not in Vezina voting
It's interesting that Luongo and Bryzgalov were the only 2 goalies in the league to be in the Vezina voting in both 2010 and 2011, and then both dropped out in 2012. To Luongo's credit, if you expand that time window a little more you'll see Luongo being the Vezina runner-up in 2007 and finishing third 2004, and receiving votes in other seasons as well.
Either way, let's take this to mean Luongo is a slight upgrade to Bryzgalov right now. Is this worth giving up assets for? Frankly I have no idea what Luongo commands in a trade these days when he clearly has one foot out the door in Vancouver, but I wouldn't give up much for him if I were the Flyers for what amounts to a small marginal benefit (if the Flyers were still rolling out Bob and Leighton, the marginal benefit would be much larger).
Second, assuming the Flyers make an opportunistic deal at a cheap price, how would it work if he got here? Between his contract and his NMC, I don't think Bryzgalov can be traded, and he cannot be bought out until after the season. So you have Bryzgalov and Luongo trading starts competing for the starting job, and then loser of that competition is paid $25 million to go away after the season? Seems kind of insane to me.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Flyers poked around Luongo's availability, but I don't see the endgame here.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Lockout Post-Mortem
At last, the league and players have agreed to a cease-fire, and the NHL season will soon be upon us. I purposely shut it down and avoided commenting on a situation that defied intelligent discussion. Before I start writing again about, you know, actual hockey, here's a few conclusions I reached about the whole affair.
One, there was incredible disdain exhibited towards the fans. There was no bona fide effort to start the season on-time, and actual good faith negotiating didn't even start until December. Both sides simply didn't care about missing a good chunk of this season, and were willing to sit on their hands for weeks or months at a time lest they forfeit a precious inch in negotiations. The idea that there was any duty to the fans, who are voiceless in the process, obviously never crossed the minds' of either side.
Two, the league and the players have been much closer on the key issues than they would let on. The biggest issues of the lockout, hockey related revenue distribution and escrow payments, were settled several weeks ago. However, the league and the players obviously had a deep distrust of one another, did everything they could to break the unity of the other side and "win" the negotiations, and were each willing to go the brink. Indeed, they were determined to wait until midnight before making a deal in order to squeeze every last penny from the deal. As a result, fans were scorned by a mind-numbing and completely gratuitous month of negotiations (see point 1 again).
Three, please be Bettman's final CBA negotiation! I am not a "blame-everything-on-Bettmann" person, but enough is enough. He's not a hockey guy, fans don't like him in the first place, and his no-holds-barred negotiation style infuriates fans. His real sin now, however, is incompetence. He's presided over three CBA negotiations, each one going to lengthy lockouts (see chart below for games lost by league, and this chart doesn't even count the 625 games lost by this lockout!!). This is a major failure itself. Even worse, when he "wins" negotiations like 2004-05, he still brokers a deal that proves to be untenable for the owners! 20 years is long enough for any commissioner, and it's way too long for Bettman and the NHL.
Four, the single biggest reason for another bitter lockout is that the league over-expanded and finds itself with franchises that are simply not viable. This happened under Bettman's watch and he deserves some blame here, but not all of it my opinion. According to Forbes reports, only a few NHL teams turn a profit, with the majority of NHL teams seeing no reasonable prospect of profitable seasons--the only question in each year is how much will they lose. Each owner got one vote in the process, so now you had a situation where the "poor" owners outnumber the "wealthy" owners, and thus dictate an extremely hard bargaining line because they have nothing to lose. For them, losing a season to radically change the financial landscape of the league is worth it. The 90s strategy to increase the national footprint of the NHL has been a failure, and this season's lockout is it's latest and perhaps most sour consequence.
I have not decided what, if any, personal fan boycott is appropriate for how the NHL disregarded its fans. I never made any strident "I'm never coming back!" proclamations, but when in doubt this season, I will pass on buying tickets or merchandes, etc...
One, there was incredible disdain exhibited towards the fans. There was no bona fide effort to start the season on-time, and actual good faith negotiating didn't even start until December. Both sides simply didn't care about missing a good chunk of this season, and were willing to sit on their hands for weeks or months at a time lest they forfeit a precious inch in negotiations. The idea that there was any duty to the fans, who are voiceless in the process, obviously never crossed the minds' of either side.
Two, the league and the players have been much closer on the key issues than they would let on. The biggest issues of the lockout, hockey related revenue distribution and escrow payments, were settled several weeks ago. However, the league and the players obviously had a deep distrust of one another, did everything they could to break the unity of the other side and "win" the negotiations, and were each willing to go the brink. Indeed, they were determined to wait until midnight before making a deal in order to squeeze every last penny from the deal. As a result, fans were scorned by a mind-numbing and completely gratuitous month of negotiations (see point 1 again).
Three, please be Bettman's final CBA negotiation! I am not a "blame-everything-on-Bettmann" person, but enough is enough. He's not a hockey guy, fans don't like him in the first place, and his no-holds-barred negotiation style infuriates fans. His real sin now, however, is incompetence. He's presided over three CBA negotiations, each one going to lengthy lockouts (see chart below for games lost by league, and this chart doesn't even count the 625 games lost by this lockout!!). This is a major failure itself. Even worse, when he "wins" negotiations like 2004-05, he still brokers a deal that proves to be untenable for the owners! 20 years is long enough for any commissioner, and it's way too long for Bettman and the NHL.
Four, the single biggest reason for another bitter lockout is that the league over-expanded and finds itself with franchises that are simply not viable. This happened under Bettman's watch and he deserves some blame here, but not all of it my opinion. According to Forbes reports, only a few NHL teams turn a profit, with the majority of NHL teams seeing no reasonable prospect of profitable seasons--the only question in each year is how much will they lose. Each owner got one vote in the process, so now you had a situation where the "poor" owners outnumber the "wealthy" owners, and thus dictate an extremely hard bargaining line because they have nothing to lose. For them, losing a season to radically change the financial landscape of the league is worth it. The 90s strategy to increase the national footprint of the NHL has been a failure, and this season's lockout is it's latest and perhaps most sour consequence.
I have not decided what, if any, personal fan boycott is appropriate for how the NHL disregarded its fans. I never made any strident "I'm never coming back!" proclamations, but when in doubt this season, I will pass on buying tickets or merchandes, etc...
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Where are the Flyers??
So with a whole lot of nothing happening, I took a few minutes and mapped out where some Flyers are playing hockey these days.
View Where are the Flyers in a larger map
View Where are the Flyers in a larger map
Thursday, September 6, 2012
On the Lockout
Admittedly, I have been willfully ignorant of the daily "news" regarding CBA negotiations. I have little doubt there will be a lockout, and I refuse to take sides or get caught up in the little issues.
When the parties get serious, they'll find common ground. There are no absolutes or untouchable principles in these negotiations, and in the end it's just who gets how much money. That said, I've seen a lot of commentary regarding the lockout that I find curious.
One comment I've heard a few times is that the big contracts being thrown around are evidence that the "owners" are making money and are being hypocritical. That seems to me to be a completely unwarranted conclusion from a small slice of evidence. On the one hand, you can say that obviously means the owners have money to spend, but one could look at the same evidence and conclude that it proves the financials of the current CBA are broken, and requires the owners to make backbreaking deals to compete on the ice.
I think there are some realities that need to be considered here. One, GMs and owners aren't really one in the same. An owner wants the prestige and fun of owning a pro hockey team, and would prefer to make money for his trouble. He certainly doesn't want to lose his personal fortune propping the team up, however. A GM's job is purely to win under the set of rules he is given. Once the CBA is laid down, a GM's job is to manipulate and exploit the system as much as possible to give his team a leg up. His boss (the owner) can veto any deal he makes, but the GM has to try and make the deal. This means exploiting contract loopholes before they are closed in the new CBA.
I suppose an owner could take a principled stand and say "these long term deals are killing the league, so out of good faith don't sign any this offseason," but why would the owner competitively disadvantage his team going forward? Such loopholes can be dealt with far more effectively in the longterm through the new CBA. This calculation is cynical, and there will always be an element of saving the "owners" from themselves, but it's not really hypocritical.
The second thing you have to consider is that the "owners" are really a disparate group of franchises with very different financial realities. With the salary cap, it seems clear that the the rich franchises are sitting on piles of cash they are unable to spend. On the other end of the spectrum poor franchises are being forced to spend beyond their revenues to reach the salary cap floor. Unless teams are contracted (which won't happen), the "owners" collective has to act on behalf of their struggling brethren. It seems to me that the mistake here is that the salary cap range was too small, but then you get into issues of competitive balance and the like.
There are lots of way to address this practical issue, like salary range limits, revenue sharing, trading cap space, non-guaranteed years...etc, all of which would make for interesting hockey discussion. I don't know what the best answer to all of this would ultimately be, but unfortunately that's not the contentious issue out there right now. The real sticking point thus far is how much "hockey related revenue" the players are entitled to. The answer to that question is independent of any other consideration or issue and will only be settled through hard negotiation, which takes time.
A professional sporting league is by nature a contrived situation where organizations collude for mutual benefit, while still competing against one another. It is inherently contradictory. Let the boys fight over who gets the bigger piece of pie. Until then, be wary of platitudes about the millionaires or billionaires being "greedy," or a hockey fan favorite---blame it all on Bettman.
When the parties get serious, they'll find common ground. There are no absolutes or untouchable principles in these negotiations, and in the end it's just who gets how much money. That said, I've seen a lot of commentary regarding the lockout that I find curious.
One comment I've heard a few times is that the big contracts being thrown around are evidence that the "owners" are making money and are being hypocritical. That seems to me to be a completely unwarranted conclusion from a small slice of evidence. On the one hand, you can say that obviously means the owners have money to spend, but one could look at the same evidence and conclude that it proves the financials of the current CBA are broken, and requires the owners to make backbreaking deals to compete on the ice.
I think there are some realities that need to be considered here. One, GMs and owners aren't really one in the same. An owner wants the prestige and fun of owning a pro hockey team, and would prefer to make money for his trouble. He certainly doesn't want to lose his personal fortune propping the team up, however. A GM's job is purely to win under the set of rules he is given. Once the CBA is laid down, a GM's job is to manipulate and exploit the system as much as possible to give his team a leg up. His boss (the owner) can veto any deal he makes, but the GM has to try and make the deal. This means exploiting contract loopholes before they are closed in the new CBA.
I suppose an owner could take a principled stand and say "these long term deals are killing the league, so out of good faith don't sign any this offseason," but why would the owner competitively disadvantage his team going forward? Such loopholes can be dealt with far more effectively in the longterm through the new CBA. This calculation is cynical, and there will always be an element of saving the "owners" from themselves, but it's not really hypocritical.
The second thing you have to consider is that the "owners" are really a disparate group of franchises with very different financial realities. With the salary cap, it seems clear that the the rich franchises are sitting on piles of cash they are unable to spend. On the other end of the spectrum poor franchises are being forced to spend beyond their revenues to reach the salary cap floor. Unless teams are contracted (which won't happen), the "owners" collective has to act on behalf of their struggling brethren. It seems to me that the mistake here is that the salary cap range was too small, but then you get into issues of competitive balance and the like.
There are lots of way to address this practical issue, like salary range limits, revenue sharing, trading cap space, non-guaranteed years...etc, all of which would make for interesting hockey discussion. I don't know what the best answer to all of this would ultimately be, but unfortunately that's not the contentious issue out there right now. The real sticking point thus far is how much "hockey related revenue" the players are entitled to. The answer to that question is independent of any other consideration or issue and will only be settled through hard negotiation, which takes time.
A professional sporting league is by nature a contrived situation where organizations collude for mutual benefit, while still competing against one another. It is inherently contradictory. Let the boys fight over who gets the bigger piece of pie. Until then, be wary of platitudes about the millionaires or billionaires being "greedy," or a hockey fan favorite---blame it all on Bettman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)