The Puck Stops Here
Next entry: Leafs Start Deadline Day Festivities
Previous entry: Laraque Blocked
Kovalchuk Shows CBA Works
by PuckStopsHere on 01/30/10 at 11:06 AM ET
Comments (7)
Nearly a week ago, Ken Campbell of the Hockey News wrote an article titled Kovalchuk Saga Shows Lockout Was A Farce. Hos premise is that the purpose of the lockout was to keep players with their current team, when the opposite is clearly the case.
The two major changes that were made during the lockout were a salary cap and a reduction in free agency ages. Both of which are moves that are going to increase player turnover. A salary cap will force teams to part with players that they otherwise would not want to part with in order to stay below the cap. Lower free agency ages will allow players the chance to leave a team on their own volition at an earlier age as well. The idea that a CBA designed to increase player movement can be judged as a failure because it lead to Kovalchuk’s likely departure from Atlanta is totally misguided.
The motivations behind the lockout from the NHL were largely financial. The salary cap system with total payrolls linked to NHL revenue was designed to increase owner profits in the NHL. This idea was not one that was something that would resonate with fans. so other ideas (with questionable factual content) were offered to fans. One that resonated was the incorrect idea that it would allow teams to keep their talent. The idea that lowering free agency ages and instituting a salary cap would allow teams to keep their players is quite obviously wrong.
The fact that the free agency ages were lowered in this CBA suggests different motivations. In 2004, the Tampa Bay Lightning had just won the Stanley Cup. They did so by defeating the Calgary Flames. The Ottawa Senators were another team on the rise that looked likely to win one (if not multiple) Stanley Cups. The New York Rangers had been toiling in failure. Despite high payrolls, they had missed the playoffs for eight straight years. It was clear that you could not buy a winning team under the old NHL system. It looked quite likely that the next several years would be dominated by markets like Tampa Bay and Ottawa and these were not teams that would help NHL marketing. It was hoped that New York, Toronto, Chicago and Los Angeles (the bigger NHL markets) would be more successful as this would increase hockey interest in the markets that tend to drive national opinions and hence increase interest across the league. Increasing player movement would help break up the small market teams that were poised to be dynasties and help them wind up in bigger markets. Lowering free agency ages would allow teams to buy players who are at the top of their game and can make a difference, instead of the aging overpaid free agents of the past CBA.
Another failed explanation for the CBA from a fans perspective is that of parity. There is no difference in the rate of change of teams in the standings is no higher today than it was before the lockout - despite claims to the contrary. Any team that developed a core of good young players would be able to win for several years if they kept that core together. Sure the core would get expensive to keep together if they are top players, but teams had a chance to keep them together without a salary cap. Today a team that builds a good young core has to give up significant parts of their core to stay below the salary cap. Today, we do not get to see these teams in their prime. We no longer get these elite teams. These elite teams wound up in all kinds of unexpected places like Denver, Colorado and East Rutherford, New Jersey. They were not confined to big markets.
Ilya Kovalchuk is likely the best player to become and unrestricted free agent so far in this CBA. The fact that he is moving to a likely big market is by design. The big markets have more to offer to an unrestricted free agent. They can offer advertising that is not directly related to the NHL. A top star has almost unlimited possibilities in a big market. For example, Wayne Gretzky had a Saturday Night Live appearance and a significant number of commercial appearances once he left Edmonton to go to Los Angeles. If Kovalchuk plays well in a market like New York, he will have significantly more opportunity than in Atlanta. This is one of the reasons that increased player movement is wanted by the NHL. It will bring top talent to the biggest markets whether they develop it or not. This will help keep the NHL’s most significant markets winning teams. The salary cap is not a significant damper on this because it is only necessary to secure one or two top stars. No team needs to acquire all of them.
The scenario of top players becoming free agents and winding up in top markets has been slow so far. Teams have begun offering “lifetime contracts” to young stars in order to keep them off the market. Alexander Ovechkin is the best player in the NHL and he has one. Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin may come onto the market. They will be more significant examples of the current CBA working as the NHL intended it to, but for now, Ilya Kovalchuk’s pending free agency is an example of the CBA working exactly as it was designed.
Filed in: | The Puck Stops Here | Permalink
Tags: Atlanta+Thrashers, llya+Kovalchuk,
Comments
These elite teams wound up in all kinds of unexpected places like Denver, Colorado and East Rutherford, New Jersey. They were not confined to big markets.
Denver and NJ aren’t big markets? ummm…
they’re 12th and 13th in income, and 9th and 13th in revenue, and 9th and 10th in value.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/31/nhl08_NHL-Team-Valuations_Value.html
Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 01/30/10 at 02:27 PM ET
Lowering free agency ages would allow teams to buy players who are at the top of their game and can make a difference, instead of the aging overpaid free agents of the past CBA.
you mean like when the Wings got Brett Hull and Luc Robitaille? yeah, they clearly were aging and overpaid and made no difference to the team.
Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 01/30/10 at 02:29 PM ET
Paul
You could put all your comments into one single comment to make it easier to respond to.
No team won the Stanley Cup by buying a core under the last CBA. Every team produced a young talented core including a few future Hall of Famers.
The fact that the team who most followed the strategy of buying a core without producing one missed the playoffs eight years in a row is strong evidence of the failure of that technique. The problem is that when you must buy players who are 31 or older, you cannot build a winning team. The players in question are in decline.
New Jersey and Colorado are not such big markets. You own numbers place them 10th or 12th or there abouts and that is hardly the biggest markets.
Detroit would never have won the Stanley Cup if free agents like Robitaille and Hull were the best of their core. They required Yzerman, Shanahan (who they traded for when he was still young), Lidstrom etc. in order for their cup wins. In their 2002 cup win, Hull had 63 points and was third in Detroit scoring. Robitaille had 50 and was 5th. if they were the best of the Detroit core, Detroit would never have come close to the 2002 Stanley Cup
Posted by PuckStopsHere on 01/30/10 at 02:34 PM ET
So, what you’re saying is that we won’t get these elite teams that are together and good for a long time because their cores get take apart due to free agency movement, but that will be replaced by big market teams putting together winning squads from icing teams with one or two superstars constantly?
So, if no team can ice a core of young talent for too long without it being dismantled by free agency and big markets are only going to go after two big-name guys at a time and the remainder will be roster-fillers, then are you saying parity won’t exist because all the big-market clubs are going to continue to win?
That seems like an awful big leap to make, considering you’re perfectly ok saying that the so-called parity discussion you looked at in the article you link is ok based on “insignificant” numbers, while the claim you seem to be making isn’t backed up with anything based on history since the lockout.
Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 01/30/10 at 02:48 PM ET
No team won the Stanley Cup by buying a core under the last CBA. Every team produced a young talented core including a few future Hall of Famers.
when did you say bought a CORE. you just added that word to move the goalposts. your statement:
It was clear that you could not buy a winning team under the old NHL system.
you said TEAM not CORE. it’s a simple fact that you cannot prove a negative. even if 1000 teams failed to buy a winning team does not mean you COULDN’T do it, that the 1001st team would also fail. didn’t you ever take science in school?
The fact that the team who most followed the strategy of buying a core without producing one missed the playoffs eight years in a row is strong evidence of the failure of that technique
one instance does not a pattern make. the only thing it’s strong evidence of is that the RANGERS failed at it, by choosing/buying the wrong players. this does not prove that somebody else a little more shrewd could not.
this is a basic tenet of logic that you cannot argue against. one failure does not prove something is impossible.
New Jersey and Colorado are not such big markets. You own numbers place them 10th or 12th or there abouts and that is hardly the biggest markets.
ahhh, so now you moved the goalposts from BIG to BIGGEST. ugh.
Detroit would never have won the Stanley Cup if free agents like Robitaille and Hull were the best of their core.
pay attention to what I was responding to. the Hull/Robitaille comment was not in response to the “buying a team” issue. it was in response to your point about buying players that are old and don’t make a difference.
if they were the best of the Detroit core, Detroit would never have come close to the 2002 Stanley Cup
when did I ever say those two were the best of Detroit’s core? never. that has nothing to do with anything you or I wrote.
I’m getting tired of chasing the goalposts around.
Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 01/30/10 at 02:49 PM ET
I think the “I’ll use the ineptitude of the New York Rangers as evidence to spout another tirade against the salary cap”-horse has been beaten to a pulp on this particular blog.
This is two-trick pony show (corsi numbers and salary cap antagonism).
Posted by Moq from Denmark on 01/30/10 at 03:11 PM ET
Add a Comment
Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.
Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.
Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Most Recent Blog Posts
Missing Other League All Star Games
Top Defenceman So Far This Season
About The Puck Stops Here
The Puck Stops Here was founded during the 2004/05 lockout as a place to rant about hockey. The original site contains over 1000 posts, some of which were also published on FoxSports.com.
Who am I?
A diehard hockey fan.
Why am I blogging?
I want to.
Why are you reading it?
???
Email: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
When learning from experts it’s best to learn personally from them, or from their blog. We can provide that with poker lessons blog, your home to learn poker personally.
Do you get shocked from the luck in the game of poker? Stop getting shocked and start being a Poker Shoker
Donate to Kukla’s Korner
I disagree that the conclusion in this statement is supported by the example given. just because the Rangers didn’t buy the right players doesn’t mean you COULDN’T buy the right players.
Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 01/30/10 at 02:22 PM ET