You say that fans have lost the chance to see high quality teams, but this is completely false. Are the Chicago Blackhawks not a high quality team? How about the Penguins, Capitals, Sharks, Flyers. These teams are loaded with talent and are probably better than almost all of the pre-lockout teams.

Parity gives fans and teams hope that they can actually make the playoffs every year. The games are really close, the talent level is quite equal right now. There’s going to be 3-4 new teams in the playoffs every year. It adds something extra to the playoffs. We don’t have to see Detroit, Dallas, Colorado and New Jersey every damn year.

Posted by Colton from Calgary on 01/27/10 at 11:11 AM ET

Parity gives fans and teams hope that they can actually make the playoffs every year. The games are really close, the talent level is quite equal right now. There’s going to be 3-4 new teams in the playoffs every year. It adds something extra to the playoffs. We don’t have to see Detroit, Dallas, Colorado and New Jersey every damn year.

did you read the article?  the reason teams have hope is because of the OT loss points.

and there were 3-4 new teams in the playoffs every year BEFORE the lockout.  this is the point…nothing has really changed.

one way, however, to look at parity would be playoff SUCCESS, not just APPEARANCE.  I’m not sure we have a big enough post-lockout sample size, but working with what we have it would be interesting to see some statistical analysis of the teams who were in the Conference Finals and Stanley Cup Finals each year since the lockout vs a sample of years before the lockout.

if there is a significant difference, that could show parity.  in other words, if the Semi Finals and Finals were reserved for a smaller set of teams pre-lockout than post-lockout, this would show some parity.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 01/27/10 at 12:23 PM ET

I stopped reading after the first sentence. “Central” bargaining agreement? Enough said.

Posted by Steve on 01/27/10 at 12:32 PM ET

Chicago looks great this year. When they have 15 people on the bench next year, we’ll see “parity”.

I hate this system because it destroys teams and boosts individual stars. The NHL will have to reevaluate their cap if the big names flee for Russian paychecks in the KHL.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 01/27/10 at 12:51 PM ET

The NHL will have to reevaluate their cap if the big names flee for Russian paychecks in the KHL.

that’s already happening.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 01/27/10 at 01:01 PM ET

Thank you for confirming something I wrote in my Crashing the Net blog about eleven hours earlier. Concurrence is a good thing, and it’s also nice to see that someone else is as much an anti-fan of the shootout as I am.

Posted by Vanya Tucherov from Seattle, Washington on 01/27/10 at 01:42 PM ET

I stopped reading after the first sentence. “Central” bargaining agreement? Enough said.

Exactly.  Everyone knows it’s the Norris Bargaining Agreement.

“Parity” in the sense of modern team sports has come to mean “teams cannot overload on expensive free agents.”  How teams ultimately finish in the standings is then due to players, coaches, injuries, luck, etc.  To that end, the current COLLECTIVE Bargaining Agreement has done a magnificent job.

This article attempts to over-simplify outcomes that have a multitude of variables which are in no way related to the CBA.  Bottom line is the NHL is in a much better state than it was before the current CBA was put into place.  People who fail to see improvements in the NHL are likely blind lemmings who follow all anti-Bettman sentiment.

Posted by Steve Naismith on 01/27/10 at 01:48 PM ET

I mostly agree, Steve…but with any new set of rules improvements are needed over time.  the current allowances for injured players seems inadequate - as the Wings’ situation has illustrated this year.

I think they need to adjust the qualifications for waivers to give teams more room to move players around under the cap, for one example.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 01/27/10 at 01:56 PM ET

so, it is good that a team can draft excellently, invest into and develop quality players,then cannot keep them on its roster because of the salary cap, thus letting them go to incapablly run teams who do not develop quality players, even if they have better draft positions?
by all means, lets punish the excellent, and drown in mediocrity

Posted by edillac from bitches please,this isnt funny on 01/27/10 at 02:41 PM ET

Steve

As the Rangers proved in the last CBA, a team that loaded up on high priced free agents doesn’t win unless they produce a good young core of players as well.  There was no need to change the CBA to stop the Rangers from fulfilling that failed strategy.  I don’t care who loads up on expensive free agents if the expensive free agents are past their prime (and in the last CBA they were 31 or older).  This feature of the CBA is a solution to a problem that never existed.

The problem it actually solves is how to we keep payrolls down and ownership profits up.  The NHL sold it to you with lies and deceit to think it solves a problem that needed fixing , when it didn’t.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 01/27/10 at 02:54 PM ET

so, it is good that a team can draft excellently, invest into and develop quality players,then cannot keep them on its roster because of the salary cap, thus letting them go to incapablly run teams who do not develop quality players, even if they have better draft positions?
by all means, lets punish the excellent, and drown in mediocrity

how about an adjustment that lowers the cap hit of a drafted player by a certain percentage?  this would ENCOURAGE internal development and savvy drafting.  for example, a player who was drafted by his current team only has an 80% cap hit from his salary, but once traded it’s 100%...

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 01/27/10 at 04:49 PM ET

The cap’s goal was to maintain competition (not parity) by curbing salary inflation against asymmetrical revenue growth. It’s done that. Zetterberg, for instance, wouldn’t be making roughly $7.5 million if not for the cap. Toronto or NY would have come along and thrown a Holik contract at Franzen, which the wings would have been stupid to match under any sort of self-imposed budget, considering how infrequently he’s in the lineup. Both are still Wings today.

I find it strange that Red Wings fans can’t see that Detroit, long-term, would have been picked apart by asymmetrical growth just as certainly as they are by the cap (even this is questionable, though, since the two players the Red Wings lost are Hossa, who was already a merc, and Hudler, who has, surprisingly, been bettered in Bertuzzi).

Moneywise, many successful teams’ revenue numbers go up or down based on the health of the iced product (Bos, Pitt, Chi, Was, Ott, Stl, to name a few). Detroit’s been run so well, that we don’t exactly know what would happen with attendance and revenue if they finished dead last. Philly needs to be left out of the equation in that they are part of a vertical integration scheme and so, economically, are in a unique situation. Otherwise, most teams in viable markets fit this model. Win lots, turn profit. Lose, lose money.

Toronto’s (superior) revenues grow by 5-15% per year, regardless of the product iced.

Detroit’s revenues are static or shrinking due to external factors that do not look like they will change. Setting aside monetary inflation for now, they will still be able to ice an $80mil team (hopefully) in 2025.

Toronto, who could ice a $180 mil team now and still turn a profit, will be able to set a player budget at over $500 mil, meaning they could comfortably overbid for player x by a factor of 5.

Really, really think about what all this would mean for the Red Wings, let alone the health of the league, long-term.

Posted by steve3 on 01/27/10 at 05:06 PM ET

steve3…you are forgetting one thing: money isn’t everything.  before the cap, players who could have left for more money did not.  they WANT to be Red Wings.  do they all?  no.  to some, they follow the dollars…but that’s a good way to weed out the committed players from the greedy ones who haven’t bought into the team and the organization.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 01/27/10 at 05:28 PM ET

One should not confuse economic parity with compitative parity. The salary cap was a solution to an inflationary problem. It was designed to provide cost certainty. Nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 01/27/10 at 05:41 PM ET

Steve3

Neither Franzen nor Zetterberg are old enough that they would have been unrestricted free agents yet under the old CBA.  Neither have been 31 in the off-season.  Neither would have been available for UFA contracts yet.

Possibly, they could have had RFA offer sheets - but those have been rare and far between.

The Rangers and Toronto (or some other “big market” team) could not have bought either one of them yet.  By the time they come on the open market, they will be into decline.  If a tam wants to fill their line-up with expensive declining assets, let them.  As we learned before the lockout, that doesn’t win.  The Rangers missed the playoffs 8 straight seasons.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 01/27/10 at 05:54 PM ET

steve3…you are forgetting one thing: money isn’t everything.  before the cap, players who could have left for more money did not.

For sure, there are players who will take a million or two less to play for a particular team.

What there are not, are players who will take 20% of what someone else will offer.

Neither Franzen nor Zetterberg are old enough that they would have been unrestricted free agents yet under the old CBA.  Neither have been 31 in the off-season.  Neither would have been available for UFA contracts yet.

Arbitration. What judge will give Zetterberg $4 million per when, say, Shane Doan’s making $20 million?

Posted by steve3 on 01/28/10 at 12:01 PM ET

Steve3:  The cap’s goal was to maintain competition (not parity) by curbing salary inflation against asymmetrical revenue growth. It’s done that. Zetterberg, for instance, wouldn’t be making roughly $7.5 million if not for the cap. Toronto or NY would have come along and thrown a Holik contract at Franzen, which the wings would have been stupid to match under any sort of self-imposed budget, considering how infrequently he’s in the lineup. Both are still Wings today.

PSH:  Neither Franzen nor Zetterberg are old enough that they would have been unrestricted free agents yet under the old CBA.  Neither have been 31 in the off-season.  Neither would have been available for UFA contracts yet.

Steve3: Arbitration. What judge will give Zetterberg $4 million per when, say, Shane Doan’s making $20 million?

PSH:  Notice how far Steve3 changed his argument?  Zetterberg and Franzen could not have left to Toronto or New York under the old CBA.  They are not old enough to be UFAs. 

Instead of admitting he was wrong, he makes up an imaginary fact that Sahen doan would now be making $20 million.  Where did that fact come from?  His imagination and nowhere else.  Then he uses that fact to justify an arbitration award - when his initial claim had nothing to do with arbitration.  It claimed they would have left as free agents.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 01/28/10 at 12:19 PM ET

Steve3

You are aware that UFA contracts are not used as comparables in salary arbitration.  So even if somebody offered Shane Doan this fantasy $20 million contract, it would not affect things for Zetterberg or Franzen.

The act that the scenario you invent is so tenuous (Doan getting $20 mill a year?) and still wouldnt have the effects you claimed in your second attempt to invent a scenario (after the first one failed) shows that you are wrong.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 01/28/10 at 01:11 PM ET