Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Winning is not the salve you think it is for less desirable markets. There’s a reason Winnipeg and Edmonton aren’t attracting the best of the best despite their relative success and quality of the buildings. It’s an unfortunate reality but it is one all the same. Edmonton has two of the best players in the world and have been to the finals twice and still has to overpay vets just to go there.
“All people are suggesting” is taking emotion out of it, not being “nice,” treating it “like a business,” and “doing right” by following the letter of the contract. What’s being pointed out in response is that there are other ways to do business that need to be considered, especially when you’re a less desirable market and your business is heavily reliant on personalities and relationships.
Whether we like to think so or not, “what’s best for the organization” may not be taking the hypothetical Utah deal instead of the hypothetical Montreal one, even if it is better. It’s not a great reality, but it’s the only one.
|
I'd argue that winning is a bigger factor than the "desirability" of the market for attracting players. Nobody wanted to play in Florida and Tampa for years until they started winning. Even Pittsburgh almost folded as a franchise after Lemieux and before they drafted Crosby. Pittsburgh can probably be categorized as an undesirable market but they have survived and attracted free agent signings because they drafted super stars and started winning. Chicago as an original 6 team was not attracting anyone in the mid 90s to early 2000s as well.
Well run organizations who win are the biggest factors in attracting players. You see small and undesirable markets succeed in every sport while world class or low tax cities struggle. City characteristics such as being low tax, a massive market for sponsorships, a warmer climate, celebrity friendly and so on just become additional talking points when those city do win. That's not to say that they aren't advantages though. If winning and organizational success is comparable the "desirability" of a city may very well be the deciding factor.
As for Edmonton. If they weren't such a poorly run organization who tried short cut their re-build and ran into cap hell... I would wager there would have been many players who were willing to sign there for less for a real shot at winning the cup just as they did in Pittsburgh with Crosby. By the time they started becoming serious contenders in McDavid's career they had no draft capital, depth and youth while being right up against the cap the whole time. McDavid and Draisaitl dragged those teams there in spite of it all.
Winnipeg has had some good regular seasons but it hasn't been as consistent and they've had very little playoff success so I don't think many view them as true contenders although they have been able to sign most of their own home grown players.