With out a salary cap system, they calgary flames would not be in the nhl

[cgy2london]

I'm writing an argumentative essay for my English class. I was just wondering if anyone had any input or articles related to this topic.

Figured the brilliant minds at Calgarypuck would have a few ideas. Thanks in advance.

Any suggestions or ideas are greatly appreciated.

Mods: if this should be in the Off topic thread page, please move.

THANKS

[GreenTeaFrapp]

It's hard to defend a premise that is completely and utterly false.

[BlackAce]

Hmmm... English essay... but you said "they Calgary Flames..." right there in the thread title... Maybe English isn't your strong subject

[Komskies]

So you basically want us to research a topic for you that currently doesn't exist?

[Tyler]

Research currency fluctuation and 2004 Stanley Cup playoffs before you even look at the Salary Cap System

[bubbsy]

i disagree with the topic.

The calgary flames would find it difficult to consistently be competitive in the NHL without the salary cap.

The team has gone through the 90s and early 2000s and were able to sustain their existence.

The cap just gives them the means to ice a competitive product league wide, without the Toronto's/NY's of the league to buy up all the top end talent.

[stuck_in_chuk]

The dark years for the Flames pre-dated the salary cap. I believe after the cup run, the Flames have sold out every game. Calgary (and all Canadian teams) are able to spend right up to the cap because their teams are profitable. The strengthened Canadian dollar helps. Teams like Phoenix, Nashville, Atlanta would be in much more trouble if it weren't for a salary cap.

It would be much easier to argue the opposite way. Your thesis does not agree with the historical facts.

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

i disagree with the topic.

The calgary flames would find it difficult to consistently be competitive in the NHL without the salary cap.

The team has gone through the 90s and early 2000s and were able to sustain their existence.

The cap just gives them the means to ice a competitive product league wide, without the Toronto's/NY's of the league to buy up all the top end talent.

There were a lot of years between 1967 and the start of the salary cap for Toronto to buy a cup, but it never happened.

[ricardodw]

Without a salary cap the NHL would be a 10-team league. The cap was put in place as there were significant number of teams losing less money not playing than they did when while playing. There was no chance of these owners agreeing to a deal without a cap.

The Flames ownership held off locking up Iginla until a cap was in place. They felt that committing 7million long term did not make the franchise a better sale going forward. They would rather have taken a chance on losing less money without him. This was after the play-off run where Iginla carried the team and in an uncapped world would have gotten >10M to be captain of the Leafs Wings or Rangers.

There would have been a mad scramble to sell off Edmonton,Calgary,Nashville and well all the southern franchises while there still was some value before contractions.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk

There were a lot of years between 1967 and the start of the salary cap for Toronto to buy a cup, but it never happened.

Yep...their Buying Smythe and Iginla would not have quaranteed them a cup either. BUT it sure would have made it clear that Edmonton,Calgary would have to wait for a once in 10 year miracle to make the playoffs.

Do you feel that the Flames sellouts continue with Turek/ Mclennan in goal and Kobasew/Lombardi and maybe Langkow on a one year deal as the best forward ?

[Hack&Lube]

The salary cap may have saved several teams but the team's fortunes were more reversed by the 2004 Stanley Cup run, the resultant sudden popularity (a bandwagon is NOT a bad thing) and the economic growth of this city.

The Calgary Flames are now worse off because of the salary cap. The owners are wealthy, the games have been selling out for years, etc. Without the cap, we would not have had our injury problems last year. Without the cap we would have been able to keep Cammelleri, etc.

The Flames dark years and the threats to move the team and season ticket drives were all in the late 90s and pre-salary cap. The team had no bright future, coaching staff was in turmoil, and oil revenues and the Canadian dollar was at 60 cents. It would be more apt to argue that the Flames are actually saved by the strong dollar and economic and population growth in Calgary.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Without a salary cap the NHL would be a 10-team league. The cap was put in place as there were significant number of teams losing less money not playing than they did when while playing. There was no chance of these owners agreeing to a deal without a cap.

The Flames ownership held off locking up Iginla until a cap was in place. They felt that committing 7million long term did not make the franchise a better sale going forward. They would rather have taken a chance on losing less money without him. This was after the play-off run where Iginla carried the team and in an uncapped world would have gotten >10M to be captain of the Leafs Wings or Rangers.

There would have been a mad scramble to sell off Edmonton,Calgary,Nashville and well all the southern franchises while there still was some value before contractions.

Starting with this makes taking anything after it seriously virtually impossible.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

It's hard to defend a premise that is completely and utterly false.

The owners and Ken King would completely and utterly disagree with your post.

No salary cap, and none of our core is here. No one in the seats. Young Guns all over again.

[BlackAce]

[quote=troutman;2146985]The owners and Ken King would completely and utterly disagree with your post.quote]


Completely and utterly disagree... I am not so sure about that! Disagree maybe, MAYBE... but completely and utterly?

[troutman]

[quote=BlackAce;2146998]

Originally Posted by troutman

The owners and Ken King would completely and utterly disagree with your post.quote]


Completely and utterly disagree... I am not so sure about that! Disagree maybe, MAYBE... but completely and utterly?

E-mail Ken and ask him how important the salary cap is:

kking@calgaryflames.com

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.c...=M1ARTM0012528

So as the Calgary Flames staggered to the end of yet another unprofitable season last April, Ken King decided to show his players exactly what kind of business it is. In a move once unthinkable for an NHL executive, the Flames president invited all 22 athletes to a boardroom at team headquarters, where he flicked on an overhead projector and bared the club's financial soul. "I showed them everything on our financial statement," King recalls. "Food and beverage money, broadcast revenue - every line." The picture wasn't pretty: nearly $7 million in losses; seven straight years without playoff revenue; no room for raises. "I got a really good sense that they understood it," says King. "I got a sense that they believed it."

Since 1995, when the players and owners resolved a lockout by signing the current collective bargaining agreement (CBA), Canadian fans have watched in dismay as their teams, other than Toronto, withered into poor sisters of the NHL family, due in large part to the free-agency and arbitration provisions of the current deal. Figures compiled by Forbes magazine suggest revenues for the Flames, the Edmonton Oilers, the Vancouver Canucks and the Ottawa Senators came in well below the league average of US$69 million in 2002 (Montreal's $75 million was more than offset by a huge local tax burden). By comparison, the league's two richest teams, the Detroit Red Wings and New York Rangers, raked in US$114 million and US$103 million, respectively.

Currently, the league is rife with examples of ill-advised deals. In New York, the Rangers will pay Bobby Holik US$9 million this season to be a third-line checking centre, while Boston is paying Martin Lapointe, a grinding winger, US$5.5 million. In Dallas, Pierre Turgeon will make US$7.5 million despite scoring only 42 points last season.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2005/...eax050216.html

In Calgary, Flames president Ken King apologized to hockey fans, but said securing a salary cap is the only way the Flames could repeat their storied run to the Stanley Cup final last season.

Last spring, Calgary became the first Canadian team to reach the final in a decade. Led by team captain Jarome Iginla and all-star goalie Miikka Kiprusoff, the Flames came within one win of raising Lord Stanley's mug, losing Game 7 to the Tampa Bay Lightning.

King said the Flames were already struggling before the lockout Sept. 16 and the $42.5 million cap offered by the league would not have stopped the bleeding.

"We could not secure the nucleus of our team," he said, noting that arbitration was needed to make a deal with Kiprusoff, Iginla remains unsigned and it took nearly half-a-year to sign first-round draft pick Dion Phaneuf, a star defenceman for Team Canada at the recent world juniors.

King said the Flames and other small market teams need a salary cap for survival, adding that fans who have contacted the club support the league's position.

[cgy2london]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

The salary cap may have saved several teams but the team's fortunes were more reversed by the 2004 Stanley Cup run, the resultant sudden popularity (a bandwagon is NOT a bad thing) and the economic growth of this city.

The Calgary Flames are now worse off because of the salary cap. The owners are wealthy, the games have been selling out for years, etc. Without the cap, we would not have had our injury problems last year. Without the cap we would have been able to keep Cammelleri, etc.

The Flames dark years and the threats to move the team and season ticket drives were all in the late 90s and pre-salary cap. The team had no bright future, coaching staff was in turmoil, and oil revenues and the Canadian dollar was at 60 cents. It would be more apt to argue that the Flames are actually saved by the strong dollar and economic and population growth in Calgary.

Thanks for your suggestions. what I'm trying to show is........

Pre salary clap world:
Teams buying the league
flames not being able 2 compete, ( losing seasons showed by stats)
equaling poor attendance figures, thus allowing for major loses in revenues
in turn having season ticket drives....threats of moving (Portland)

in the salary cap world:
EQUITY SHARING=all teams to benefit from the success of certain franchises
salary cap controls spending allowing everyone to be competitive, which in turn allows for all teams to compete on a level playing ground

on a side note, i know the flames became extremely successful in the 03/04 season with no salary cap in place. all I'm trying to do is show how the salary cap provides parody and an equal playing field as compared to the dark years when the Rangers, Leafs, Avalanche, and Red wings bought everyone who was ever good forcing Calgary for the most part to ice crummy, no competitive teams

[Redliner]

The lockout was all about one paramount objective for the owners: cost certainty. Although the 2004 run and the Oil boom in Calgary certainly didn't hurt the Flames, they would have had a very difficult time keeping a competitive core together if they had to bid for players against the likes of Detroit, New York, and Toronto. Even though the "Save the Flames" campaign was in 2000, it can be argued that they weren't really out of the woods until the new CBA was implemented.

[cgy2london]

Originally Posted by troutman

The owners and Ken King would completely and utterly disagree with your post.

No salary cap, and none of our core is here. No one in the seats. Young Guns all over again.

THANK YOU!! Gosh its nice when this place isn't filled with negativity!

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by troutman

The owners and Ken King would completely and utterly disagree with your post.

Well, they're just using it as an excuse for the parade of fools that ran the team before Sutter came on board.

No salary cap, and none of our core is here. No one in the seats. Young Guns all over again.

The only one of the core that wouldn't be around would be Bouwmeester since he'd still be a Panther. Iginla wouldn't have been eligible for UFA status until this past offseason.

[Flames89]

I can't believe this is even a discussion. Oh, sry, re-read initial post.

Toughest years were when CA$ was at 0.60, natural gas was stuck around $2.00, we suffered with poor management/coaching, and other teams could spend double what we could.

Now, we would still survive, but we would still be "Young Guns", as transplant said. No Iginla, Bouwmeester, Jokinen, Phaneuf, etc.