Yankee's lose (again) - re Salary Cap

[Resolute 14]

Big market is irrelevent, you were talking about disparity in spending. Denver most certantly is a large spending market.

Your excuse for ignoring the Avs, Stars and Red Wings is a strawman. Ask yourself what the likelyhood of those teams being able to maintain their rosters without spending large money were. Answer: none. Small market teams could not do that.

You failed to answer how many times each group made the playoffs.

And you can stop patting yourself on the back for not including New Jersey. I never asked you to in the first place. Though their latter years would certantly fit them into the large spending group.

[flambers]

The key question is what will they do with A-Rod? The City has ripped this guy apart. I would think they will need to trade him

[White Snow Bear]

I posted a resident evil 4 vid by accident. I meant to post this yankee fan clip, i found very funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt00AyFPOhg

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

i didnt say you need to spend to win, i said winning causes you to spend. i suppose both of us can claim a circular argument.

That's exactly the point, though.

Winning causes you to spend... but what if you can't spend like the Calgary's, Tampas, Carolinas, etc? That's what makes a non-cap system so unfair.

If teams like Dallas, Detroit, New Jersey, Colorado keep winning in a non-cap system, they have large enough markets that they can pay up to retain their core and be competitive for a long time (7-10 years).

A team like Calgary would lose almost everybody within two to three years (i.e. as soon as their contracts expire) because they're outbid by a larger market. It's an endless cycle for those teams.

The current system is more fair because every team is dealing with that 3-4 year cycle.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

That's exactly the point, though.

Winning causes you to spend... but what if you can't spend like the Calgary's, Tampas, Carolinas, etc? That's what makes a non-cap system so unfair.

If teams like Dallas, Detroit, New Jersey, Colorado keep winning in a non-cap system, they have large enough markets that they can pay up to retain their core and be competitive for a long time (7-10 years).

A team like Calgary would lose almost everybody within two to three years (i.e. as soon as their contracts expire) because they're outbid by a larger market. It's an endless cycle for those teams.

The current system is more fair because every team is dealing with that 3-4 year cycle.

i would like to hear more why everyone is convinced that Calgary is not a big market.

in my opinion, next to Toronto, Calgary is quite possibly the #2 market on the planet for hockey.

consider:
- strong corporate base
- high levels of both personal and corporate disposable income
- thick grassroots support of hockey
- rich and extensive historical hockey culture. the heartland of hockey.
- rabid fan base

the only ingrediant missing is a modern facility. building one to maximize revenues is up to the current owners to decide to invest in or not.

you fans sell yourself short. The Calgary Flames are well positioned to control their own destiny.

[Resolute 14]

The other thing missing is population.

Obviously.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

The other thing missing is population.

Obviously.

you dont think there are more hockey fans in the +1million residents of Southern Alberta than in all of Dallas Texas (as one example)?

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

i would like to hear more why everyone is convinced that Calgary is not a big market.

in my opinion, next to Toronto, Calgary is quite possibly the #2 market on the planet for hockey.

consider:
- strong corporate base
- high levels of both personal and corporate disposable income
- thick grassroots support of hockey
- rich and extensive historical hockey culture. the heartland of hockey.
- rabid fan base

the only ingrediant missing is a modern facility. building one to maximize revenues is up to the current owners to decide to invest in or not.

you fans sell yourself short. The Calgary Flames are well positioned to control their own destiny.

The team lost money every year from 1997 until 2003. They even had a "save the Flames" in 1999 to try and get the season ticket base up.

The Leafs, Canadiens and Canucks make money even in non-playoff years. Calgary does not.

American teams like Dallas and Colorado get way more money for their TV rights than the Flames.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

you dont think there are more hockey fans in the +1million residents of Southern Alberta than in all of Dallas Texas (as one example)?

Population = larger potential market = greater potential revenues. When that guy did the audit of the Kings books before the lockout, he found that the Kings had a massively overvalued radio deal because the competition for listeners was so fierce. The size of the market dictated the value of the contract. That cannot happen here in Calgary, no matter how much you want to trot out the "there are more hockey fans in Calgary than x" strawman.

Or, to simplify, if Calgary and area has more hockey fans than Dallas, as you suppose, why have the Stars historically had much higher revenues than the Flames? Even in 03-04 when we went to the finals, Forbes listed Dallas' revenue as being nearly 50% higher.

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/CBA/11-14-04cba.htm

Seems kinda odd, dont you think?

Not that I necessaraly disagree with the thought that Calgary has more hockey fans than Dallas does, merely that there is no direct relation to ability to generate revenue.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Population = larger potential market = greater potential revenues. When that guy did the audit of the Kings books before the lockout, he found that the Kings had a massively overvalued radio deal because the competition for listeners was so fierce. The size of the market dictated the value of the contract. That cannot happen here in Calgary, no matter how much you want to trot out the "there are more hockey fans in Calgary than x" strawman.

Or, to simplify, if Calgary and area has more hockey fans than Dallas, as you suppose, why have the Stars historically had much higher revenues than the Flames? Even in 03-04 when we went to the finals, Forbes listed Dallas' revenue as being nearly 50% higher.

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/CBA/11-14-04cba.htm

Seems kinda odd, dont you think?

Not that I necessaraly disagree with the thought that Calgary has more hockey fans than Dallas does, merely that there is no direct relation to ability to generate revenue.

Exactly. Looking at that link you provided, you need look no further than Chicago/Minnesota to see how much of an advantage you have in a larger market.

Minnesota sold out every single one of its games in 2003-04 (as it has every game in its franchise history) and the Blackhawks averaged somewhere around 11,000 fans in their 20,000 seat arena with about 5,000 season ticket holders.

Yet, both teams had the same amount of gross revenue at $71 million. The Blackhawks don't even have a great TV contract with no home games televised but they're still able to generate that kind of money - almost double what Calgary did that same season.

Corporate dollars are just that much more in larger markets. Find out what a billboard would cost in downtown Calgary and compare that to a billboard in downtown Chicago. The Blackhawks likely gets tons more money in corporate deals because that's the cost of doing business in the #3 market in the U.S.

[OilersBaby]

Let's go Oakland Athletics!

[DementedReality]

seems the powers that be at MLB agree with me that MLB is a model of parity and fairness.

''I had dreams of things getting better but, no, in many ways this has exceeded my fondest expectations,'' he said Tuesday night in St. Louis. ''This sport has more parity than ever. We have more parity than any other sport. It's remarkable.''

they also conclude that the Yankee's cant win, despite their spending

And in a sign that spending doesn't translate into post-season success, the New York Yankees failed to advance past the opening round of the playoffs in 2005 and 2006 despite a $200 million annual payroll.

http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/news_story/?ID=181627&hubname=

ok, but you guys go on and believe the model of MLB is broken, when clearly the people who matter believe otherwise.

[Resolute 14]

The MLB model is making everyone money (TV revenue, etc). Owners dont care about competitive balance if everyone is making money.

Ask a fan in Kansas City or Pittsburgh how much they like the current model over a salary cap though.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

The MLB model is making everyone money (TV revenue, etc). Owners dont care about competitive balance if everyone is making money.

Ask a fan in Kansas City or Pittsburgh how much they like the current model over a salary cap though.

so you say ... but thats not what Selig says ...

''This sport has more parity than ever. We have more parity than any other sport. It's remarkable.''

and even if what you say is true, it doesnt seem to be a priority for MLB. if KC or PIT owners wanted to put a winning product on the field, they would. the fact they choose not to, is not a product of a broken system, its simply those owners choice to do business differently than the Yankee's.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

so you say ... but thats not what Selig says ...



and even if what you say is true, it doesnt seem to be a priority for MLB. if KC or PIT owners wanted to put a winning product on the field, they would. the fact they choose not to, is not a product of a broken system, its simply those owners choice to do business differently than the Yankee's.

And that's great for the fans in KC isn't it. You need a better system to protect the fans from bad owners.

MLB simply doesn't care about certain markets. As long as NY, Chicago, LA, Boston, etc are doing well and pulling fans, they don't give a rat's rear end about KC, Toronto, Pitt, etc.

Moreover this quote "And in a sign that spending doesn't translate into post-season success, the New York Yankees failed to advance past the opening round of the playoffs in 2005 and 2006 despite a $200 million annual payroll." is pretty useless...in the sport where the fewest teams make the post-season, surely a $200 million annual payrol has gone a long way to ensure NY is there season in and season out.

Bottom line, if you think that what Bud Selig thinks or the fact that MLB extended this deal is proof that the system is working for all fans, you are mistaken.

[Sylvanfan]

4 teams from each league make the playoffs every year. The Yankees have been one of those teams for 11 straight seasons now. Over 162 game schedule the Yankees ability to spend has given them an advantage over every team in Baseball, and allowed them to get where they have.

Once you make the playoffs in Baseball you have a 1/4 chance of getting to the World Series, and yeah it does open things up. The short first round with a best of 5 series probably gives a weaker team a better shot to knock off a powerhouse than anything else in the game because one good pitching performance can have a huge impact on the series.

The fact that the Yankees have not won a World Series for 6 years has more to do with the playoff system than the economic system. If the Yankees were missing the playoffs and only winning 60 games a year than I might buy the finances arguement. But for the most part teams like the Red Sox, Yankees, Cardinals, Astros, and Angels who spend money tend to make the playoffs more often than teams who can't.

Selig is also a terrible owner. His team the Brewers have not been any good since 1992 and he even tried to move them into the National League Central to try and help them out and they still continue to get pounded every year. If he really knew his elbow from his ass when it came to baseball, would he **** off the fans in his own town by screwing up the only good game they get to see there in the last 15 years? Bud Selig's reign as commissioner and owner of the Brewers has been brutal.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

The MLB model is making everyone money (TV revenue, etc). Owners dont care about competitive balance if everyone is making money.

Ask a fan in Kansas City or Pittsburgh how much they like the current model over a salary cap though.

LOL, the Jays wish they were making money. I believe they have stated massive loses every year.

The big market teams are making huge amount of money while the small market teams are losing money.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Population = larger potential market = greater potential revenues. When that guy did the audit of the Kings books before the lockout, he found that the Kings had a massively overvalued radio deal because the competition for listeners was so fierce. The size of the market dictated the value of the contract. That cannot happen here in Calgary, no matter how much you want to trot out the "there are more hockey fans in Calgary than x" strawman.

Or, to simplify, if Calgary and area has more hockey fans than Dallas, as you suppose, why have the Stars historically had much higher revenues than the Flames? Even in 03-04 when we went to the finals, Forbes listed Dallas' revenue as being nearly 50% higher.

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/CBA/11-14-04cba.htm

Seems kinda odd, dont you think?

Not that I necessaraly disagree with the thought that Calgary has more hockey fans than Dallas does, merely that there is no direct relation to ability to generate revenue.

Your numbers are based on a time when Canada's dollar was way lower than it is now. If you based those numbers on today's Flames ticket prices in today's Canadian dollars, I am guessing that they'd be a whole lot closer. Gate revenue is pretty close to 60% total revenue for all the teams.

Canadian owners made a very fatal business mistake with the Canadian TV deal. They should have never agreed to split the HNIC/Playoff rights 30 ways. Also CBC has been underpaying for these rights for years. TSN's bid proves that they are worth about $20 million per CDN team per year. Instead Canadian teams get just a fraction of that based on the flawed hope that a huge US contract would come one day. Even in their wildest dreams, they should have realized they'd never get a contract in the US that was greater per 30 teams than the Canadian contract was per 6 teams.

Better Canadian tv deals is how Canadian owners should have taken advantage of the fact that there are way more hockey fans in Canada. For some reason though they never figured out how to do this. There is no reason a Cdn TV contract should not be in the ballpark (per capita) of the American NFL contracts.

An extra 20 million per year of revenue would have sure helped the Flames in the dark years. It would also have a snowball effect of allowing for better teams and bring in more money from attendence and higher ticket prices.

[CaramonLS]

This argument would be a hell of a lot more interesting if Demented actually addressed some of the major points in the various arguments instead of avoiding them altogether.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

Exactly. Looking at that link you provided, you need look no further than Chicago/Minnesota to see how much of an advantage you have in a larger market.

Minnesota sold out every single one of its games in 2003-04 (as it has every game in its franchise history) and the Blackhawks averaged somewhere around 11,000 fans in their 20,000 seat arena with about 5,000 season ticket holders.

Yet, both teams had the same amount of gross revenue at $71 million. The Blackhawks don't even have a great TV contract with no home games televised but they're still able to generate that kind of money - almost double what Calgary did that same season.

Corporate dollars are just that much more in larger markets. Find out what a billboard would cost in downtown Calgary and compare that to a billboard in downtown Chicago. The Blackhawks likely gets tons more money in corporate deals because that's the cost of doing business in the #3 market in the U.S.

The argument of Cgy vs Chi holds some water, but Minnesota's advantage that year in Revenue was all due to gate revenue. Calgary actually had a higher amount of non-gate revenue. I'm sure that Calgary's advantage over Minnesota is much higher now due to a Cdn dollar that has gone from 1.32 ->1.12 in that time, a booming economy, much higher interest and a much better team.