Next years salary cap expected to exceed 70 mil

[radoran]

Of course the terrible thing is that the league intervened to save the Penguins and through 5 top draft picks in a row and various other collusion and questionable actions over the years, the Penguins are at last seeming sustainable which I'm sure just fuels Bettman's hubris to think that he can manipulate circumstances enough to save every pitifully failing franchise.

For the penguins, it was a lucky timing of manipulated success with the team combined with a social and economic resurgence of the city itself that helped enable the penguins to become more economically viable long term.

The Pens basically had to give the franchise to Lemieux. Without Lemieux's position the team would never have been able to stay in Pittsburgh. They also had to get a State-issued casino license to make it even possible.

So the Pens stayed because an owner was willing to take the financial hits to make the franchise "viable."

Oh, and according to Forbes, the Pens still "lose money":

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/31/hockey-valuations-10_Pittsburgh-Penguins_317690.html

[King Knut]

The new arena is what got them to commit to staying, but I think getting the new arena hinged on them turning things around on the ice, which was a direct result of some shenanigans. Even now they'd still be on incredibly thin ice if the city's economic outlook hadn't improved so much that people could afford to buy seats again.

Most think Mario was bluffing the whole time and I may think so too, but without the draft picks and other help they got, even the best intentions couldn't have kept them in that town through the end of the decade.

So the Pens stayed because an owner was willing to take the financial hits to make the franchise "viable."

[radoran]

The new arena is what got them to commit to staying, but I think getting the new arena hinged on them turning things around on the ice, which was a direct result of some shenanigans. Even now they'd still be on incredibly thin ice if the city's economic outlook hadn't improved so much that people could afford to buy seats again.

Most think Mario was bluffing the whole time and I may think so too, but without the draft picks and other help they got, even the best intentions couldn't have kept them in that town through the end of the decade.

The new arena hinged on them getting a gaming license from the state. It really had little to do with their play on the ice. Having a Crosby made it an easier sell, but the success of the franchise still depended on things that had absolutely nothing to do with being "profitable" on "hockey related revenue".

Still does.

[King Knut]

I understand that and I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that no one would have even pushed so heavily for all that if they were looking at a 5th or 6th straight year out of the playoffs. It was give and take. Several things working in congress to make something happen.

The new arena hinged on them getting a gaming license from the state.

[radoran]

I understand that and I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that no one would have even pushed so heavily for all that if they were looking at a 5th or 6th straight year out of the playoffs. It was give and take. Several things working in congress to make something happen.

Sure, and this "sustainable" team, ranked #9 in Forbes NHL valuation of franchises lost over a million dollars in the last full season of the league.

The influx of talent certainly helped, and a rising promise of success made it more viable for Pittsburgh to keep the Pens. But this is also a City that has invest heavily in the Pirates - opening a new ballpark for the team in a middle of a 20-year stretch of losing (1992-2012) without much prospect for improvement.

Without the owner's willingness to take (ongoing) losses, the team could be in receivership like Phoenix.

[mojo1917]

Several things working in congress to make something happen.

@radoran

@kingknut

i've been enjoying reading the back and forth regarding the league's stupidity .

I especially enjoyed the use of the word "congress" in lieu of the boring old "together" and "collectively" it is probably the last time we'll see the word congress used for working together until November 2014.

bravo , huzzah . nicely done.

[aziz]

The only thing that seems to have happened is that owners were given a chance to buy themselves out of the ridiculously stupid contracts they offered; they were somewhat constrained in how ridiculously stupid the contracts they offer could be; and the league will pretty much be back to exactly the same position it was the year before the lockout within two years of the lockout.

you're probably right. i think given the relatively low level of interest in the sport in most of the US, contrasting with the very high level of interest in a few cities, means you are always going to have a push-pull as the well-off franchises try to leverage that well-off-ness to improve their teams and the not-well-off teams try to stop them from creating a huge talent gap. allowed to run wild, you would end up with a MLB situation of permanent doormats. thing is, with profit sharing and larger baseline interest in the game, the pirates can run forever as full time losers. they're still making money, and that can go on forever. competitively, i don't know why you'd let it, but there it is.

i think the NHL is operating on a 8-10 year cycle of resetting, gradual shift to unbalanced, reset, gradual shift, reset. i think it is the economic cycle that is almost required given the disparity in income between the teams of the league, if maintaining anything close to competitive parity is a goal. what i don't understand is the drama that has to accompany each reset. owners and players: accept that this is gonna be how it works. owners will pay the players more than they can collectively afford over the long run, there'll be a resetting to briefly sustainable levels, and it will grow back to too much, it'll be reset, grow, reset, grow. personally, i see the NHLPA as the cyclical speed bump, resisting the reset each time, even though they know full well they'll be back in the money in a few short years..and aren't exactly being made paupers in the meantime.

i don't think there is a model that makes everyone happy and stays stable over the long haul. unless you contract to 15 teams or so. which, fine, the lineups would be awesome, but i don't know how happy the players would really be over losing 350 or so jobs.

Edited July 16, 2013 by aziz

[radoran]

you're probably right. i think given the relatively low level of interest in the sport in most of the US, contrasting with the very high level of interest in a few cities, means you are always going to have a push-pull as the well-off franchises try to leverage that well-off-ness to improve their teams and the not-well-off teams try to stop them from creating a huge talent gap. allowed to run wild, you would end up with a MLB situation of permanent doormats. thing is, with profit sharing and larger baseline interest in the game, the pirates can run forever as full time losers. they're still making money, and that can go on forever. competitively, i don't know why you'd let it, but there it is.

I don't have much interest in watching what is, in essence, a fixed league. If some teams can simply buy championships it's not of interest to me. The NBA is the same way. In the NFL, at least there's some truth to the idea that the perennial doormats are simply run by idiots (looking at you, Ralph).

i think the NHL is operating on a 8-10 year cycle of resetting, gradual shift to unbalanced, reset, gradual shift, reset. i think it is the economic cycle that is almost required given the disparity in income between the teams of the league, if maintaining anything close to competitive parity is a goal. what i don't understand is the drama that has to accompany each reset. owners and players: accept that this is gonna be how it works. owners will pay the players more than they can collectively afford over the long run, there'll be a resetting to briefly sustainable levels, and it will grow back to too much, it'll be reset, grow, reset, grow. personally, i see the NHLPA as the cyclical speed bump, resisting the reset each time, even though they know full well they'll be back in the money in a few short years..and aren't exactly being made paupers in the meantime.

If they were rational actors enough to figure this out and avoid the drama, they wouldn't create the problem in the first place.

It's a kid's game - no surprise they all act like children.