User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.7235 seconds
55 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I want to see what Marvin Miller has to say.
Until the last few years, with the PED issue, in my view.
It'll be interesting to hear any comments he may have as to why he is stepping down.
Really? I'm under the impression that the players' percentage of gross revenues is down and by most accounts the owners have done pretty well (if not "won") the last couple of CBAs.
Successful? Sure. I'm not sure I can get behind astoundingly successful.
Miller was astoundingly successful. Fehr quite a bit less so, whatever you want to call it.
I'm not sure I'd agree with 'astoundingly'. Marvin Miller was 'astoundingly successful', but benefited from some good luck. I don't think Fehr's had the same luck. He did, however, face a more organized opponent in disputes that were not so clear-cut, so arguably his task was harder.
Maybe I agree with 'astoundingly' after all. It's an interesting discussion to be had.
For all the stones that get thrown at Selig, it's pretty clear to me that in the wake of the strike fiasco Selig did some thinking about what he wanted to get done and set about building a consensus among ownership.
On drug testing specifically I think Fehr was dealt a weak hand and my only complaint about his handling was that there wasn't enough thought given to the process side.
As for "astounding" I don't have the average salary number handy, but when Fehr took over, rookies and top stars were making somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% of what they make now. We can argue about whether percentage of revenue is a more important measure, but it's hard to argue against success in that arena. More importantly, I think, is that when Fehr took over, the owners were mounting collusion against the union membership and still thought they could break the union for good. He -- with a lot of help, of course -- fought those efforts off, and that's pretty damn impressive in my book. To see how things could have gone without more savvy leadership, one need only look at what happened with the NFL and the umpires.
Which would mean he started in December 2006....
MLBPA releases statement, along with Fehr commentary
Apparently been in the works since winter.
Is this quite true? Didn't the players concede that the owners could eliminate teams during the lifetime of the 2002 CBA, if they wanted? I'm not sure if it carried into the 2006 one.
Eh, I suspect age also has something to do with it -- Orza, like Fehr, is in his 60s, while Weiner is 47...
OMG teh *Fehr*!
How do you figure? The NHLPA is seen as a joke, yet The NHL minimum salary is HIGHER than MLB's, and they don't generate anything like the same revenues.
He was likely better than Gene Upshaw, but I'm not sure that is how he would like to leave his legacy. Steroids just kicked him in the ass.
much lower average salary, restricted free agency, teams actually getting penalized for actively going after free agents (enough so that many teams are pretty gun shy---see the Blues for a long period of time) Then the fact that the league has gotten significantly weaker over the past few years, while baseball is getting stronger (Yes it's not the unions job to make the league stronger, but a stronger league of course means more money for the players. Heck teams keep moving in the NHL, which hurts your fan base)
I don't think there is a sport league out there who's union has been more successfuly than baseball, heck it's hard to imagine any union being as successful.(If CEO's had a union, I imagine they would be more successful)
Even though teams always seem to be threatening to move in the NHL (which, admittedly, does still hurt your fan base), there actually hasn't been a franchise relocation since 1997 when the Hartford Whalers became the Carolina Hurricanes. There have been only four franchise relocations in the NHL in the last 27 years, the same number as the NBA during that span by my count. Two of those NHL teams vacated Canadian markets for new American ones.
It would probably be advantageous to the NHLPA if one or two struggling franchises would relocate to stronger markets (*ahem* Make It Seven *ahem*), but unfortunately the union has no say in the matter, and the league appears to be committed to floundering in their existing markets.
in comparison to one in baseball. which is what we are are comparing them to.
Why is restriced free agency a knock? I think star players get paid a lot faster in NHL than in MLB. And of course average alary is much lower, becasue revenue is much lower, that's why it's so ridiculous that their minimum salary is actually higher.
So in the last decade, they've had no teams move, which is fewer than baseball. Yes, they've had 4 over the last 25 years, but they all occurred within a five year stretch (1993 - 1997), and there's been "stability" since then. Granted, that's been a fairly ######## form of stability, with assorted franchises teetering at the brink of bankruptcy (Florida, Tampa, Phoenix, Nashville, and so on) at various points, but it has technically been stable in terms of location.
In comparison, over the last 25 years, the NFL has had 6 relocations, as had the NBA.
EDIT: Please don't make me have to defend Gary Bettman. I hate that jackass.
because the way the NHL penalizes a team for picking up a player who is on a restricted free agency that it's not worth the effort to really bid unless it's a truly A level star.
And Hockey, Football and even Basketball all have a lower career average for players so their big payday needs to occur sooner, also Hockey and Basketball have fewer people on the roster (hockey is 20-23) so it makes sense to have a larger than expected minimum salary. I don't know Hockeys minor league pay structure, but baseball also has a $52,000 minimum for people on the 40 man roster which is significantly better than the minimum minor league pay. (which is around 1600-1800 a month)
Apparently, the average AHLer makes about $55K a year, which supposedly doesn't include guys on only one-way contracts. That's pretty decent cash for a minor league.
Out of curiosity, what are the average career lengths for each of the major sports?
Apparently, the average AHLer makes about $55K a year, which supposedly doesn't include guys on only one-way contracts. That's pretty decent cash for a minor league.
yep that is pretty good, MLB does 1800 minimum for the highest levels and as low as 800(these are monthly figures--as of 2002 not sure now)
going from memory which I have no idea how much this has changed but NFL 3 years (of course skill positions are higher) Baseball about 6, the others I don't really remember, I'll google real quick.
NHL 244-276 games. 3.5 years?
NBA 4.82 years
NFL 3.5 years
MLB 5.6 years.
As a percentage of revenue, NHL players make more than MLB.
That there is restricted free agency forced the Capitals to preemptively sign Ovechkin to a 124MM$ deal. Seeing that MLB revenues are double that of the NHL, that's a 248MM$ deal... BEFORE he hit arbitration.
Sidney Crosby signed a 45MM$ deal, again before arbitration. Again, remember to double the salaries to compare to MLB. And he'll be 26 or so when that deal expires and into free agency.
There is a long list of young players who are signed to long-term deal in the NHL. Basically, they all signed Evan Longoria deals or Tulowitzki deals for the same total dollar value, even though NHL players get half the salaries of MLB players.
Fantastically, teams have a choice to match the contract offer of other teams, or get a sh!t load of draft picks (up to 4 1st rounders I think), and STILL they prefer to match. It's not often that teams go for the draft picks. Like I said, this system forced the Penguins and Caps to sign the two best players in the league extremely early compared to MLB.
How is that the NHLPA's fault? Swedish and Russian players, in some cases, prefer to play in...Sweden and Russia! Go figure. I think the NHLPA CAN be faulted for the rookie cap and that might make it less attractive to sign those guys. But, the lack of a transfer agreement with Russia doesn't help, and that has nothing to do with NHLPA.
The career length in years for hockey is the same as baseball.
The minimun sal in NHL is 1% of team payroll. In MLB, it's half of that. How would adding 5 guys on the NHL payroll at league minimum affect much? Plus, unlike MLB, very few NHL players actually make the league minimum.
The one thing MLB players has that the NHL players don't have is the signing bonus. Seeing that the HS/College players have nothing to do with MLBPA, you can't count that as a win for them either.
***
The NHL players are also subjected to actual Olympic testing ever four years (in addition to their regular testing program). And, you have the 150 of best players in the NHL in the Olympics.
But that's not the point. Those restricted free agents are like 22-23 years old. How many players in MLB at that age have any leverage whatsoever?
Yeah, teams don't normally bid on RFA's, but it gives the player SOME leverage, and if another team signs him to an offer sheet, his original club can match the offer, and he still gets paid.
interesting looking at NHL salaries, minimum salary is 41mil, highest is 76mil(reported differently in salary cap) average salary is 56.4mil per team. That is higher than I thought it would be, didn't think the NHL was making that much money. (baseball according to ESPN is averaging 88mil per team---Yankees distort that)
Okay, I'm not sure about all of this, so some things might be wrong.
For hockey, the salary cap hit per player is based on average contract salary (total contract value divided by years). The actual salary paid is based on whatever the contract says. Contracts can be bought out at 2/3 the value remaining, and that buyout value is then split up and applied against the cap over twice the number of years remaining on the contract. One thing that this has led to is ultra-long front loaded contracts, which keeps the annual average value (cap hit) low over the length of the contract, and makes the buyout in the later years extremely cheap, while also making the cap hit from the buyout significantly less than the average contract value. Detroit is already using this method to game the cap.
my point was that restricted free agency isn't as good as unrestricted free agency, and competing teams rarely successfully bid on a player, so the players don't have freedom of movement (if money was the only thing that matters then that is one thing, but that is by far not the only thing players care about)
I just don't see how the NHL is kicking MLBs butt or whatever, they have higher minimum salary, (in a league making less money) Yea great, but so what that is just one thing, MLB gives the players more money(not percentage of course) gives the players a little more flexibility when they reach free agency, don't penalize the teams as harshly for acquiring a free agent.
And of course the NHL originally negotiated to allow the NHL to re-evaluate the salary cap percentage if attendence was dramatically down (I believe it was after last season)
The "cap hit" is calculated as the average $ per year over the contract, regardless of the actual distribution.
So if a guy signs a 3yr/21M deal, that's a cap-hit of 7M per season. It doesn't matter if it's front loaded, back-loaded, whatever.
I count his handling of steroids as a negative in his column, especially to the extent the union is responsible for the 2003 tests coming to light (which I think they are based on what I've seen). But in the aggregate, Fehr was a success, and that point shouldn't be lost in the rush to blame him for everything that's wrong with the game (not saying this group would, but the public at large will).
uggh, salary cap manipulation gives me headaches. From a players point of view does this matter at all or not? are they guaranteed the amount they signed for? (from what I'm gathering it looks like they are guaranteed at least 2/3rds of their contract, which isn't bad at all, the NFL salary buyout sucks for the players)
Huh? I missed that one. Are you sure about that? I thought the cap value would float based on a fixed percentage of revenue, but I don't remember seeing anything about a decrease in percentage based on attendance.
Also, it's hard to say whether league attendance is down or not. I expect it won't be, but that's partially because teams need to sell a certain number of tickets to qualify for the revenue sharing. As a consequence of this, all sorts of teams are inflating their attendance numbers through giveaways, two-for-one deals, handing out vodka with tickets, and even buying their own tickets - whatever is needed to get above that magic ticket threshold.
I count his handling of steroids as a negative in his column, especially to the extent the union is responsible for the 2003 tests coming to light (which I think they are based on what I've seen). But in the aggregate, Fehr was a success, and that point shouldn't be lost in the rush to blame him for everything that's wrong with the game (not saying this group would, but the public at large will).
I agree that he did a good job, not sure I would say a real good job, but definately a positive in the grading department, as you mentioned the PED issue was a major mistake, but I'm not sure what the players union could have done to fix the problem.
I think any executive involved in a sport like this should be judged at least partially on how well the game did during their watch. Not just how it affected their job, but the big picture.
That wasn't my point at all.
My point was that the NHLPA is a union that is not held in high regard, for many reasons, yet it still manages to pay its lunch-bucket players more than the supposedly best union ever, despite way less revenue. And it's managed to pay its young stars much earlier than MLB. That doesn't make it better, but it remains unclear to me how the MLBPA is blowing all the other unions away, which is what the original claim was.
From the point of view of players, it's great. They get a big chunk of cash, which is often frontloaded, then they get bought out on the later years and frequently sign another big deal. Last season, when the buyout was included, you had Darcy Tucker as one of the highest paid players in the NHL - he got about $6M from a buyout, and then signed a deal immediately for slightly over $2M. The end result was a third line player making $8M.
not attendence, sorry wrong word, based upon the revenue. Honestly I don't remember the full details but they were making a semi-big deal out of it last year that revenue was really down and that it was going to be a big hit to the players and that they didn't negotiate a maximum salary cap decrease. (rumors are going around that the salary cap could drop as low as 48 mil this next season from 56--of course some rumors say it's going to only be 1-2mil drop)
the 2/3rd buyout seems like it's great for the players. I think of Albert Belle or Gary Mathews Jr. when I think of how a buyout could happen and to see what a player would think, with 2/3rd it's pretty obviously a great deal for the player (god football contracts really suck)
Ah. Yes, salary cap is based off of a fixed percentage of revenues, and can float up or down depending on the fortune of the league. For this year, I would expect the real cap drop to only be a couple million - a huge percentage of league revenue was already in place before the economy went to hell, through things like season ticket sales, TV contracts, ad contracts, sponsors, and so on. The big drop will almost certainly be for the 2010-2011 season (or at the end of the 2009-2010 season, since I can't remember when they recalculate), as that will be the season which has to deal with the fallout from sponsors and ticket holders not renewing for this season. Of course, that also depends on whether or not you believe the NHL's revenue numbers....
Well, at the time, player's salaries were at something like 80% of league revenue. Even with the 24% reduction (and cap, and everything else) they still ended up getting a higher percentage of revenues than the MLBPA.
Yes, Bettman won (and he does deserve credit for that), but his victory (in the form of both a salary cap and a salary floor) is still costing the league a fortune, and likely to drive a decent number of teams into bankruptcy.
Does this go in the union's "plus" file?
No, not the union's job to ensure the health of the league, but man . . .
Why does Phoenix have a NHL team when there's only 6 teams in Canada again?
Population of 6 largest Canadian Metro areas (2006):
Toronto 5,113,149
Montreal 3,635,571
Vancouver 2,116,581
Ottawa 1,130,761
Calgary 1,079,310
Edmonton 1,034,945
Phoenix Metro Area (2008): 4,281,899
Number of Hockey fans in 6 largest Canadian Metro areas (2006):
Toronto 5,113,149
Montreal 3,635,571
Vancouver 2,116,581
Ottawa 1,130,761
Calgary 1,079,310
Edmonton 1,034,945
Phoenix Metro Area (2008): 14,000
Now, obviously this is a huge exaggeration on my part, but there is a tremendously greater amount of interest in hockey up here than there is down in quite a few of the lesser US markets. No matter the population difference, the league would likely be a lot better off financially if at least one or two of the weaker teams were relocated back into Canada.
When the new NHL CBA was signed, there were several observers who noted that the new salary floor was actually higher than the break-even point for several of the weaker franchises. The league also made this potential problem worse by not putting in enough revenue sharing so, as the salary cap and floor increased (with increases in ticket sales in the stronger markets, and the rapid rise of the Canadian dollar), these weaker teams found themselves in a situation where they kept falling behind. Unfortunately, with the salary floor, they couldn't cut costs to try to stop their losses. The salary cap was a good thing for the league, but they also needed to do something similar to NFL style revenue sharing to make it work.
Not surprisingly, teams like the Leafs, Rangers, Canadiens and Red Wings have no interest in NFL style revenue sharing.
EDIT: As always, any criticism I offer of Gary Bettman and his work should be accompanied by a note that I think the guy is a complete idiot, and has done a terrible job of running the NHL.
Seeing that the entire strategy of MLBPA was to presume that GMs would act as if they have a gun to their heads in giving out ridiculous contracts, it is now in the best interest of the MLBPA to beg for revenue sharing and salary cap. GMs are, for the most part, no longer incredibly stupid.
What are the six NBA relocations? I can only think of four: Vancouver-Memphis, Charlotte-New Orleans, San Diego-Los Angeles and Seattle-Oklahoma City.
Edit: I see the Kings just slip in with a 1985 move. Still leaves one more.
Why not quote me the population size of Mexico and Brazil, too?
EDIT: As always, any criticism I offer of Gary Bettman and his work should be accompanied by a note that I think the guy is a complete idiot, and has done a terrible job of running the NHL.
Part of me believes that David Stern sent Gary Bettman to intentionally ruin the NHL. This is a league after all that was supposed to overtake the NBA in popularity in the early 90s.
The fun part is that I buy David Stern being that nefarious. If it came out that David Stern ran the Illuminati, I'd buy that too.
Whoops. My mistake - I double counted the Hornets, with their temporary relocation to Oklahoma City, so there's really only 5 in the last 25 years.
Indeed, 20% of NHL teams are Canadian, and they make 33% of the league's revenues (http://www.albertaventure.com/?tag=current-affairs). Of course, the Buds & the Habs being 1st and 2nd in revenue is a big part of that, but it ain't nostalgia for Canadian teams that motivates Balsillie to want to get a team into Hamilton. But Bettman is more concerned about the potential revenue one could get from Americans if you convert'd 'em into hockey fans, than the actual revenue available from Canadians who are hockey fans, so there you are.
Hell, Nashville's a 1.5 million metro. Anyone who thinks a Canadian metro of half that (Hamilton, Winnipeg, Quebec) couldn't outrevenue that badly needs a good jerseying.
It's partially a matter of the difference in tax laws between the US and Canada (In particular the way the ability to treat half the sale price of a team as going towards the purchase of depreciating assets). And partly the fact that several of the US markets were offering spectacular stadium deals (and again spectacular deals on taxes at various levels -- compare that with the Senators and the bills they've been presented with. For things like highway access)
Quebec doesn't have a team any longer -- and there wasn't a more passionate group of supporters -- largely because the provincial government wasn't willing to hand over a pile of goodies.
Much of this doesn't apply in Phoenix though. The biggest killer is their lease deal.
Well that and the fact that they're paying the coach $15 million a year.
Really? are you sure this wasn't just a one year pheneomenom? This off season you have Burnett for 5 for $82mil. Dempster 4 for 52mil, Furcal 3 for 30mil, Oliver Perez 3 for 36mil, Renteria 2 for 18.5mil, K-rod 3 for 37mil. After it became apparent that there was going to be a big economic downturn, the gms stopped spending willy nilly, but I doubt that is something that they will continue to do, once they feel comfortable with their economic situation again(although there is a possibility that collusion was involved in the more sensical approach they took after the downturn)
I'm not sure any of these contracts was justifiable prior to the signings, (even if K-rod is having a good season that is still a high amount for a closer) I agree with more revenue sharing, but it's going to take an awful strong argument to really get me on board for a salary cap.
How does that matter if an owner wants to relocate a team? It may mean that the owner starts with a slightly higher debt burden off of the original purchase, but shouldn't impact the year-by-year revenue from the actual team.
Winnepeg has an NHL quality stadium sitting there, ready to go. It'd be slightly on the small side, but it's paid for and complete. Also, with respect to the Senators, that stadium mess was the result of the team's owners at the time deciding to build out in the middle of nowhere, despite being warned of all the extra costs in writing, then deciding to do it anyway, and pretending to be shocked when they got the bill. That was a problem with the (now departed) incompetent and underfunded ownership.
That, and the relative lack of hockey fans in the area, meaning that they can't draw decent attendance numbers unless they give the tickets away.
You'd think they sell out just for the air conditioning.
You'd think so, but they had to resort to a "Buy a bottle of vodka, get a free ticket" giveaway. That's right - the only way to convince people to go to Coyotes games is to get them drunk first.
That's true and I am not well informed enough to figure out how this works vis-a-vis tax laws.
But all the Canadian teams were in the top ten in operating income last year as well. The Sens made more money than the Sharks and the Avalanche, two of the healthiest US franchises going.
Canadians like hockey more than Americans. It's true!
Well duh, but the main argument against putting teams back in Canada is that Canada is small and teams can't make as much money there. This isn't true.
Yeah, the NHL's expand into every American market idea was dumb. I think San Jose gave the NHL false hope.
With revenue sharing and a payroll cap, the NHL players get a guaranteed fixed share of the pie. Same with NBA players. Roughly in the 55-57% range.
Without this, MLB players get whatever they can get, which is close to 50% these days, and can be anywhere from 40-65%. You will get to 65% if owners are idiots. You will get to 40% if they all act intelligently (and without collusion).
So, in terms of getting a share of the pie, there is a great risk with the MLBPA approach.
Now, is it possible that the size of the pie will increase more with the MLBPA approach than NHL/NBA? Perhaps. The less revenue sharing, the more motivation each team has to increase local revenues.
Finally, the allocation of salaries among the players themselves: NHL players are much more fair about it than MLB. MLB players get 30 cents on the free agent dollar in their pre-FA years. That's a huge transfer of wealth from the young players to the veterans. This does not happen in the NHL. In terms of fairness, MLBPA scr-ws the non-free agents. The NHLPA has a much better balance here.
The NHL cap is 20% of the cap number. In MLB-speak, that would set the maximum salary at around 20MM$.
Why don't you tell us what is so good about the current system (rather than taking the political status quo), because the only one I see is that the growth of the pie could possibly (but not certainly) flourish better without revenue sharing.
Until Congress got involved. And threatened to illegally impose steroid testing. (The owners were okay with that, but they weren't pushing for it.) That put his back against the wall.
Given the timing of things, and the fact that Congress had ignored steroid use in every other sport, there was no real time when it should have been obvious to Fehr that he should have done something -- until after the last CBA was signed.
Baseball works just fine right now. No need to fix something that isn't broken.
How does that work in an environment with a fixed number of jobs? I wouldn't expect teams to start carrying 20 players in response to a too-high minimum salary.
I will guess that you are likely a fan of a big market club rather than a small market club?
That is incorrect. If you have a fixed pie to give out (say 50% of revenues, or say 100MM of 200M), and if I make the minimum salary as 4MM$, then guess what: the minimum salary is ALSO the maximum salary.
The lower the minimum salary, and the stricter the pre-arb and arb process is, the more that the pie will go to those players with fewer entanglements, and that is the free agents.
I presume your opinion is valid in some other context. It is not valid in the world I'm describing.
"Small Market" seems to be a flexible thing, changing to meet whatever team is cheap right now. Miami is only a "small market" in Jeff Loria's mind.
I wouldn't mind increased revenue sharing (to the truly SMALL markets by population, not to the cheapest owners), but I stand firm against salary caps. I don't want to see good teams broken up because the owners aren't allowed to keep their best players. I don't want to see a contender unable to make a trade at the deadline because they're already at the cap. Bad.
Well, like you just wrote about Ottawa, the arena location is a problem foisted on the team by previous ownership. Also, the team sucks. Do lousy teams draw well anywhere outside of Wrigley? The Oilers and Flames, who would have to be models for any Winnipeg franchise, certainly weren't selling out in the late '90s. Phoenix is more than double the size of any potential market in Canada, I can understand why the league wants a team there for its long-term interest.
Like you, I will also offer a disclaimer that Gary Bettman is an idiot, and even if I sympathize with his wish to keep a team in Phoenix, he has gone about it in an extremely stupid manner.
(a) By definition there aren't 750 mediocre vets to go around, and (b) whatever the minimum salary is, the cheapest players will be the youngest ones. I have a hard time believing that if the minimum salary were doubled tomorrow, the ratio of vets to young players would change so much that on the whole it wouldn't be a net positive for young players.
The NHL has a ceiling, which is what he's talking about. They've got a salary cap and floor for each team; a cap of roughly 60% of league revenues, floor originally of 55% of cap, and now a fixed value of $16M less than the team cap. The end result is a team cap of $56.7M and a floor of $40.7M. There's also a player cap of 20% of team cap, and floor of $0.5M.
Gay panic?
"I will guess that you are likely a fan of a big market club rather than a small market club?"
I guess you haven't followed along closely. I like the NHL model alot. There is a team payroll cap, as well as a salary cap. The total salaries paid out is fixed relative to revenue.
The current model is costing the players 300 million$ a year, and I suspect it will continue to get worse. That's what happens when you go with a variable method rather than fixed.
The potential market is not the number of human beings. It's the number of hockey fans or sports fans who can be sold on being hockey fans. Otherwise, Mexico City provides the largest "potential" market.
Yes, but even with the lousy location for the arena, Ottawa has not had significant problems with attendance. At no point have they had to resort to giveaways with the purchase of booze, or buying their own tickets, or things like the "Buy a $9 ticket and we'll give you free parking, food, and drinks" like some teams have.
Perhaps you're not familiar with the history of the Toronto Maple Leafs.
I can understand why they want one there too. The major problem is that they (both ownership and the league leadership) have yet to find a way to convert the general population into people interested in hockey, and are losing money at such a tremendous pace as to make it a complete economic disaster for anyone foolish enough to keep it there at this time.
It's possible that, in the future, Phoenix may be a viable city for the NHL. Currently, with the ownserhip, arena, and cap situation, it is not.
I agree completely.
I presume he meant in the US. The Rangers drew well all those years of missing the playoffs.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main