Congrats to whomever put all that work together.

Standing on the other side of the tracks though, you glossed over the biggest reasons why small market teams (maybe fans would be more accurate) are crowing for a salary cap.

Salary Inflation - When the Flames won the Cup (did that really happen?) in 1989 their total salary was among the highest in the league and about $11 million. By 1999 they were at over $31 million yet in the bottom third of league payrolls. Perhaps the same can be said for all leagues, but in the capped leagues at least there's a difference, which is.....

Predicable costs - In 1989 the Flames made 5.5 million profit. In 1999 they lost 8 million. Using some arbitrary numbers for the sake of easy math, assume their 'other' expenses in 89 were about 3.5 million. That would mean on revenues of about 20 million player salaries were 55% of the total. Ten years later, player salaries would have had to be 80%-100% of revenues depending on how fast you think the 'other' expenses have grown. Bear in mind too, that this means the teams reveues have doubled in that ten year span and yet they haven't even come close to keeping pace with salaries. NBA and NFL salaries may have grown just as quick, but have their respective teams financial losses?

Competitiveness - Your analysis suggests all leagues include haves and have nots and leagues with caps are actually less competitive in terms of variety of teams winning championships. Both assertions may be statistically true but I'd argue you missed the important points. First, its the size of the discrepancy between the haves and have not's that matters. There will always be variation of course, but in the capped leagues there's a 20% difference on the top and bottom ends versus about 50% for the NHL and MLB. Put another way, the rich are far richer and the poor are far poorer. Second, the winning percentage comparisons aren't that useful when you factor in expansion. All the leagues have added teams over the last number of years and the differences in winning percentage probably have far more to do with how free agency, expansion drafts, the % change in number of teams etc have affected competitiveness then salary issues.

I appreciate that mine is a pretty narrow viewpoint - coming from 1 fan of 1 team forced to work in Canadain pesos no less - so take it for what its worth. I got a tonne out of the article but I diasgree that a cap won't help. At $35 mil a team indexed to revenue growth player salaries could stay exactly where they are and every team in the league could be competitive. If that's too rich for places like Calgary to survive so be it.

And if you've gotten this far, thanks for hearing me out.

The biggest problem with looking at the records was number of games played. All the leagues have been tinkering with expansion, free agency and such so those factors tend to balance out (though the NHL differential will probably be much smaller in a few years once the expansion teams have time to draft and develop players over 5-10 years).

The discrepancy in payroll between the top and the bottom teams is larger in the uncapped leagues as the data shows. That's the way it works in a less restrained market. My question is not whether the difference exists but whether that is a bad thing and, if so, how bad a thing? I was also trying to look at the question from the perspective of the league as a whole, not from one team. While we are all fans of one team and, in the end, want what is best for the Hawks/Caps/Flames/Ducks, the health of the sport as a whole is the really important issue. Having a team fold/move sucks, no question, but that happens in all the leagues because the owners/leagues can't bear to stop expanding or trying new markets that are probably doomed to failure. Over exapnsion, in my opinion, is one of the biggest mistakes that the pro leagues have made.

As for the Flames and other Canadian frachises, the question arises why penalize the rest of the league (and the players) by restricting their ability to compete on and off the ice because a few teams are having troubles? It is a shame that the CAD is weak relative to the USD, but it is a fact. It is a shame that the owners of the Devils, Bruins, and the former owners of the Isles refuse(d) to spend much on their teams, just as it is a shame that some teams have owners that limit their competitiveness. Thing is that having a sub-par owner is a factor just like having a sub-par coach, goalie, defensive corps, arena, or fan base. OK, the owner, arena and fans can't be replaced as easily, but in /PROFESSIONAL/ sports, a business, all the factors of running a business are in play.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling reply, and thanks for the comments. I'll be doing a follow-up on this a long time from now and will try to address questions folks have raised here and elsewhere.

Matt Witting

Let's Go Caps!
www.washingtonhockey.com

I can't argue the business side of things. Whether its the Flames, Canadian teams in general, or any team really if they can't make a go of it on their own then they literally may not be in the same league. That may mean my team packs up its tent, but you're dead on.

Just because I don't weant anyone to think I'm one of those darn whiney Canadians I want to clarify my remarks a little. I used the Flames as an example but I think the problem in the NHL is that there are at least a dozen teams with strong ownership groups who simply have no chance to win and make money. Even in places like St. Louis and L.A. it seems their teams are only competitive because their owners are willing to sustain huge losses. That simply can't continue.

In the NFL you get occasions where teams have weak business elements and they move or whatever, but by and large every team can win if managed well. My hope is that the NHL puts a plan in place that allows every well managed team to have a shot at building a winner. If at that point places like Calgary are proven non-NHL markets, whether thats due to market size or the dollar or whatever, we'll really have nothing to gripe about.

Maybe I'm deluding myself, but I seriously think there are only 6 or 8 teams in the NHL who can build a champion and keep it together without losing their shirts.

Anyway, perspectives up here are pretty much unanimous so its interesting to hear a different side. I think it'll be guys like your own Mr. Leonsis who really tell the tale during the war in 04. They're businesses people but they're not cheap, and if they can't make a go of it then we'll know the problem isn't restricted to small markets and monopoly money.

Appreciate the interest.

The big problem with comparing the NHL to the other sports is that hockey doesn't have a good national TV contract. The NHL and MLB packages are tremendously valuable to those two leagues, and the NBA gets a ton of revenue each year. Unfortunately the NHL is just not as good a TV sport as the other major leagues and doesn't have the popularity in the lower 48 of other sports. The billion dollar NFL national TV contracts combined with local contracts and advertising give each NFL franchise more than the Flames spent on payroll this year. And that's before counting merchandise, gate revenues for 70,000 person stadiums and all the other revenue streams. If the NHL can market/develop itself into a media success then the funds will follow. If they don't then they need to realize that they can't spend with the leagues that have massive TV dollars rolling in. It takes more than an ESPN contract to pay the bills, the NHL needs to be on Fox/ABC/CBS/NBC and not just a few Saturdays late in the year.

Let's Go Caps!
www.washingtonhockey.com