Irony knows no limits in the NHL.

I checked out the Islander-Bolts game this evening to
hear the NYI commentators mocking the Kovalev deal.

"Calling this a trade is like calling Eminem a singer,"
was a good chuckle. But I got to a guffaw when he
continued by saying, "that's not how Mike Milbury
does business."

Yes, how soon they forget that Milbury capitalized on
his new owners' purse strings to bring in two players
who were asking for more dollars than their teams could
pay them ... Peca and Yashin.

But I guess since he gave up prospects Connolly, Pyatt,
Spezza and Chara, while Sather gave up minimal return
for Bure and Kovalev, that makes Milbury honorable rather
than a fool.

You know, I've had my fill of this lunacy.

Untenable Situation

I'm too lazy to look it up, but apparently Pittsburgh has
a $32 million payroll. And of that, $5.5 million goes
to its owner, so technically it's a $26.5 million payroll.

Sorry, but that's a paltry number for a professional
sports team with 40 home games to need to satisfy
to break even.

And yet, Craig Patrick needed Sather to take about
$6 million off his books to avoid bankruptcy this year.

(For those counting, that's $4 million in cash, $1.25 million
remaining to Kovalev, and difference in salary between others)

Do the match folks, that means they needed to meet payroll of
about $20 million, if Lemieux had deferred payments. If they
can't do that, then the cold reality is that they have no
business being in the league.

Pittsburgh Can't Have it Both Ways

OK Lemieux and Patrick, which is it?

If you were on the verge of bankruptcy, then NY's money kept
you afloat until the offseason. And it certainly was not
NY's fault that you were unable to raise the $32 million
to meet payroll, of which much is salary to the owner.

And if you weren't on the verge of bankruptcy, why do the deal
now? You could've made a run to the playoffs and tried for the
playoff revenue to help your books.

Also, if you weren't on the verge of bankruptcy, why not do
one of the deals where the return (say Tanguay and Skoula) would
still save you millions next year against the $6 million per
you offered Kovalev to resign, yet was better than the Rangers
offer?

Something Stinks

It's easy to blame the Rangers for the league's financial woes,
but it's weak minded to believe it in its entirety.

At least half of the teams in the league have made precedent-
setting financial decisions that are conveniently ignored.

Remember Philly's signing of Chris Gratton and the $9 million
signing bonus?

How about the Islanders nabbing Peca and Yashin because they
could afford to pay while Buffalo and Ottawa couldn't.

How about Carolina's offer sheet to Federov?

How about Ottawa's signing bonus to Daigle?

How about Detroit's signing of CuJo?

Moving Forward...

Look, I'm in favor of a soft cap with a luxury tax to prevent
teams like the Rangers from using money as such a significant
trade hammer.

But because a thief in Buffalo chooses to create false
expectations, or because a team can't afford the standard
minimum salary requirements for a sports team, doesn't make
a financially successful team like the Rangers a villain.

I'm no fan of Cablevision, but they run a tight business.
Recently, they made a decision to sell or close all of the Wiz
stores to help their profitability.

It's about time the NHL followed suit...

-Gabe

Recent Articles Versus Playoff Coverage Road Trip Pics

Web Hockeybird.com