In the spirit of the holiday season, I offer you glad tidings,
unless you're an idiot.

You see, I anticipated the hard line stances from the league
and the Player's Association.

But what has taken me completely by surprise is the level of
stupidity embraced by militant fans aggressively supporting
Gary Bettman.

I'm waiting for them to finish their rants with "It's Trimspa,
baby ..."

Yes, I'm staying it. You are D-U-M-B. Unintelligent. Unable
to grasp any level of detail past the "ages 3-5" label.

And no, this does not mean that I wholeheartedly support the
Player's Association's positions.

It means what I wrote - you are an idiot.

Want proof? Let's go ...

Definitions of a Salary Cap

A "salary cap" is fundamentally a measure of financial restraint,
with the details essential to its ultimate form.

If you have written that the NHL needs a cap "like the NBA or
NFL," then place a dunce cap on your head and sit in the corner.

The NFL has a hard cap. This means that each team has a salary
ceiling that they cannot go beyond.

The NBA has a soft cap. This places restraints through a luxury
tax and free agency restrictions on teams over the cap. But
it still enables a team like the Knicks to spend $100 million
on a team if they so choose.

If you eliminate the word "cap" and look at both systems, you'll
notice that the NBA's soft cap is closer to the NHLPA's luxury
tax than the NHL's proposal of a restrictive hard cap.

Hard Cap Details

The NFL is uniquely positioned to support a hard cap because its
value lies in the league, not dominant teams.

The Super Bowl is one of the biggest global money-making events,
and it is popular whether a New York or a Wisconsin team is in.

The television rights are all network-based national broadcasts;
you don't have local broadcasts for one market like MSG.

Try to compare that to the NHL without laughing.

Bettman's deal with NBC has no guaranteed money. It is possible
that Cablevision can make more money with local Ranger broadcasts
than Bettman can with the entire league.

And compare the NHL Finals with the Rangers in 1994, to the
recent Finals between ... crap, anybody remember the teams?

To make sure the point is crystal clear: a hard cap works when a
league is financially greater than the sum of its parts. Under
Bettman's reign, the league has no financial leverage other than
the expansion fees it generated.

But that Foxtrax glowing puck sure was a great idea, eh?

Think The Owners' Finances are Truthful?

There is a crucial distinction between saying players are overpaid,
and installing a system "tied to revenues."

The first point is a valid one, and I believe addressed with the
PA's recent 24% rollback, so it needs no further discussion.

The system "tied to revenues" is the weighty issue.

Let's ignore that expansion teams are a significant anchor to the
league's finances because their revenues are struggling.

Instead, let's examine whether owners merit the trust from the players
that their reported revenue is genuine.

For example, MSG has a stream of gray-area revenue associated
with the Rangers.

Cablevision placed high-profile Ranger games (in theory)
on its start-up cable channel Metro to drive consumer interest. That
represented a significant source of revenue if the channel stuck.

Cablevision also receives significant tax breaks from NYC simply
because they present hockey, a point Bloomberg brought up recently
in the West Side Stadium arguments.

Or, do you think that companies like Cablevision or Comcast, which
are accustomed to hiding fees in cable bills, are above playing the
same games with the NHLPA?

And I'll stop before I string together the words "John Spano" and
"accepted owner of an NHL team by Gary Bettman" more forcefully.

Hopefully the point is undebateable; simply because owners over-spent
on players does not mean they have earned the right to define
"league revenues" and tie player salaries to it.

In fact, it's a fairly ridiculous conclusion at which to arrive.

A Privilege to Play in the NHL

You know you're an idiot when: you claim that players should be honored
to play under the NHL proposal of $1.3 million average salary.

Let's ignore the "privilege" of the physical beating a hockey player
takes, and the single-minded dedication to the game that got him to the
world's elite hockey league.

Instead, let's examine the current NHL proposal for Sidney Crosby. When
drafted, he would be slotted in at the rookie salary ceiling. The
club which drafts him, and the league, would have a marketing bonanza -
tv, jerseys, etc.

Upon expiration of his contract, according to the NHL proposal, Crosby would
find no arbitration options, and would be at the mercy of his NHL team
regarding his new salary.

If Crosby decided that the salary was not fair, his only recourse is to sit
out. But the NHL team would own his rights, and could theoretically keep
him out of hockey until he was 30 years old.

Wow, what a privilege. I can't image why Goodenow is balking at the system.

What They Really Mean

Look, despite the moral posturing, I understand the crux behind
the pro-owner position.

Such fans know that teams like the Rangers, Flyers and Detroit have tens
of millions of dollars more to spend than a hard cap number of
$31-34 million.

But they'd rather that money stay in the owners' pocket rather than
go to the players because it would hurt a competitive balance.

No one would thrash that request - but it's pathetic that they
won't acknowledge that they're asking the Player's Association to
leave a lot of money on the table.

The Company You Keep

I was on the fence in this debate until the players offered the drastic
24% salary cut across the board.

Sure, it was designed to keep a system that they had mastered, but at
least it was a significant move.

I applauded the veterans who were sacrificing a tremendous amount of money
so the next generation could have the system they did. What other sports
have athletes who would do that?

If Bettman was serious about a compromise, he would have submitted a
soft cap proposal. Had he done so, I would have respected him as a real
partner in negotiations.

But instead, he offered minimal concessions, and arrogantly re-defined the
24% give-back to further reduce higher salaries.

That was proof of Bettman's heavy-handed tactics with a single-minded
intent to break the player's union at any cost.

If you're on that bandwagon, I change my mind and will wish
you good tidings and a happy new year.

But you're still an idiot.

-Gabe

Recent Articles Road Trip Pics

Web Hockeybird.com