In the real world, if someone is terrible at their job, they are fired. If a business can't make money, it goes bankrupt.
In European soccer, if a team finishes in last place, they are relegated to an inferior (and usually less profitable) league.
In the NHL, if a franchise stinks and comes in last place, instead of being punished, they are rewarded with the top young talent.
Is that the way it should be?
I'm a Toronto Maple Leafs fan, and they are in the worst position of all!
By blowing their $50 million budget, Toronto always has a borderline competitive team. A team that won't ever come in last place, or likely even the bottom five.
This would be good in a league where abysmal failure is punished. But in the NHL, their competitiveness means they will never get a shot at drafting a superstar, while likely never being good enough to win the Stanley Cup either.
Most irritating of all are the Pittsburgh Penguins, who from 2002 to 2006, drafted fifth overall, first overall, second overall, first overall, and second overall.
They now have two of the top five players in the league, and a large pool of high-draft talent rounding off the team. Add a couple of rental players, and the only thing they need is a few Stanley Cups to prove the point. In the NHL, the worst teams have the brightest future.
If I could scratch the NHL system, the first thing I'd eliminate is the draft, followed by the salary caps. Players should go where they want to go from the start.
Back when Eric Lindros boycotted playing for the Nordiques, I was mad at his decision. But now, I don't blame him. Why go to a team destined to fold/relocate. Today, I'd like to see more stars boycott playing for struggling hockey markets.
Failure shouldn't be rewarded. It should be punished.
7 comments Last one added 9 months ago — Leave a Comment
Matt Stephens about 1 year ago
Dan, MLSE knows this, and they know that as long as there is a buzz about the Leafs, that they have the slightest possibility of making the playoffs, they will make a disgusting amount of profit.
They don't care about the fans, they care about the Board of Directors and the Teachers' Union. The Toronto Maple Leafs and Toronto Raptors are not sports teams in the eyes of the Union, they are investments that they want a return on their investment.
Given a few years of the salary cap, and they might realize that spending the same amount of money can result in even more profit (extended playoff run), and then you might finally get a team that is built for a cup.
But to respond to part of your article, the draft is needed, otherwise you might as well go back to the Original Six. If the good teams just kept getting better, it doesn't create an exciting atmosphere. How fun is it to know what 2 or 3 teams have a legitimate shot at the Cup before October ends?
Edit Comment Cancel
Ryan Salandria about 1 year ago
See this article is the reason why you don't understand how pro franchises work. If we applied your theories to other sports like football it'd be the same every year. Dallas Cowboys, New York Giants, Chicago Bears, and Miami Dolphins going out and signing all the big name Marquee players. The draft is a way of keeping teams competitive. During the time period you stated for the Penguins they were horrible and almost bankrupt. Thats why they got so many high draft picks. And they built through the draft, which is now why they are in a position to be where they are. And during that time I believe Pat Quinn was running the Maple Leafs and you guys were very competitive but couldn't get over the hump. If we were to punish failure in this league then the following teams wouldn't exist: Tampa Bay, Anaheim, Ottawa, Florida, Carolina. Why because they were all terrible, but because these teams built through the draft (see Anaheim, Carolina, and Tampa Bay). They all won a Stanley Cup. Understand Sports before you write something doofy.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ken Foss about 1 year ago
dumbest article ever. In European Soccer look at the Premier League winners the last 35 years, yep Liverpool, and Man United have won a combined 22 titles Arsenal 3 or 4 and Chelsea 2 thats it. Know what your talking about at least a little bit.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ken Foss about 1 year ago
ok here are the exact numbers for the last 35 season winners.Liverpool:11 Man U: 9 Arsenal: 5 Chelsea: 2 Derby:2 Everton:2 Nottingham Forest:1 Blackburn:1 (95 last team to win it that wasn't big four) Leeds:1 Aston Villa: 1
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Sturgis about 1 year ago
Look at the last three Stanley Cups. Tampa Bay, Carolina and Anaheim. Despite winning the cup three years ago, and having arguably the top duo in hockey, Tampa Bay has to relocate because they can't make money. I doubt Carolina is profitable, meanwhile people in Anaheim think hockey is a Disney creation.
I don't have a problem with small market teams winning the cup once in a while. But rich cities hardly stand a chance anymore unless they are geniuses at seeing and developing talent in the draft (Detroit).
Should the NHL drop down to 7 teams again. Maybe not seven, but 30 is definitely too many in the current structure. A team in Kansas instead of Hamilton?
I don't have a problem with a team gradually rising, but the way the NHL is built, half the teams aren't financially viable, including Pittsburgh! They are built to suck for years, until they get a few real gems/high draft picks in their system, they sign some quality free agents to fill any remaining gaps, and make a run for it. That's what all three above teams have done to get the Stanley Cup.
Pittsburgh only survived as a hockey market thanks to Mario Lemieux in the 90s. In fact, the team couldn't even afford his salary and ended up handing him the franchise! When Lemieux retired the first time, and despite the fact that the Pens also had the next best player in the league (Jagr), they still lost heaps of money.
The only reason they make money at all now is Crosby.
If Pittsburgh doesn't have the best player in the league on their roster, they are a money losing team!
Which superstars have been on Pittsburgh in the last twenty years? Lemieux, Coffey, Francis, Jagr, Recchi, Crosby, Malkin.
Who have the Leafs had? Gilmour and Sundin.
As a result of the NHL rewarding failure, poor teams are racing for the bottom of the league in order to pick up talent.
Answer this. For teams like Tampa Bay and Atlanta, if instead of being rewarded with future talent, their very future in the league was at stake, do you think they would have traded away good players and all but given up at this point? Or do you think they'd be fighting to get out of the basement in order to exist for one more season?
Its no fun watching Toronto try to make a run in the playoff race, only to see the team above them (Washington) have their remaining games against teams who have already quit.
Look at the Eastern Conference, all the crap teams are grouped in the same division. Carolina, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Florida, Washington. Carolina's success of late has been largely due to playing so many games against teams from their own division. Washington, who sit two points above the Leafs, have four of their remaining six games against teams below them, and their other two are against the Carolina Hurricanes. Carolina are all but guaranteed a third place finish so there not in a must win situation! For Ottawa/Montreal and Pittsburgh/Jersey, it's the difference between a first/second and a fourth/fifth place finish.
Carolina wouldn't be in a playoff spot if they were in any other division.
Toronto has their remaining six games against teams that are above them and fighting for playoff positioning. All the teams Toronto faces are desperate to win.
Toronto has more fans than the bottom ten teams in the league combined. Similar to Man United and Liverpool in England. It's only logical that their income generation helps them win the cup more often.
It's only logical that they get a superstar in the organisation (a large percentage of which are from Canada).
Liverpool and Man United may dominate English soccer, but they play against other nations with their own rich teams and national pride in the Champions league.
Where should the NHL expand? To Kansas. Does the prospect of a Kansas vs Phoenix playoff series for world domination sound exciting?
Personally, I'd rather adopt the European soccer system and watch a Toronto vs Stockholm series? or Montreal vs Moscow? or Ottawa vs Born (Czech rep)?
Not to mention hockey might actually survive in the above mentioned cities.
Unfortunately, the NHL have their guaranteed franchises. If the market fails, they usually move to another market which is likely to eventually fail when the team hits an extended rut.
In Europe, economics and success, the supposed capitalist fundamentals North America prides itself on, are what dictates the sports leagues. In North America, the league seems almost communist in nature.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ken Foss about 1 year ago
no here's your problem, money, and the talent your "allowed" are two things that should be mutually exclusive its one of the things that i like about sports here in america. Here's the advantage they have, they can pay the best scouts, the best coaches, and pay for more AHL players, by that i mean 2W players that wont count against the cap and have the depth they have the advantage its just not great. Toronto has awful management thats its own fault. The League has nothing to do with it.
Edit Comment Cancel
steve dinghy 9 months ago
wow go shoot yourself after writing that
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.