Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from lucdufour. Show lucdufour's posts

    Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    The balance between healthy competition and economics of each league is what I've been thinking about with a potential NHL lockout on the horizon.  Looking at the 4 major sports in North America, which league has it down the best?  What can the NHL learn from the other sports? 



     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    They're all different, and I'm not sure any of the models has proven itself to be the one to follow.  The NFL benefits from an insanely profitable revenue stream combined with no guaranteed deals (though there's guaranteed money).  What they do would be hard to replicate - you'd have to break the union.  The NBA can't stay out of lockouts, even with a roster of what, 8-10 guys who actually deserve pro salaries for the minutes they play?  And they have the same gate as an NHL team.  MLB's system is the least restrictive, and the gap between haves and have nots is enormous.  Bad idea for a healthy league.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    NHL-NFL tie for 1st, then NBA in third with MLB in a distant last place. Every league needs a hard cap. It makes it way better as a fan. I've found it hard to watch baseball since the Yankees eclipsed the $200 million payroll. I like the NHL's version of restricted free agency - I would prefer it lasted a year or two longer.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bisson1. Show Bisson1's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    1. NFL, no doubt that the NFL makes the most money and attracts the most fans. No one or two teams dominate the sport like other leagues. (Yankees, Original 6 teams, Celtics/Lakers). The Steelers and Patriots have been the more successful teams over the past decade but the competition seems to change often.
    2. NHL, if it weren't for it's lack of popularity in the USA it could be right up there with the NFL.
    3. NBA, Players are out of control. Lost what little interest I had in the league when they created that egomaniac superteam in Miami. The competition will be between three teams for years to come.
    4. MLB, tough to have healthy competition when teams like the Red Sox, Phillies, and Yankees have a payroll close to 200 million, then teams like the Pirates and Astros are down around 60 million. Alex Rodriguez makes half of the Pirates payroll alone in one season. Contracts contiune to get more and more ridiculous each year.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from juniorfalcon19. Show juniorfalcon19's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    1. NHL
    2. NFL
    4. MLB
    4. NBA

    The MLB and NBA are jokes
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BSXIII. Show BSXIII's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    MLB has the worst system by far.  They really make no attempt at having a competitive league.  Very tough for the league to grow in markets that have 1/4 the payroll of the top teams.

    The NFL has a great system but I'm not sure it would work in the NHL.  I don't see the union agreeing to contracts where only the signing bonus is guaranteed. 

    Then the revenue sharing model would be even tougher for the NHL owners to agree to.  The NFL has no regional broadcast television deals for games, and the national television deals are so much bigger than the NHL.  So much money is generated at the league level there.  Sharing that for the benefit of the league is a lot different than asking NHL owners to hand over large amount of ticket sales and local revenue to subsidize other teams.

    I actually like some things in the NBA CBA, and think that system could work better in the NHL.  The Bird rights is a cool concept, where teams can exceed the cap to retain their own players, but aren't allowed to sign other teams free agents while they are over the cap.  The whole max contract thing is a mess, and the sign and trades could use tweaking, but overall I do like the way their salary cap allows teams to keep their own players, and then pay a luxary tax after exceeding it by a certain amount.

    A huge complaint most have against the NBA system is teams like the Heat and Lakers (maybe the Celtics), can create super teams.  NBA teams play an 8 man bench in the playoffs.  That makes it much easier to give 70% of your payroll to 3 players.  Good luck trying that in the NHL, where 18 skaters and a goalie play each night.  Then take away the star treatment that isn't nearly as prevalent in the NHL, and I think elements from this system would work much better here.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    A baseball team plays 81 games at home.  Last year, the Oakland A's had the lowest average:  18,232. 

    1,476,792 in total for the 81 games.

    I think the baseball model is working just fine.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    4. MLB, tough to have healthy competition when teams like the Red Sox, Phillies, and Yankees have a payroll close to 200 million, then teams like the Pirates and Astros are down around 60 million. Alex Rodriguez makes half of the Pirates payroll alone in one season. Contracts contiune to get more and more ridiculous each year.
    Posted by Bisson1


    As of right now:

    NL EAST

    1.  Washington (payroll $81M)
    2.  Atlanta ($83M)
    3.  NY Mets ($93M)
    4.  Philadelphia ($173M)
    5.  Miami ($118M)

    In fact, the Washington Nationals have the best record in baseball, despite being 20th in total salary spent.

    Plenty of MLB teams make the post season despite being low on the salary totem pole.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    MLB has the worst system by far.  They really make no attempt at having a competitive league.  Very tough for the league to grow in markets that have 1/4 the payroll of the top teams.
    Posted by BSXIII


    Where are they trying to grow the game and are being held back by a competitive imbalance (and not terrible management)?


     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BSXIII. Show BSXIII's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB : Where are they trying to grow the game and are being held back by a competitive imbalance (and not terrible management)?
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    The team you mentioned above, the Oakland A's are good example of a team just not being able to compete financially.  They've had some good players pass through the system over the past 10 years, that they couldn't afford to keep.  You posted their respectable ticket numbers above, but the average ticket price is under $22.  Lowest attendance x below average ticket prices = rough financial shape.  Off the top of my head over the past 10 years they've had Giambi, Tejada, Zito, Mulder, Hudson, Damon, Dye, Harden, Haren, Foulke and Bailey leaving as free agents or traded away before their big pay day.  Sure, not many of those players are worth anything now, and you could argue they were better off not keeping them, but having that type of turnover makes it tough for a team not only to compete, but build a fan base.

    A better example is Cleveland.  Another small market team who were dominant at the turn of the century, lost Manny and others via free agency, then had to rebuild.  They were a game away from making the 2007 world series, and then again couldn't afford to keep the core together.  They were forced to watch 2 pitchers from that team, Cliff Lee and CC Sabathia the aces of the 2 teams that made the world series a few years after.

    Honestly I haven't followed baseball all that closely recently, but close enough to see the small market teams are feeders for the big market teams.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from jpBsSoxFan. Show jpBsSoxFan's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    A baseball team plays 81 games at home.  Last year, the Oakland A's had the lowest average:  18,232.  1,476,792 in total for the 81 games. I think the baseball model is working just fine.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    How could that be working fine ?  That is less than half of capacity per game ? No way the A's are making money.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB : How could that be working fine ?  That is less than half of capacity per game ? No way the A's are making money.
    Posted by jpBsSoxFan


    I guarantee you the Oakland A's make money. So do the Kansas City Royals and Pittsburgh Pirates.

    The recent changes in draft pick compensation for losing free-agents will dramatically effect the way the Oakland A's do business.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB : The team you mentioned above, the Oakland A's are good example of a team just not being able to compete financially.  They've had some good players pass through the system over the past 10 years, that they couldn't afford to keep.  You posted their respectable ticket numbers above, but the average ticket price is under $22.  Lowest attendance x below average ticket prices = rough financial shape.  Off the top of my head over the past 10 years they've had Giambi, Tejada, Zito, Mulder, Hudson, Damon, Dye, Harden, Haren, Foulke and Bailey leaving as free agents or traded away before their big pay day.  Sure, not many of those players are worth anything now, and you could argue they were better off not keeping them, but having that type of turnover makes it tough for a team not only to compete, but build a fan base. A better example is Cleveland.  Another small market team who were dominant at the turn of the century, lost Manny and others via free agency, then had to rebuild.  They were a game away from making the 2007 world series, and then again couldn't afford to keep the core together.  They were forced to watch 2 pitchers from that team, Cliff Lee and CC Sabathia the aces of the 2 teams that made the world series a few years after. Honestly I haven't followed baseball all that closely recently, but close enough to see the small market teams are feeders for the big market teams.
    Posted by BSXIII


    The A's pilfered Dye and Damon from KC.  They traded Mulder for Haren.  Bad examples.

    Cleveland has been close twice recently.  So, they didn't win it all.  They had quite a run in the 90's when they had all the guys.  That stadium was sold out for years upon years.  They made some bad decisions, traded the wrong guys and the fans left the park. 

    Look at Arizona.  They won it back when they had Schilling and Johnson.  Same sized market, different approach by management and ownership.

    20 years ago, Sox tickets were bought at the gate.  Not bleachers, but behind the plate tickets.  Readily available.  Oakland was crusing with the Bash Brothers and the Sox were trying to make something happen with Ellis Burks and Moe Vaughn. 

    Baseball goes in cycles.  Hot teams stay hot for a while, then disappear for a while.  All but NYY, because they have more money than God.  Go back 10 short years.  In the middle of the pack for spending was Philadelphia and they were 24th on the attendance list.  Today, they're at the top for both.  They made some decent decisions and ramped up the team.

    Baseball is just fine.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB : How could that be working fine ?  That is less than half of capacity per game ? No way the A's are making money.
    Posted by jpBsSoxFan


    A little research can go a long way.  According to Forbes, before taxes etc, the A's ended up 12th in 2009 in operating income.

    http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/33/baseball-valuations-10_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Income.html

    Oops.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB : The team you mentioned above, the Oakland A's are good example of a team just not being able to compete financially.
    Posted by BSXIII


    If Lewis Wolff would spend more money, they'd be able to keep some of the players.  This is not a competitive imbalance.  It's poor ownership.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    Perilously close to baseball talk here.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from lucdufour. Show lucdufour's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    I feel in baseball, teams have to operate with drastically different models to be successful.  The Yanks/Sox/Angels can go for the money players, make huge mistakes, and feed off lower $ teams.  Meanwhile the A's/Pirates/Royals have a much greater risk in signing the high $ player if they don't pan out and have to rely on stockpiling the system with youngsters with the thought of trading them while they are entering/at their prime.  Personally, I don't think it is fair that the small market teams have to lose these players (or can't compete for the high $ guys) but it is part of their economic viablility and model.  I think the MLB truly doesn't care about the bottom as long as they can put in primetime--- a Yanks/Sox like game. 

    In football---every team is making $--big time.  The Playoffs are less predictable than any other sport except hockey.   Most every team feels like they have a chance at the start of each season.    The billion dollar fantasy NFL season is testimony enough that football is healthy.  Teams may have a different model in terms of drafting/trading/FA etc... but it is not solely driven by monetary necessity

    NBA---I'm also going to Miami--nuff said.

    Now to hockey---the NHL does care about its smaller market teams based off the fact it took ownership of the Coyotes and moved a team from Atl to Winn.   Perhaps they shouldn't care about them as much and let them dwindle or move, or at least explore a system when moving becomes necessary.  I personally don't want this league to become the haves/have nots with Phi/Bos/NYR and owners with deep pockets (Buff) signing all the players while other teams fall by the way side.   Unlike baseball, the NHL cannot afford this to happen---and it is going in that direction (eg. Shea Weber) if something is not done now.  I don't want teams to become the A's of baseball and have to trade off their stars (franchise players) before they become superstars.  It would be like the B's (if they were small market) trading Seguin now before his next big contract. 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    I like the NHL's version of restricted free agency - I would prefer it lasted a year or two longer. Posted by OatesCam


    I think this is where fehr will agree with the owners on EL/RFA rights being longer. I like it as well.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    I feel in baseball, teams have to operate with drastically different models to be successful.  The Yanks/Sox/Angels can go for the money players, make huge mistakes, and feed off lower $ teams.  Meanwhile the A's/Pirates/Royals have a much greater risk in signing the high $ player if they don't pan out and have to rely on stockpiling the system with youngsters with the thought of trading them while they are entering/at their prime.  Personally, I don't think it is fair that the small market teams have to lose these players (or can't compete for the high $ guys) but it is part of their economic viablility and model.  I think the MLB truly doesn't care about the bottom as long as they can put in primetime--- a Yanks/Sox like game.  In football---every team is making $--big time.  The Playoffs are less predictable than any other sport except hockey.   Most every team feels like they have a chance at the start of each season.    The billion dollar fantasy NFL season is testimony enough that football is healthy.  Teams may have a different model in terms of drafting/trading/FA etc... but it is not solely driven by monetary necessity NBA---I'm also going to Miami--nuff said. Now to hockey---the NHL does care about its smaller market teams based off the fact it took ownership of the Coyotes and moved a team from Atl to Winn.   Perhaps they shouldn't care about them as much and let them dwindle or move, or at least explore a system when moving becomes necessary.  I personally don't want this league to become the haves/have nots with Phi/Bos/NYR and owners with deep pockets (Buff) signing all the players while other teams fall by the way side.   Unlike baseball, the NHL cannot afford this to happen---and it is going in that direction (eg. Shea Weber) if something is not done now.  I don't want teams to become the A's of baseball and have to trade off their stars (franchise players) before they become superstars.  It would be like the B's (if they were small market) trading Seguin now before his next big contract. 
    Posted by lucdufour

    No doubt it's easier for the rich ball teams but the Angels, even though they made a huge free agent splash in the off season, have done a good job of building through the draft. Guys like Weaver, Trout, Trumbo, Aybar, Kendrick, etc., are all guys they drafted and developed. Hiring great scouts and then drafting well seems as (or even more) important than how much cash a team can spend. That seems true of all major sports.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from heyoo. Show heyoo's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    Salary means the least in the nhl and nfl. Most teams are around the same payroll and like in the nfl any team can win at anytime in the nhl. The lowest seed in the nhl playoffs won the cup, you never see that in the mlb or nba and for the most part the nfl. Low salary teams may compete in the mlb but they never win the big one. And once there players are ufa in the mlb they are gone.
     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    Salary means the least in the nhl and nfl. Most teams are around the same payroll and like in the nfl any team can win at anytime in the nhl. The lowest seed in the nhl playoffs won the cup, you never see that in the mlb or nba and for the most part the nfl. Low salary teams may compete in the mlb but they never win the big one. And once there players are ufa in the mlb they are gone.
    Posted by heyoo


    The St. Louis Cardinals won the World Series by being a wild card team. No, you never see that in baseball.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from heyoo. Show heyoo's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    With the 10th highest payroll..
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from lucdufour. Show lucdufour's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB : The St. Louis Cardinals won the World Series by being a wild card team. No, you never see that in baseball.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-


    To your point Chowdah, since so many Wild Card baseball teams have won the WS since the WC has been instituted, I wouldn't be surprised if a 10 through 16 seed could also win it in baseball if the playoff format were expanded.  It's interesting how MLB is trying to make it harder for a WildCard team to win it by wasting it's top starter in the 1 game playoff.  As much as I love playoff hockey, it would be better if fewer teams made it making the regular season more meaningful.    I think football and baseball have it closer to right in terms of its playoff format.  Although nothing matches the intensity of hockey playoffs--having hockey go deep into June just doesn't sit right. 


     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    With the 10th highest payroll..
    Posted by heyoo

     
    ....... which makes your comment that " you never see that in mlb " correct ? 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share