It’s been a while since I’ve posted on here so bear with me while I try to rediscover my “voice” in my writing (I doubt I ever had one, but teachers always told me you need to have a “voice” when you write and to this day I am not really sure what it means).
On to my random thoughts…..
Looks like the hockey labor problems are on their way to being solved. I know everyone is excited as I am, meaning not very excited. The biggest hurdle that the union and the owners had to clear was coming to an agreement on the salary cap. They solved this issue by agreeing on a salary cap that will be based on team’s revenue. I am not the smartest person in the world (no, really I’m not) but there are some fatal flaws with this system. First, and most obviously, this system means that teams that have higher revenues will have a higher “cap” and will be able to spend more money on players. Conversely, teams with lower revenue will have a lower “cap” and will be unable to keep up with higher revenue teams in paying their players. Isn’t this the exact opposite of competition? I guess the NHL hasn’t seen the recent success of the NFL salary cap system that provides more parity than any other sport. The NHL has pretty much sealed the fate for smaller market teams that have lower revenues. Since these lower market teams will be unable to compete in the long-run, they will have to cut costs (namely salaries) just to stay in business. Second, along with the “cap” the agreement also sets a “floor” for team salaries. This means that teams have to spend a minimum amount on salaries no matter what their revenues are. This means that even if a team cuts it’s player’s salaries and tries to just not lose money (similar to what the Royals and other major league baseball teams have done) they still have to pay the minimum. This will drive many of the small market (lower revenue) teams right out of the league because it will not be profitable for the teams to stay in business (which I believe needed to be done anyway through league contraction). And even if a team had an owner with unlimited resources, he would still be restricted by the cap and could not pay his players as much as higher revenue teams. What does this all mean? It means that in a few years people still won’t care about hockey.
The NBA finals have finally arrived. I was actually anticipating these finals as one of the best basketball match-ups in a while. If the rest of the games are anything like the first, I will be very disappointed. I had anticipated, and I still hope, that these games will be similar to the Rams-Patriots Super Bowl of a few years ago. I thought that you could pretty much skip the first 3 ½ quarters and just watch the end of the game and catch some of the most intense basketball in years. Hopefully the Pistons will pull their heads out of their asses and play like the defending champions.
I read an article that said that Bud Selig is actually considering for interplay next year to have AL rules apply in NL parks and vice versa. His reasoning is that NL crowds are actually are missing the opportunity of seeing players like Frank Thomas bat in NL parks. Doesn’t this defeat the purpose of home field advantage for the NL teams? Plus I don’t think too many people are showing to White Sox games to catch a Frank Thomas pinch hit opportunity. Anyways, I just thought it was funny that Selig used Frank Thomas as an example.
The “feel good” story of baseball this year has got to be the Washington Nationals. I don’t care if they end up finishing last in the NL East because the recent ride they have been on has been great. How many people gave this team a chance at the beginning of the season? Frank Robinson embodies what a baseball manager is supposed to be. What a message it must have sent to the rest of the team when he cut Toma Ohko after Toma turned his back to Robinson when he went to the mound to take him out. I wish that once in my life I could demand that kind of respect.
I will digress from talking about the Rangers because “T” has already covered the subject in some depth on this blog.
Z
No comments:
Post a Comment