Cheapskate Owners Fleece Fans on Both Ends

While I was away in Maine last week, the Buffalo Sabres announced an ingenious new ticket pricing plan. The Sabres call it the "Variable Pricing System." Here is how the team describes this new system:

Individual game tickets are based upon the Sabres innovative, Variable Pricing system, which is a newly created program where each game is designated by one of four different classifications (Gold, Silver, Bronze and Value). Each classification is determined by the opponent, time of the year, day of the week, rivalries and games against all-star players.

GOLD GAMES

Gold games will be those games that typically have the highest demand with regard to the opponent or the date of the game.

SILVER GAMES

Silver games will typically be weekend games (Friday, Saturday or Sunday) or games versus high demand opponents.

BRONZE GAMES

Bronze games will typically be mid-week games or against up-and-coming opponents.

VALUE GAMES

Values Games will be "family friendly" priced games that are offered at a deeply discounted rate for the season.

For the cheapest seats in the house, here is the price breakdown:

Gold: $68

Silver: $41

Bronze: $29

Value: $20

The Sabres host the Rangers and Flyers twice each. One game against each team is slotted as a "Gold" game and one game against each team is slotted as a "Silver" game.

So, what does this all mean? Well, it means that the Billionaire Owner of the Buffalo Sabres, Tom Golisano, didn't think it was worth his money to re-sign either Chris Drury or Daniel Briere, but he certainly thinks it's worth his fans' hard-earned money to watch them come back to Buffalo and play against their team. For the four games against the former Sabres stars, fans have to pay $218 as opposed to the regular price of $80 for games Golisano and his errand boys in the marketing department didn't deem worthy of extortion. It must feel great to pay so much extra for the right to watch these guys play for another team. Talk about pouring salt in the open wound.

This is what makes the small-market NHL owners so lovable. They whined and screamed for a lockout, and took over the wheel of the league and drove it straight into the iceberg. Now, they finally get the system they held the players and fans hostage to get, and they are complaining about the big-market teams spending too much money. But, that won't stop them from charging their own small-market fans an arm and a leg to see those big-spenders when they come to town. The best part of this is that other owners will catch onto this idea, and it will drive up revenues, which, in turn, will raise the salary cap. But, if you think owners like Golisano will take your money and use it to put a better product on the ice, don't hold your breath. They will be the ones trying to shut the league down again to lower salaries, and blaming the Rangers and Flyers for destroying the small markets, while they laugh all the way to the bank to deposit the extra money they made off those very same evil teams.

Did the Rangers Pay Too Much for King Henrik?

There seems to be a bit of a debate brewing about the Rangers decision to ink Franchise Goaltender Henrik Lundqvist to a one-year/$4.25 million dollar contract to avoid salary arbitration and build a bridge to a long-term deal in January. Some, including the New York Daily News' John Dellapina praised Lundqvist for working with the team and agreeing to put off signing a long-term deal to save the team some 2007-08 cap space. Others, including Larry Brooks of the New York Post, have pointed to the $2.667 million salaries earned by comparable two-year veteran goalies Cam Ward and Ryan Miller as evidence that the Rangers are paying Lundqvist significantly more than he would have been awarded in arbitration. Thus, the deal is actually a detriment to the Rangers' already perilous cap situation for the coming season.

I tend to agree with Brooks here. While Lundqvist is certainly the key to any shot this team has at success, the Rangers are not obligated to pay him more than what he should be paid under the CBA. Since King Henrik is an arbitration-eligible RFA, they were right to use arbitration as a way to prevent other teams from extending a cap-busting offer sheet. They also should have calculated what they believed he would have been awarded in arbitration and made that offer to him, with the promise to lock him up to a long-term deal in January. The team would have been in a position to save some cap space this year, while still being able to offer him the kind of big contract he would get on the open market.

Let's understand something here. The Rangers are still going to lock him up to the same 5-6 year deal at $5.5-6 million a year in January that they would have if they had saved the likely $1.5 million by going to arbitration, or signing him to a more reasonable contract. They aren't going to get any discount for giving him the extra money this year. The only difference is they now have an even more difficult cap situation this season than they should. I have no problem when the team signs players like Gomez and Drury to big contracts. They are playing by the same rules put forth by the CBA as everyone else. But, when it comes to a situation like this, the Rangers should also use all of the rules of the CBA to their advantage.