Better Promotional Transaction

[123NewChamp]

Hello Everyone. Took me bout a year, to post a threat so bear with me. Hope I do not confuse no one. So here we go:

Here's my question. I was thinking bout this bout a week ago, But I want to know for those who watched wrestling for awhile, basically 1996. But we all know WCW during 1996 has stolen some of WWF's top stars such as Kevin Nash, Scott Hall, X-Pac, Roddy Piper, Madusa, and also leading into 1997 with the additions of Curt Hennig and Bret The Hitman Hart. While WCW was still in existance, the biggest transaction the WWF got were the Radicalz in 2000. Basically Dean Malenko, Perry Saturn, Chris Benoit, and Eddie Guerrero.

So my question, is who got the better of the trade? WCW with the Addition of The Wolfpac, Roddy Piper, and Madusa; Or WWE with The Addition of The Radicalz in 2000? And Why?



I think the WWF got the better bargain. Although the transaction came 4 years later, WWF in my opinion got a better deal IN hiring the Radicalz. Let's face it, WCW got Hall and Nash when they were at their peak in the WWF. And Hall was actually a great wrestler. But the thing was with them was that they got expensive and lucrative contracts to leave WWF. As far with the Radicalz, the WWF aquired 4 guys that could wrestle. Both Dean and Eddie dominated in the WCW Cruiserweight Division. Then Eddie Started the LWO and Dean teamed with Benoit with the 4 Horsemen. Saturn was hanging around. And Benoit won a WCW Heavyweight Championship. But as soon as they came to WWF they had 4 really great technical wrestlERS. And Technical wrestling was reaching a new peak with these 4 plus with the later addition of Kurt Angle. The WWF later to be WWE put the wwe championship strap around Eddie and the WHC around Benoit. Dean Malenko gotten lost being the Ladies man, and Perry Saturn fooling around with Moppy. But WWE recognized and did more with Benoit and Eddie than WCW ever wanted to do with them because of the popularity status of Hogan Hall and Nash in WCW. I beleive that Saturn and Especially Dean coulda gotten more outta WWE if used correctly. But I say the WWF capitalized on the potential and aquired a better trade than their lost in 1996. What you guys think?

 

[finoj05]

Technically, WCW got the better transaction. Hall, Nash, Pac and Piper made them more money that the radicalz ever made the WWF/WWE. Not saying they weren't useful or big stars at the time, but given the result of those moves, WCW got the better deal. Their impending demise had nothing to do with that. WWF gained more by WCW's loss of the radicalz than they did by gaining them.

Not sure on how much the contracts were, so can't really speculate on the return each got on their investments dollars wise.

But I think WWF got the better deal when Mark Calaway, Steve Austin, Cactus Jack and Paul Leveque jumped ship from WCW to the WWF in the mid-90s.

 

[TUFFY54]

Good thread.

I certainly see your point in saying the WWE got the better end of the deal. However, I'm going to have to disagree. WCW damn near put the WWE out of business in 96-97. They were destroying them in ratings and popularity. USA was pressuring Vince to move RAW to Tuesdays to try to increase ratings. Hall and Nash started the most important angle in wrestling history. Piper, Pac, and Madusa showing up led people to believe that anything could happen in WCW. Bret Hart going to WCW was the biggest story in wrestling. Henning was another world famous superstar that decided WCW was the place to be. Had the people running WCW had any business sense, they would be the biggest (and perhaps only) wrestling organization in the world in 2011. At their peak, WCW had the most impressive talent roster in the history of wrestling. I still believe that the WWE never beat WCW. WCW beat themselves. Those people coming over turned WCW from a laughing stock to the hottest thing in the history of wrestling.

The Radicals were all great workers, but their coming to WWF wasn't nearly as big of deal. It was much more a loss for WCW than it was a gain for the WWE. WCW needed all those WWE stars to get ahead. WWE didn't need the Radicals to beat WCW. By 2000 the WWE was already destroying WCW in the ratings. The WWE had Austin, HHH, Taker, Foley, Kane, Big Show, Angle, and The Rock tearing up Monday nights and giving them the biggest business in history when the Radicals came over. Yeah, it was shocking to see four WCW guys show up, but they were in the WWE midcard for years. They didn't come in as impact players.

The guys coming to WCW changed wrestling and started the Monday Night Wars. The guys coming to the WWE just added a little fuel to a blazing fire.

Overall, WCW got the far better deal.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

You have to say WCW got the better transaction out of the options you listed as the arrival of Kevin Nash and Scott Hall started the one of the biggest and most important storylines in wrestling history with the nWo, who basically dominated WCW for years and took that company from where it was and made it the number 1 wrestling promotion in the world for a couple of years. It was a HUGE deal with Hulk Hogan joined the Outsiders and formed the nWo and they really had the WWE on the rocks for a time.

I can see the argument that the nWo, for all its success, was one of the downfalls for WCW in the end, letting the storyline run on for far too long, burying too much talent, but the fact is WCW would never have been able to challenge the dominance of the WWE without the arrival of The Outsiders.

The Radicalz were good, but lets look at the facts. Perry Saturn and Dean Malenko made little to no impact in WWE, which is a shame as Malenko was a phenomenal talent. Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero were huge successes in there time with the company, but their time in the spotlight really came after the demise of WCW and they only held the World Title well into the 2000s after WCW had died. They didn't really have too much effect on the rivalry between the 2 companies after they jumped size, although Benoit had much more initial success than Eddie.

Looking at the impact each of the 2 "transactions" had on their respective companies you have to say The Outsiders joining WCW was the bigger deal and had more of an impact. Benoit and Eddie came good for the WWE but neither had a major role in the WWE defeating WCW in the end. The was down to the likes of Austin, Rock, Triple H, Foley and Undertaker. While in WCW, it WAS Nash and Hall who werre right in the thick of things, as their arrival and subsequent Outsiders/ nWo storyline that pushed WCW to the top in the ratings, albeit only for a year and a half.

So, The Outsiders is my pick.

 

[Rayne]

WCW damn near put the WWE out of business in 96-97. They were destroying them in ratings and popularity. USA was pressuring Vince to move RAW to Tuesdays to try to increase ratings.

Don't take my disagreement with this point as a wholesale disagreement with your post, but this is a popular misconception. While all of your statements (minus the first) are true, WCW "did" nothing to the WWF except capitalize on a company which was already in a weak position. The WWF at the time was still weakened by the steroid scandal of the early '90s, which caused advertisers (the real source of a major promotion's money, along with merchandising) to flee en masse. The loss in money led to several performers having their paychecks cut if not being terminated outright. This is what caused Hulk Hogan to switch companies; this is what caused the manager's exodus to WCW at the same time. Gate receipts and television ratings never dropped for the WWF during this period. At no point did the WWF *lose* audience to WCW. The WWE would have to resort to an IPO in order to stay liquid long enough for time and a publicity campaign to do its work. (The "New Generation", a moniker aimed at fans to sell the younger stars which hadn't crossed over, as well as advertisers, to imply that these weren't the roid ravaged performers of years past.)

All that WCW did was come along with a much larger bankbook and offered it to people who'd make less money by staying with Vince. They followed one of the basic precepts of war (read your Sun-Tzu, this tactic is older than Western civilization), which is to raid your opponent when you are in a position of strength and strip them of their most valuable assets. Any company in WCW's position who didn't raid the WWF would have been damned fools. What WCW did in the early '90s, any first year business student could explain to you. (After they read Sun-Tzu's The Art of War, which really should be on the list of Books To Read So Boys Know How To Be Men. Hell, in the interest of bringing water to those who would drink it, here's a link to it.)

What WCW was successful in was providing entertainment that people wanted to see more than the competition for almost two years. What I find more amazing than WCW rising to prominence in the mid '90s was how they somehow managed to blow the advantage they had over their competition, when historically the winner in almost every war tends to be the power with the most money. (Tends to be. Vietnam and Afghanistan notwithstanding.)

___________________________________

As far as who got the better deal? The nWo obviously drew more money; put it in strict monetary terms, and it's easily WCW. The departure of the Radicalz, however, was far more significant. Until then, the direction of performers had largely been in one direction- WWF to WCW. There was the occasional exception; Sean Waltman was able to talk his buddies into getting him his old job back, but for the most part the talent was headed one way. When the Radicalz came over, it was a very large statement; in one swoop, the WWE had picked off almost all of WCW's rising stars, including their champion. (Don't ask me why in the name of Frank Gotch that you'd put your title on a guy who wasn't under contract the very next fucking day when your competition does a live show, but then again, business acumen wasn't the big thing at WCW.) Looking back, I think that's when the Monday Night Wars were decided once and for all.

I always believe in following the buck, and if we're just talking about which wrestlers going where made who more money, then it's easily Hall and Nash. Without that deal, there were no Monday Night Wars, although as was previously stated, not hiring off the WWE's talent at the time would have been insanity. It comes down to which is more important; the shot that begins a war, or the shot that ends it?

In strict, direct monetary terms- it's Hall and Nash. In terms of impact on professional wrestling, it comes to a dead heat.

 

[akrassikauda]

I would have to go with WWE because of the backstage politics at WCW were holding those guys back. WWE at the time had established new stars Austin,Rock,HHH and DX while WCW had established older stars calling the shots. This was a classic trade off in retrospect.

WCW had the older stars either pushing 40 or beyond 40 while WWE took what some at WCW perceived as minor league stars, but they're good talent under utilized good talent that WWE were happy to have and did what WCW should have done make the guys pushing 30 or a little above 30 into stars. The best of the lot was Jericho the diamond in the rough that WCW had taken from ECW just to let him walk to WWE. Yes Saturn,Malenko,Guerrero and ****** were good but Jericho had the total package as in mic skills,ring skills story telling.

It was like the Cubs trading away Lou Brock to the hated Cardinals.

 

[TUFFY54]

Don't take my disagreement with this point as a wholesale disagreement with your post, but this is a popular misconception. While all of your statements (minus the first) are true, WCW "did" nothing to the WWF except capitalize on a company which was already in a weak position. The WWF at the time was still weakened by the steroid scandal of the early '90s, which caused advertisers (the real source of a major promotion's money, along with merchandising) to flee en masse. The loss in money led to several performers having their paychecks cut if not being terminated outright. This is what caused Hulk Hogan to switch companies; this is what caused the manager's exodus to WCW at the same time. Gate receipts and television ratings never dropped for the WWF during this period. At no point did the WWF *lose* audience to WCW. The WWE would have to resort to an IPO in order to stay liquid long enough for time and a publicity campaign to do its work. (The "New Generation", a moniker aimed at fans to sell the younger stars which hadn't crossed over, as well as advertisers, to imply that these weren't the roid ravaged performers of years past.)

All that WCW did was come along with a much larger bankbook and offered it to people who'd make less money by staying with Vince. They followed one of the basic precepts of war (read your Sun-Tzu, this tactic is older than Western civilization), which is to raid your opponent when you are in a position of strength and strip them of their most valuable assets. Any company in WCW's position who didn't raid the WWF would have been damned fools. What WCW did in the early '90s, any first year business student could explain to you. (After they read Sun-Tzu's The Art of War, which really should be on the list of Books To Read So Boys Know How To Be Men. Hell, in the interest of bringing water to those who would drink it,

While I congratulate you on your well thought out response, I must say that I don't see what it has to do with the question. It seems rather off topic to me. The fact is that for over 80 weeks WCW beat the WWE in ratings. I don't see how you can claim otherwise. In many of those weeks, WCW was doing double the ratings of WWE. That hurt the WWE quite a bit. So much so that, before the ratings started turning around, USA network thought about perhaps moving RAW to a different night.

I've read Sun-Tzu and the points you make are accurate. However, I never said that what WCW was doing was wrong. I never said I wouldn't do it if I were in the same position. Again, the question asked what company got more out of their new wrestlers. It wasn't a debate of the morality of business practices. Your diatribe, while correct, just doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

 

[123NewChamp]

So Far I really appreciate everyone's input on the thread. And all are very valid arguments and well known facts. And the mentioning of Mark Calaway, Triple H and Steve Austin was also another Major Transaction that dealt with future big time superstars. And I've learned something new. I had no idea that the steroid Scandal played apart of Nash, Hall, and the rest leaving for more money. But for Hogan it was kinda obvious. I will not switch my opinion though. I'm still sticking to my opinion. And yeah the Transaction from WWF by WCW was more based off money. As WWF most likely didn't offer a bigger offer to the Radicalz. But they got better talent Wrestling wise. And for the poster who said WCW destroyed themselves, they're right. They should've ran WWF out of business. But backstage politics, and money issues made their plan backfire on them. I really appreciate the posts. Anything else, keep it coming.

 

[Rayne]

While I congratulate you on your well thought out response, I must say that I don't see what it has to do with the question. It seems rather off topic to me. The fact is that for over 80 weeks WCW beat the WWE in ratings. I don't see how you can claim otherwise. In many of those weeks, WCW was doing double the ratings of WWE. That hurt the WWE quite a bit. So much so that, before the ratings started turning around, USA network thought about perhaps moving RAW to a different night.

I've read Sun-Tzu and the points you make are accurate. However, I never said that what WCW was doing was wrong. I never said I wouldn't do it if I were in the same position. Again, the question asked what company got more out of their new wrestlers. It wasn't a debate of the morality of business practices. Your diatribe, while correct, just doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

It was a sidebar to your previous comment on how WCW almost put the WWE out of business (action verb key), and was not a direct response to the primary topic. WCW had an amazing run of success, but they didn't actually do anything to the WWE. It's a pet peeve of mine that the people running WCW at the time are given credit for almost destroying the WWE when they didn't do anything that every large company does to their smaller competition. (Speaking capitalization in this instance.) I'll give them all the credit in the world for providing a few years of really good professional wrestling, but I won't give them credit for Vince McMahon's sloppy business ethics in the '80s and early '90s.

 

[Foshinzo]

I agree that you have to go with WCW's pick ups, though it is a tough argument.

I don't care much about the ratings war, because WWF won that. Let's face it: The only reason WCW beat WWF during those years was because they had one genius idea: the nWo. At least, they stole one genius idea from NJPW, but that's a whole other argument. NEVER GIVE BISCHOFF CREDIT FOR ANYTHING EVER.
Lol.

Really, what I'm saying is that if it weren't for the nWo, nobody would have cared about WCW. So yes, even though WWF outlasted WCW and built some champions out of the Radicalz, WCW wins this argument because if they hadn't made this transaction, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Scott Hall and Kevin Nash created a stir in the wrestling world that carried the promotion through three years (96-99) of mostly horrible wrestling shows before the company finally started to get in big trouble, so yes, they win because of that.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

Easily Hall, Nash and company going to WCW.

Face it, without that angle, does WCW EVER do the type of business it did in 96/97? Prior to the Wolfpac's arrival, they'd become increasingly cartoonish with face Hogan, the Dungeon of Doom, the Mortal Combat ripoff characters, Evad, ect. They had been making inroads into being edgier with Nitro, but they were never 'must see' until the Outsiders arrived.

WWE did good with Guerrero and Benoit... and yeah WCW losing them was basically the final nail in the coffin, but WCW would have never survived with them anyways, and WWE would have still done the same business if they never got them.