HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   THN: 100 "more" players likely to retire if 12-13 season lost (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1297767)

LadyStanley 11-25-2012 03:24 PM

THN: 100 "more" players likely to retire if 12-13 season lost
 
http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...o-the-NHL.html

Quote:

Here’s what we know from the previous lockout. In 2003-04, there were 1,010 players with at least one game played. Research shows 240 of them (23.8 percent) never played another game in the NHL after the lockout was settled. About half were bit players (114 skaters with 20 or fewer games). Among the rest were aging vets on the cusp of retirement – Scott Stevens, Mark Messier, Ron Francis, Al MacInnis and Adam Oates.

The number 240 sounds like a lot, but it’s largely natural turnover yearly. How does this compare to any given season? We took 2008-09 as a random example. There were 974 players who played at least one game in the NHL. Of those, 138 (or 14.2 percent) never played another game in the NHL. The bulk of natural turnover are cup-of-coffee guys who play a few games, but never make it back again. A much smaller number are guys who retire or return to Europe.
...
In 2011-12, there were 983 players who played at least one game in the NHL. Because of natural turnover, we can project 14.2 percent of them (139 players) won’t play again in the NHL. No big deal, it happens every season. But using the 2004-05 lockout as a case study, we can predict another 9.6 percent (the difference between 23.8 percent and 14.2) or 95 more players – like 38-year-old Sergei Gonchar in the last year of a big contract – won’t be back for 2013-14.
So, it appears on average that about 140 players (about 4 players per team) never play in the NHL "next season" -- general turn over, many being "cup of coffee" type players, and the others due to age and injury (or head/return to Europe).

But another 9+% percent "lost their edge" and retired after the 04-05 lockout.

However, that does not take into consideration the issue of some of those older players perhaps "demanding" larger contracts and teams not able/interested in signing them (preferring to use cheaper players), which may exasperate the situation.

Freudian 11-25-2012 03:39 PM

With natural attrition and a wide definition of what is a NHL player, a pretty big chunk of those that won't play another NHL game after the lockout most likely wouldn't have played another game without a lockout.

I know what they are trying to say but it's a little bit too much statistical smoke and mirrors to work for me.

I think when thinking of player losses from work stoppage lost paychecks is a better measurement.

Canadiens1958 11-25-2012 04:13 PM

Darwined
 
Players getting Darwined was part of the plan all along. Dead money, non-performing money is saved by the owners. Review the 2012-13 contracts in terms of performance.

If a goalie had a top 3 contract amongst NHL goalies but ranked 25th in terms of goalie performance the team owner is happy not to pay him while grooming his replacement in the minors.

Likewise for the other positions.

Enforcers are another group. Out of favour in today's NHL but contracts remain valid. Darwined this season while their 3rd/4th line replacement gets experience in the minors on a two-way contract.

Thin the herd. Get rid of the non-productive elements or at least mitigate the costs.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:03 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.