HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

TSN - Expected 2009-2010 Cap at $55M

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-22-2009, 12:48 PM
  #76
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Case in point for the Red Wings: the 2002 draft was supposed to rival other not-so-vaunted drafts as one of the worst ever. The Red Wings didn't have a 1st round pick and somehow managed to come up with 5 players from the draft. They also came up with a whole bunch of Swedish players during a time when the Swedish Junior system was thought to be subpar to countries like Slovakia and Switzerland (teams who regularly did better in international junior tournaments).
As said, you need to look at the bigger picture. What the hell happened with their 2000 draft class? Nothing after the 2nd round. How about 2003?

The Red Wings are a very well run franchise, and deserve emulation...but there is a ridiculous mythology that has developed about their late round drafting prowess. There are more than a few teams out there that have made out well with picks past the first round, it ain't just the Red Wings. Hell, two later round picks by the Flyers are playing prominent roles in the current Conf. Finals.

Quote:
Drafting and coaching. All the way up the ladder. They get coaches to death and they spend a minimum of 2 years in the AHL, no matter who they drafted or where they were drafted.
Nice and all, but this skews context considerably.

1) The Red Wings normally aren't picking high in the first round, so it's VERY unlikely that who they are drafting is ready to step into the NHL anyway. If the guy isn't applying pressure to step into the NHL, then it isn't exactly hard to choose not to put him in the NHL.

2) A lot of these guys are European and not in the AHL anyway. Franzen didn't play a single AHL game. Neither did Zetterberg.

Quote:
The lockout -- what was wrong about a little fiscal responsibility? Why does it need to be dictated? If 27 owners just worried financial control and not giving in to having to give guys outrageous contracts because the market dictated it, there wouldn't have been a problem. There may be a market, but it's still on their dime, they chose to spend it.
If people wouldn't drink before they drive...there wouldn't need to be DUI laws.

Fact of the matter, is this whole point is somewhat naive and living in an alternate reality. Moreover, it ignores the connections between all contracts. One nutty GM giving out a horrendous contract has ramification for EVERY other team -- one of the primary reasons the NHLPA pushed its players to sign for the largest possible contract each and every time they were a free agent. It's also why the NHLPA liked having a late UFA age, because that meant the market would be more limited...and therefore the bidding on the available players would be higher.

In addition, you're ignoring the competitive nature of the salary cap...which means that it helps to distribute the big contract players that are out there. You can sign a guy to a huge contract, but you probably can't sign more than a few...so the other big contract guys are going to play somewhere else and help create greater competitive balance within the league...a good thing, as it keeps more markets interested in what is going on with the team.

Quote:
More owners have been a bit more conservative in the big contracts after the lockout and deliberately not spending to the cap because they don't want to.
Right, because there is no good reason to maintain some cap space other than not wanting to spend money.

Were you not paying attention to the 2008-09 Flyers?

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2009, 01:01 PM
  #77
Larry44
Flyers Tank Nation
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
2) A lot of these guys are European and not in the AHL anyway. Franzen didn't play a single AHL game. Neither did Zetterberg.
Well, if guys stay in Europe until they are 26 or 22, respectively, they might not need as much seasoning in the AHL like prospects right out of Jr - even in a well-run organization like the defending champs'.

Larry44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2009, 01:03 PM
  #78
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry44 View Post
Well, if guys stay in Europe until they are 26 or 22, respectively, they might not need as much seasoning in the AHL like prospects right out of Jr - even in a well-run organization like the defending champs'.
Yes, but if they're playing in the SEL...they're not being coached and developed by Red Wings staff either.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2009, 01:11 PM
  #79
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 111,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
As said, you need to look at the bigger picture. What the hell happened with their 2000 draft class? Nothing after the 2nd round. How about 2003?

The Red Wings are a very well run franchise, and deserve emulation...but there is a ridiculous mythology that has developed about their late round drafting prowess. There are more than a few teams out there that have made out well with picks past the first round, it ain't just the Red Wings. Hell, two later round picks by the Flyers are playing prominent roles in the current Conf. Finals.
The body of work speaks for itself.


Quote:
Nice and all, but this skews context considerably.

1) The Red Wings normally aren't picking high in the first round, so it's VERY unlikely that who they are drafting is ready to step into the NHL anyway. If the guy isn't applying pressure to step into the NHL, then it isn't exactly hard to choose not to put him in the NHL.

2) A lot of these guys are European and not in the AHL anyway. Franzen didn't play a single AHL game. Neither did Zetterberg.
They're about the only two guys who did not, and with good reason is that they were older players.


Quote:
If people wouldn't drink before they drive...there wouldn't need to be DUI laws.

Fact of the matter, is this whole point is somewhat naive and living in an alternate reality. Moreover, it ignores the connections between all contracts. One nutty GM giving out a horrendous contract has ramification for EVERY other team -- one of the primary reasons the NHLPA pushed its players to sign for the largest possible contract each and every time they were a free agent. It's also why the NHLPA liked having a late UFA age, because that meant the market would be more limited...and therefore the bidding on the available players would be higher.

In addition, you're ignoring the competitive nature of the salary cap...which means that it helps to distribute the big contract players that are out there. You can sign a guy to a huge contract, but you probably can't sign more than a few...so the other big contract guys are going to play somewhere else and help create greater competitive balance within the league...a good thing, as it keeps more markets interested in what is going on with the team.
If he's not worth it, don't spend it. Owners routinely broke their budgets because they felt they had to, and they don't no longer now that they have imposed salary cap restrictions. If they would have done this from the start there would have been no lockout. Everyone can't play for the same 6 teams.


Quote:
Right, because there is no good reason to maintain some cap space other than not wanting to spend money.

Were you not paying attention to the 2008-09 Flyers?
There were quite a few teams who were not within $2M of the salary cap. On trade deadline day $2M in cap space may as well be no cap at all.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2009, 01:17 PM
  #80
Sundevil9
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 187
vCash: 500
The NHL draft is a crapshoot. It's darned near impossible to look at a 17/18 year old kid and figure that he's bound for the NHL. Sometimes, there are can't miss things (and some of those miss) and sometimes teams pull out a gem.

Pointing out that the Red Wings have been excellent in finding young talent is factual, but they're also the exception to the norm. Especially, if the argument is that the Flyers stink at it.

There are 28 other teams that also have issues. And the Wings don't hit a home run on every pick, either.

They do have an uncanny knack for finding players that fit well within their system, and they have enough NHL talent that they don't feel the need to rush them into service, or put any undue pressure on them.

Sundevil9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2009, 01:20 PM
  #81
GoneFullHextall
Fire Berube
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 31,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
By the way, I don't want to open up cans of worms, because there would be multiple cans of worms, but if the Lightning trade Vinny, you won't have to worry about 2 teams being in Florida much longer.
heard about that rumor with LA., You think the Kings would be dumb enough to trade Kopitar?
wait a minute, its the Kings nevermind. I am very familiar how they run their franchise since I am a fan of their AHL team. LA runs their franchise like its a small market team. that team will never win. ever.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2009, 01:28 PM
  #82
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
The body of work speaks for itself.
Yes, it does...and it paints a somewhat different picture than the hook-line-and-sinker narrative that you're trying to tell. They're a very good drafting team...there are other very good drafting teams in the league.

Quote:
They're about the only two guys who did not, and with good reason is that they were older players.
Hudler: played in the NHL his first season in NA...
Filppula: played in the NHL his first season in NA...a regular the next year.
Kronwall: played in the NHL his first season in NA...
Fischer: played in the NHL (52 games) his first professional season.
Datsyuk: never played a game in the AHL.

So, you may want to revisit this claim:

Quote:
Drafting and coaching. All the way up the ladder. They get coaches to death and they spend a minimum of 2 years in the AHL, no matter who they drafted or where they were drafted.
As it isn't true at all.

Quote:
If he's not worth it, don't spend it. Owners routinely broke their budgets because they felt they had to, and they don't no longer now that they have imposed salary cap restrictions. If they would have done this from the start there would have been no lockout. Everyone can't play for the same 6 teams.
Really man...do you really think it's that simple? Should teams just walk away from arbitration rulings based on salaries in the league and let good players go for nothing?

The teams that operated the way you are saying they should have were Chicago and Boston. Chicago's policy along these lines killed the franchise to the point that an AHL team was drawing better than them, and Boston has a pretty damaged fanbase compared to what it used to be.

They are trying to COMPETE, and you need talent to compete. Teams bid on talent and bidding drives up the cost of getting that talent...

Quote:
There were quite a few teams who were not within $2M of the salary cap. On trade deadline day $2M in cap space may as well be no cap at all.
I'm not sure what the point of this statement is at all. On deadline day $2M in cap space lets you pick up about a $5M cap hit player.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2009, 01:32 PM
  #83
Haute Couturier
Registered User
 
Haute Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 5,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlocky View Post
For you guys bashing the southern team, I'll let you in on a little secret. Just a few short years ago (actually before the lockout) I used to go to Pittsburgh and Washington to see the Flyers play because I could walk right up to the window and buy lower level seats right at game time. It was pathetic how empty those places used to be for Saturday matinee games. I have no more respect for Pittsburgh and Washington because they have PROVEN to me that they flat out won't support their team unless they have a new superstar face to the franchise. Hell I'm talking about me and a buddy going to the Pens and Flyers in Pittsburg back when they had Mario AND Jarg both and they still weren't selling out. That's just plain aweful. I don't care if any of you post "numbers" saying otherwise, a buddy of mine and I did it every year going to a couple of games a year before my kids got too old and I started spending more time and money on them.
I agree with your post. This is true for the majority of the league really if you think about. Even the golden Canadian markets have struggled with attendance (Edmonton, Vancouver, Ottawa, Quebec, Winnipeg) in the past when their teams were going through lousy phases. Other Traditional markets like Washington, Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Long Island have all proven they will suffer when the product is bad. I am not sure the problem is that Southerners can't support hockey. I think it may just be the fact that they won't support lousy hockey which is true for most hockey markets. Unfortunately most Southern teams are lousy organizations and they start bleeding money because this is a gate driven league.

Haute Couturier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2009, 04:23 PM
  #84
RJ8812
Gunner Stahl #9
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sudbury
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,524
vCash: 500
this is good. it means Knuble, Lupul, & Jones wont be here next season

YAY!

RJ8812 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2009, 04:55 PM
  #85
twenty2
 
twenty2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ8812 View Post
this is good. it means Knuble, Lupul, & Jones wont be here next season

YAY!
Losing Jones is addition by subtraction.

But Lupul and Knuble stats:

Lupul (79GP): 25 g - 25 a - 50 p
Knuble (82GP): 27 g - 20 a - 47 p
Total: 52 g - 45 a - 97 p

Briere and Giroux will have to pick up 97 points of the slack in order for this to work out well for the Flyers' offense:

Briere (29GP): 11 g - 14 a - 25 p
Giroux (42GP): 9 g - 18 a - 27 p
Total: 20g - 32 a - 52 p

To cover both Lupul and Knuble and their own contributions from this past season together the two of them need 72 g - 77 a - 149 p.

Basically both would have to be around PPG players to cover the spread from last season for themselves and Lupul + Knuble.

That's not to mention lineup difficulties. What do we do?

Gagne - Richards - ???
Hartnell - Carter - ???
??? - Giroux - Briere

or

Gagne - Richards - Briere
Hartnell - Carter - Giroux
??? - ??? - ???

Quite honestly I'd feel safer with Lupul or Knuble around...and if I had to pick I'd honestly pick Lupul unless he gets us a future goaltender or defensive upgrade.

twenty2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2009, 05:15 PM
  #86
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 111,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Yes, it does...and it paints a somewhat different picture than the hook-line-and-sinker narrative that you're trying to tell. They're a very good drafting team...there are other very good drafting teams in the league.



Hudler: played in the NHL his first season in NA...
Filppula: played in the NHL his first season in NA...a regular the next year.
Kronwall: played in the NHL his first season in NA...
Fischer: played in the NHL (52 games) his first professional season.
Datsyuk: never played a game in the AHL.

So, you may want to revisit this claim:



As it isn't true at all.
Hudler was in Grand Rapids for 3 full seasons before sticking

Kronwall played more AHL games than NHL his first season over and then spend the lockout season down there.

Kopecky, Meech, Ericsson, Quincey, Leino, Kindl, etc. are all guys who were or are clearly NHL worthy players who had to pay their dues in the AHL, and when they come up, they don't miss a beat. There's not much of the rookie growing pains going on. This is the point.


Quote:
Really man...do you really think it's that simple? Should teams just walk away from arbitration rulings based on salaries in the league and let good players go for nothing?

The teams that operated the way you are saying they should have were Chicago and Boston. Chicago's policy along these lines killed the franchise to the point that an AHL team was drawing better than them, and Boston has a pretty damaged fanbase compared to what it used to be.
If they couldn't afford the arbitration ruling, shouldn't be much of a problem if they were to sign on an open market.

Quote:
They are trying to COMPETE, and you need talent to compete. Teams bid on talent and bidding drives up the cost of getting that talent...
At the so many owners claimed they were so poor, I don't buy it for a second. If they all stuck to their guns, the market value would be set by them and not greedy agents who always made sure their cut was included in the standard contract.


Quote:
I'm not sure what the point of this statement is at all. On deadline day $2M in cap space lets you pick up about a $5M cap hit player.
And over half the league allowed themselves to do that (over half of them still do including some who made the playoffs). ALL of them can't afford to spend more, or they just choose not to?

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2009, 06:01 PM
  #87
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Hudler was in Grand Rapids for 3 full seasons before sticking

Kronwall played more AHL games than NHL his first season over and then spend the lockout season down there.

Kopecky, Meech, Ericsson, Quincey, Leino, Kindl, etc. are all guys who were or are clearly NHL worthy players who had to pay their dues in the AHL, and when they come up, they don't miss a beat. There's not much of the rookie growing pains going on. This is the point.
I'm sorry, lets revisit what you said:

Quote:
Drafting and coaching. All the way up the ladder. They get coaches to death and they spend a minimum of 2 years in the AHL, no matter who they drafted or where they were drafted.
What you said is clearly not true. They clearly have no problem putting guys into NHL games when necessary and when they are good enough...even if they haven't spent 2 years in the AHL.

Quote:
If they couldn't afford the arbitration ruling, shouldn't be much of a problem if they were to sign on an open market.
...what? Do you really not understand how the monetary side of this is working? They can pay these guys and try to compete while accepting short-term losses with ease...with the hope that they will see financial rewards when they win.

If they were to let good players consistently walk away from the club and suck...then they're even more likely to see operational losses.

It's called a Catch-22. And, yes, it absolutely still exists, but it is significantly mitigated in the current climate.

Quote:
At the so many owners claimed they were so poor, I don't buy it for a second. If they all stuck to their guns, the market value would be set by them and not greedy agents who always made sure their cut was included in the standard contract.
And if bankers could operate the banking industry without regulation...we might be seeing different stories in the news today.

It isn't about "sticking to their guns." A lot of the owners are competitive SOBs that want to win. How do you win? You purchase talent...how do you purchase talent? You outbid other rich SOBs that want to win too.

Seriously, you aren't this naive are you? You don't actually believe that people act with the collective rationality that you're attributing to them...right?

And not one of these owners claimed they were poor. Again...you clearly don't understand the arguments these guys were making and why they were making them. All these guys are millionaires, it was an issue of operational budgets and the finances of the league.

Quote:
And over half the league allowed themselves to do that (over half of them still do including some who made the playoffs). ALL of them can't afford to spend more, or they just choose not to?
Again...what the hell is your point? What you're saying is directly in line with everything I've said with how teams spend. Why do teams overspend for athletes? Because they want to win...and because it gets REAL HARD to sell tickets when you go into every season with less talent than your opponents because you're not willing to pay for that talent.

As witnessed with the erosion of support for the Blackhawks and Bruins.

There are completely valid arguments against the institution of the salary cap, but what you're attempting to do here is not one of them.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2009, 06:07 PM
  #88
UseYourAllusion
Registered User
 
UseYourAllusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 6,873
vCash: 500
I don't like the salary cap, because the Flyers are one of the teams who used to spend whatever they wanted. I think that's a valid anti-cap argument.

UseYourAllusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2009, 06:55 PM
  #89
phlocky
Registered User
 
phlocky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,155
vCash: 500
I agree 100%. Right now we aren't spending close to what this team generates in revenue, our hands are being tied. On top of that we are putting money in a pool to help carry those franchises that are actually losing money. Me, I was eff'em. I could care less if the league contracted to 24 teams or 16 teams. We'll still have our Flyers and we'll still see something like 78 games a season. Yeah, the playoffs may be one round shorter but IDK. If we are willing to pump more money into our teams pockets then I think we should be able to spend as much money as we want. If WE the fans are willing to pay more then why shouldn't we be allowed to buy more in the way of talent??? I hate this freaking socialistic NHL, I want pure capitalism brought back.

phlocky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2009, 09:30 PM
  #90
mercury
Registered User
 
mercury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: South Philly/SoCal
Country: United States
Posts: 11,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by twenty2 View Post
Losing Jones is addition by subtraction.

But Lupul and Knuble stats:

Lupul (79GP): 25 g - 25 a - 50 p
Knuble (82GP): 27 g - 20 a - 47 p
Total: 52 g - 45 a - 97 p

Briere and Giroux will have to pick up 97 points of the slack in order for this to work out well for the Flyers' offense:

Briere (29GP): 11 g - 14 a - 25 p
Giroux (42GP): 9 g - 18 a - 27 p
Total: 20g - 32 a - 52 p

To cover both Lupul and Knuble and their own contributions from this past season together the two of them need 72 g - 77 a - 149 p.

Basically both would have to be around PPG players to cover the spread from last season for themselves and Lupul + Knuble.

That's not to mention lineup difficulties. What do we do?

Gagne - Richards - ???
Hartnell - Carter - ???
??? - Giroux - Briere

or

Gagne - Richards - Briere
Hartnell - Carter - Giroux
??? - ??? - ???

Quite honestly I'd feel safer with Lupul or Knuble around...and if I had to pick I'd honestly pick Lupul unless he gets us a future goaltender or defensive upgrade.

I'd rather get rid of Jones, trade Lupul for Harding, re-sign Knuble for two years at $2 million per, and keep Carle.

mercury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2009, 10:45 PM
  #91
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlocky View Post
I agree 100%. Right now we aren't spending close to what this team generates in revenue, our hands are being tied. On top of that we are putting money in a pool to help carry those franchises that are actually losing money. Me, I was eff'em. I could care less if the league contracted to 24 teams or 16 teams. We'll still have our Flyers and we'll still see something like 78 games a season. Yeah, the playoffs may be one round shorter but IDK. If we are willing to pump more money into our teams pockets then I think we should be able to spend as much money as we want. If WE the fans are willing to pay more then why shouldn't we be allowed to buy more in the way of talent??? I hate this freaking socialistic NHL, I want pure capitalism brought back.
Last year...the Flyers lost money. So, the bolded statement is factually incorrect.

This is closer to the free market argument about why there shouldn't be a salary cap, which is all fine and good. Philosophically, you can adopt that position and that's great. I disagree, I think it's better this way for a myriad of reasons...not the least of which is that the sport is vastly more interesting to think about as a fan with a salary cap involved in player decisions.

What is a completely ridiculous argument is that if the owners would just all get on the same page...there wouldn't need to be a cap. They're competing with one another...why would they be on the same page?

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2009, 11:31 PM
  #92
mercury
Registered User
 
mercury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: South Philly/SoCal
Country: United States
Posts: 11,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Last year...the Flyers lost money. So, the bolded statement is factually incorrect.

This is closer to the free market argument about why there shouldn't be a salary cap, which is all fine and good. Philosophically, you can adopt that position and that's great. I disagree, I think it's better this way for a myriad of reasons...not the least of which is that the sport is vastly more interesting to think about as a fan with a salary cap involved in player decisions.

What is a completely ridiculous argument is that if the owners would just all get on the same page...there wouldn't need to be a cap. They're competing with one another...why would they be on the same page?

I think that it's kind of stupid to have a hard salary cap when you have guaranteed contracts. I actually wrote a paper for school during the lockout advocating a 100% luxury tax with salary floor and revenue sharing.

mercury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2009, 11:49 PM
  #93
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury View Post
I think that it's kind of stupid to have a hard salary cap when you have guaranteed contracts. I actually wrote a paper for school during the lockout advocating a 100% luxury tax with salary floor and revenue sharing.
Well...they're guaranteed, but the flexibility of LTIR means that you gain some flexibility. Personally, I think one should be punished for their stupidity. You sign people to bad contracts, you shouldn't have an easy out. It rewards the people who are smart, and punishes those who are not.

With a luxury tax...the salary floor is just mean spirited. If you're going to force the weak economic teams to pay to a certain level, you should directly limit the top-end teams.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2009, 11:51 PM
  #94
UseYourAllusion
Registered User
 
UseYourAllusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 6,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Last year...the Flyers lost money. So, the bolded statement is factually incorrect.

This is closer to the free market argument about why there shouldn't be a salary cap, which is all fine and good. Philosophically, you can adopt that position and that's great. I disagree, I think it's better this way for a myriad of reasons...not the least of which is that the sport is vastly more interesting to think about as a fan with a salary cap involved in player decisions.

What is a completely ridiculous argument is that if the owners would just all get on the same page...there wouldn't need to be a cap. They're competing with one another...why would they be on the same page?
I'm pretty sure, vague recollection no real facts, that the Flyers lost money on a regular basis pre-lockout. The fact that this didn't phase Snider even a little bit always endeared him to me.

UseYourAllusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2009, 11:57 PM
  #95
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
Last year...the Flyers lost money.
Don't you mean the portion of Ed Snider's myriad business holdings called the Flyers lost money? It's all well and good for accountants to move the beans around to ensure minimum tax and other payments, but I find it hard to believe that the franchise, independently of other Snider businesses, was bleeding red ink.

BernieParent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2009, 12:00 AM
  #96
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UseYourAllusion View Post
I'm pretty sure, vague recollection no real facts, that the Flyers lost money on a regular basis pre-lockout. The fact that this didn't phase Snider even a little bit always endeared him to me.
That was the argument at the time, I remain skeptical of it. I'm not sure anyone can really check into this claim without getting into the nitty gritty of the books over at Comcast. I'm just not sure that there is any chance a NHL team selling out 41 games + playoffs on a regular basis, receiving ALL TV ad revenue, and with other affiliated revenue sources such as the SkateZones is actually losing any cash on the enterprise.

That all seems rich. This isn't a team lacking in a fanbase or merchandise sales. Possibly true, and certainly what was said at the time, but I think it's very fishy.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2009, 12:03 AM
  #97
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
Don't you mean the portion of Ed Snider's myriad business holdings called the Flyers lost money? It's all well and good for accountants to move the beans around to ensure minimum tax and other payments, but I find it hard to believe that the franchise, independently of other Snider businesses, was bleeding red ink.
Well, Snider's other businesses are irrelevant to this calculation. And you can read above on my thoughts concerning whether the Flyers actually are losing any money.

But as Forbes lists the financials of NHL teams: the Flyers lost money last year.

You can debate that point, and I would love to see a more detailed analysis of it...but, apparently the belief that the Flyers are rolling in cash is misguided as of this moment in time.

I do know that Comcast is operating on a deficit at the moment.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2009, 12:03 AM
  #98
UseYourAllusion
Registered User
 
UseYourAllusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 6,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
That was the argument at the time, I remain skeptical of it. I'm not sure anyone can really check into this claim without getting into the nitty gritty of the books over at Comcast. I'm just not sure that there is any chance a NHL team selling out 41 games + playoffs on a regular basis, receiving ALL TV ad revenue, and with other affiliated revenue sources such as the SkateZones is actually losing any cash on the enterprise.

That all seems rich. This isn't a team lacking in a fanbase or merchandise sales. Possibly true, and certainly what was said at the time, but I think it's very fishy.
For a hockey team, they were not short of income, but they also consistently had one of the highest payrolls in the NHL. Though, like you said, they kept the numbers pretty close to their chest for a while there.

UseYourAllusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2009, 09:02 AM
  #99
Snake17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 49
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reydin View Post
if you guys think 09-10 will be bad wait til 10-11

http://www.uhnd.com/bb/forum/index.p...2&msgid=101891

What teams are in big cap trouble?

Well, there is none bigger than Philadelphia Flyers. Somehow, the Flyers have managed to commit $44,575,000 for the 2010/2011 season to 10 players. That leaves less than $2M to sign another 14 players! Given that the minimum NHL salary is $475,000, the Flyers will have to move at least 2 of their committed salaries for 2010/2011 and then fill out their roster with minimum salary players.

Flyer fans, get ready to say goodbye to at least two of Danny Briere ($6.5M), Mike Richards ($5.75M), Jeff Carter ($5M), Simone Gagne ($5.25M), Scott Hartnell ($4.2M), Joffrey Lupul ($4.25M), Kimmo Timonen ($6.33M), Matt Carle ($3.44M) as the Flyer try to shed salary to create cap space. And you can bet there is very little interest in either of the 30-somethings (Briere and Timonen) at those prices, so it's very likely the Flyers will have to move one or two of their good young core.

However, recognizing you’ve got a problem is only the first step. Once the Flyers see their predicament, their next three problems arise. One, trying to get anything remotely close to fair market value for one of these players in a trade. Two, the player’s value is diminishing every day. And three, finding a buyer.

Forget fair market value
To get back to the cap discussion, are we all starting to realize that the current salary cap rules in the NHL are not working? Obviously, the Flyers have a tough financial road ahead of them but looking ahead to 2010 the insanity of the cap is everywhere - even teams that are never discussed as being hamstrung by the cap. If the cap drops to 47 in 2010 here are some possible scenarios around the league (all numbers approximate):

*Washington will have $19 million to sign 16 players, two of which will be Semin and Backstrom. And that $18 million of cap space doesn't include the 7 free agents they currently have to do something with this offseason.

*Buffalo, the NHL poster children for financial constraint, will have less than $10 million to sign 16 players. As of right now Buffalo has 3 defenseman under contract for 2010, of which only 1 was a full-time NHL player last season. Buffalo also has 10 roster spots currently occupied by free agents going into this off-season

*Toronto, who if you believe certain members of the media is swimming around in all their cap space dollars, will have $28 million to sign 19 players, not including the 6 roster spots that need to be filled for the upcoming season. Currently the only NHL forwards under contract for 2010 are Blake and Hagman, and there are no goalies signed.

*Pittsburgh will have less than $9 million to sign 13 players. Orpik is the only NHL defenseman under contract for 2010.

And this is just a quick sample. I don't think there is a team in the league that is ready for 2010 no matter what side of the cap fence they are sitting on.

Which leads to two more big issues:
1. What is the point of a salary cap if teams cripple their ability to be competitive by paying their top players accordingly? Can anyone argue that Ovechkin and Crosby should not be the top paid players in the league? Of course not, but what good does it do for the league when their top stars are out of the playoffs because the cap is so low that Ovechkin is skating around with a bunch of beer league guys?

2. When you have a system in which the cap limits change from year to year but the contract amounts are fixed and guaranteed, the system is going to break.

Snake17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2009, 09:07 AM
  #100
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Well, Snider's other businesses are irrelevant to this calculation. And you can read above on my thoughts concerning whether the Flyers actually are losing any money.

But as Forbes lists the financials of NHL teams: the Flyers lost money last year.

You can debate that point, and I would love to see a more detailed analysis of it...but, apparently the belief that the Flyers are rolling in cash is misguided as of this moment in time.

I do know that Comcast is operating on a deficit at the moment.
If we're thinking about the same Forbes list, it's complete BS. I read a thread about it in the Business forum and loads of other fans also had complaints. I mean, they had Nashville turning a positive profit and us going negative, makes absolutely no sense in any way, shape, or form.

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.