HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

TSN - Expected 2009-2010 Cap at $55M

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-23-2009, 10:27 AM
  #101
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,486
vCash: 5500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I'm sorry, lets revisit what you said:



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.
So when the Red Wings sent guys back down to the minors, and waived Kyle Quincey while 148-year old Chris Chelios and 73-year old Darren McCarty hung around getting paychecks, was that because they were better, or they stayed in the AHL to get more playing time?


Quote:
...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.


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.



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.
If they can't afford it, then they couldn't afford it. Were were plenty of low-payroll teams who did just fine without the luxury of deep pocket owners who could spend endlessly without ramifications before the salary cap. I'm not saying you're completely out to lunch, or not making sense, you very much are. I'm just saying that I never bought their excuses. When the lockout happened who wanted to win and who wanted to make money? It's a two-sided argument that will never have a correct answer.

By the way, there is a difference between owners being cheap, and owners being smart with spending money. Bill Wirtz, Jeremy Jacobs are owners who were cheap. The Canucks, Wild, Devils, Senators all had owners who did not want to break the bank on multiple high-priced players and were never regarded as cheap owners and had the complete support of their fans before the lockout.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2009, 11:24 AM
  #102
RJ8812
Gunner Stahl #9
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sudbury
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,369
vCash: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by twenty2 View Post

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 no entirely true. sure, Briere & Giroux would be the main components covering for Lupul and Knuble's production from the following season, but the other players on the roster (ex: Carter, Richards, Powe, Hartnell, etc...) would be a year older and either heading into their prime/maturity, or still in it and should be better

RJ8812 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-24-2009, 10:16 AM
  #103
MiamiScreamingEagles
Global Moderator
A Fistful of Dollars
 
MiamiScreamingEagles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 39,379
vCash: 1412
Article from the Devils perspective but important nonetheless:

http://www.nj.com/devils/index.ssf/2...preparing.html
Quote:

NHL general managers are preparing for a hit that could be every bit as painful as anything former Devils captain Scott Stevens delivered during his Hall of Fame career.

As they compile their wish lists for the start of free agency beginning July 1, GMs will likely be facing the first decrease in the salary cap since it was instituted for the 2005-06 season.

The cap could drop by as much as $2.5 million for the 2009-10 season from its current $56.7 million figure, according to NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly. Although Daly couldn't say, it is not inconceivable that the figure could fall to $50 million for the 2010-11 season.

"At this point, we don't really have a good estimate of where the cap will be," Daly wrote in an e-mail to The Star-Ledger. "If the NHLPA wants a 5 percent inflator, and we agree, the cap should be relatively 'flat.' If there is no inflator applied, the cap will be down $2-$2.5 million."

That has GMs very worried about how much they should pay to keep their own players and what would be prudent in signing unrestricted free agents.

"It will affect everybody's philosophy and everyone's decisions," Devils general manager Lou Lamoriello predicted. "Because, if you're signing any long-term contracts of two years or more, you don't know what potentially can happen and how far down the cap will or can go."

Some pessimists have suggested it could drop as low as $48 million for 2010-11.

MiamiScreamingEagles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-24-2009, 02:30 PM
  #104
i am dave
Registered User
 
i am dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Corner of 1st & 1st
Country: United States
Posts: 2,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snake17 View Post
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.

This really is what it all comes down to. Teams play within the rules one year and - because nobody can prognosticate the future - many teams end up pushing the limits of or breaking those rules by doing absolutely nothing. A salary cap only works if individual player salaries are adjusted by the same rate the overall cap fluctuates.

i am dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-24-2009, 09:11 PM
  #105
Reydin
Registered User
 
Reydin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 657
vCash: 500
The salary cap is doing what it's suppose to do talent dispersal. It'll be a long time before we see a dynasty ala Islanders, Oilers, Habs. The closest thing we have now is the Red Wings and the Pens maybe the Caps if either can win their 1st cup with the group they have. Parity it's OK, anybody can beat anybody on a given day but...

Reydin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2009, 03:09 PM
  #106
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
So when the Red Wings sent guys back down to the minors, and waived Kyle Quincey while 148-year old Chris Chelios and 73-year old Darren McCarty hung around getting paychecks, was that because they were better, or they stayed in the AHL to get more playing time?
I'm sorry, please read what you wrote:

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.
Simply not true.

Quote:
If they can't afford it, then they couldn't afford it. Were were plenty of low-payroll teams who did just fine without the luxury of deep pocket owners who could spend endlessly without ramifications before the salary cap. I'm not saying you're completely out to lunch, or not making sense, you very much are. I'm just saying that I never bought their excuses. When the lockout happened who wanted to win and who wanted to make money? It's a two-sided argument that will never have a correct answer.
Actually, there weren't plenty of owners that did fine without the luxury of deep pockets. You could directly correlate success in the previous NHL with the spending of teams. Now, that does not necessarily translate to winning Stanley Cups and consistent playoffs success, as that is short sample size and all of that. Therefore, what you're saying in the grand scheme of things is pretty much wrong as far as the theoretical ramification of cap v. no cap.

As far as their "excuses," please find me some. I remember no "excuse" -- unless you're operating on a different definition of the word -- coming from the owners. They had a pretty clear (and completely understandable if you bother to think it through) line of reasoning justifying their position with regard to the creation of the salary cap. They needed to get salaries in line with league revenue, and, ideally, help to foster a more competitive league via a team salary cap and league revenue sharing (something the players like and the big spenders don't like). They accomplished all of those goals.

Seriously...it's all pretty straightforward what their goals were and why they had them. Nor were they making them up out of thin air.

Quote:
By the way, there is a difference between owners being cheap, and owners being smart with spending money. Bill Wirtz, Jeremy Jacobs are owners who were cheap. The Canucks, Wild, Devils, Senators all had owners who did not want to break the bank on multiple high-priced players and were never regarded as cheap owners and had the complete support of their fans before the lockout.
Didn't win...Didn't win...They are far wealthier than you seem to think...and they won because they sucked so consistently and drafted well...

The Wirtz's and Jacobs' of the world did basically what you are suggesting that they should of done. If it didn't make sense to you financially...DON'T SPEND THE MONEY.

You're calling them cheap when it's done in actual practice.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2009, 03:12 PM
  #107
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
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.
I very much doubt it's complete BS. As I said, I don't necessarily buy those claims, but the Flyers themselves claimed to be losing money prior to the lockout. And teams with lower payrolls absolutely can turn a positive profit. The Flyers have a large operation...they pay for lots of facilities, lots of people work for them...

Hell...Buffalo doesn't do any field scouting work any more. That's cash they get to hold onto that someone like the Flyers is pushing out the door.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2009, 03:41 PM
  #108
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,486
vCash: 5500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I'm sorry, please read what you wrote:



Simply not true.
So what? I'm wrong. Sorry I don't do 2 weeks of research before posting, I'm not in high school. The basic principle still stands. You're holding a wrong point against me over a completely philosophy that is absolutely true. They WILL keep players who are NHL-ready in the minors for the better of them and the current team.


Quote:
Actually, there weren't plenty of owners that did fine without the luxury of deep pockets. You could directly correlate success in the previous NHL with the spending of teams. Now, that does not necessarily translate to winning Stanley Cups and consistent playoffs success, as that is short sample size and all of that. Therefore, what you're saying in the grand scheme of things is pretty much wrong as far as the theoretical ramification of cap v. no cap.

As far as their "excuses," please find me some. I remember no "excuse" -- unless you're operating on a different definition of the word -- coming from the owners. They had a pretty clear (and completely understandable if you bother to think it through) line of reasoning justifying their position with regard to the creation of the salary cap. They needed to get salaries in line with league revenue, and, ideally, help to foster a more competitive league via a team salary cap and league revenue sharing (something the players like and the big spenders don't like). They accomplished all of those goals.

Seriously...it's all pretty straightforward what their goals were and why they had them. Nor were they making them up out of thin air.
It was a rather long precess that everyone saw as a problem no less than 5 years out from it, and people kept spending money, some did, and for some it worked out. It didn't stop some of them from spending money, and it didn't stop some of them from spending money knowing there would probably be some consequences later on.


Quote:
Didn't win...Didn't win...They are far wealthier than you seem to think...and they won because they sucked so consistently and drafted well...

The Wirtz's and Jacobs' of the world did basically what you are suggesting that they should of done. If it didn't make sense to you financially...DON'T SPEND THE MONEY.

You're calling them cheap when it's done in actual practice.
Yes, Wirtz and Jacobs didn't spend the money, they didn't see it worth it. Wirtz also alienated all the older group of fans that killed the market. Just like the poorer teams who had low payrolls and still made the playoffs at a decent rate. Others did not and they weren't seen as cheap and remained competitive in the marketplace. Only 1 team can win every season. When Carolina, Calgary, Buffalo, Tampa (who did win before their 3 got huge contracts) etc. kept going deep in the playoffs and getting into the finals on low payrolls, was that because they were being cheap, or knew what they were doing?

GKJ 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 09:19 PM.

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.