HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Detroit Red Wings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2009 Wings Roster 2: Signings/Negotiations/Trades

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-24-2009, 06:57 PM
  #26
VooX
Registered User
 
VooX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,290
vCash: 500
I've always wanted a response to the last posts our salary cap disagreement, solo16.

You posted this chart:


And this response to my thoughts about the cap not increasing next season:

solo16 on 01-22-2009, 12:09 PM
Quote:
I think the cap will go up this year marginally (as dollars already in the bank). I forecasted a 7% drop next year. Which is probably likely. The rest is fairly marginal growth. A fair chunk of that is linked to inflation anyway.

First. Japan not China buys most of the US debt. Did you know the Japanese Post office is the single largest holder of the national debt? Its something silly like 75%.

Third. I dont think a multi year recession is possible in the current economic climate. I think worst case scenario the economy begins a growth cycle in another 1.5 years. I certainly hope it is sooner but thats unknown. Best case the growth cycle is starting now. Our financial systems are to fluid this is not like the 1920s where even then the depression lasted for what 7 years? I dont think that situation can be recreated today.

Third. You expect inflation... well inflation will raise the cap. Not necessary raise prosperity but it will raise the cap.
VooX on 01-26-2009, 04:57 AM
Quote:
I am a skeptic, and do my research. My opinion may not match yours, but don't ever assume I am wild or speculative. Your statement that europac.net is not a credible source is ignorant. Featured prominently on the page are continually updated articles taken from the Financial Times, WSJ, Washington Post, The Economist, and other respected sources...

...You seem to think that just because more money will be printed and there will be inflation and therefore salary cap will rise. I disagree. I think if there is quick inflation, salary cap will drop as the league will suffer serious losses.

Quick inflation will be an indicator of unhealthy economic instability. By necessity, people will lose their jobs as companies are not selling enough product to meet their rising costs. The economic standstill with high inflation is what leads to depression era economics. This is worst-case scenario, don't think I am fatalist.

How are people going to buy hockey tickets when they struggle to buy bread? NHL contrition will be inevitable during the economic slowdown as teams with high debts and low revenues fold. No magic equalization payments from Li'l Gary Bettman will help. There will be less than 30 teams within four years, IMHO, maybe even sooner.

Fugu has already indicated that escrow is rising to "25% " The league already is feeling the heat.
I went on to quote several reputable sources from the time of the post above that proved I wasn't wildly speculative, and which reinforced my opinion in the following post, and added:

VooX on 01-28-2009, 02:42 PM
Quote:
We will not face salary cap increases as you predict in your economic forecast. The rise of inflation and loss of jobs will lead to far less consumer spending. As most of the US GDP is domestic consumerism, this will result in a further economic slowdown. A weakened dollar will lead to inflation but league revenues will not increase because everything will cost more, as you predict.

Now don't get me wrong it's not that we don't agree that I am pissed off by your comments, it is that you would be so dismissive and arrogant in your response. Sure I haven't studied economics (not that you held that against me), but do you think you are so studied to out expert the experts and simply dismiss me as wildly speculative? I would say, emphatically, NO.

It is in this economic environment we will see many Sun-Belt teams fold. Gary Bettman's lofty ideal of bringing hockey to markets that don't care about the sport in the deep south will spectacularly fail. The league is bluffing itself into thinking everything will be manageable because this year's revenue is still OK.

Many corporate sponsorships and promotions were signed before the credit crunch. I can guarantee sales of ads, private boxes, and corporate season tickets will drastically drop next year. As it is today, only around half a dozen teams are actually profitable. Next year fewer teams still will make ANY profit. If the league/team finances are not in order, they will not find credit to continue funding operations.
Given the recent things that have come to light in Phoenix about how Bettman was providing assistance to the Coyotes and the actual financial state of that sunbelt team, as well as this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
http://www.nj.com/devils/index.ssf/2...preparing.html

So a cap as low as $54 million next year, or the same $56.7 million: and further decline the year after, with some pessimists thinking $48-50 million. Ugggh.
I think we should re-open our discussion, solo16. How wildly speculative does my opinion look now?

VooX is offline  
Old
05-25-2009, 01:06 PM
  #27
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,976
vCash: 500
Trading Datsyuk is non-sensical.

Trading Filppula is non-sensical.

The reason the Wings can go with 12 forwards is that, if they keep him, Meech can serve as a depth replacement up front.

At this point I don't see how keeping Hossa is even remotely likely. Let's just cut it out.

At this time, the only variables of any relevant note whatsoever are:

1) What the cap number will be.

2) What Sammy will take to stay.

3) What Hudler would take to stay.

IMO, I think the Wings will want answers to those questions in the listed order. I think they've already made every other relevant roster-related decision. They've said Helm is up, I think Abdelkaders a 99% lock to be in GR, Howard's going to be up, they're going to bring Leino back if at all possible, they can't keep Hossa, etc. IMO the only significant decision left for the Wings is how much cap they'll have left after all of that, and then which of Sammy and Hudler they could keep with what remained.

Of coruse, some kind of unforseeen calamity like the cap dropping by a couple mi changes a number of those things, but I think it's safe to assume that the NHLPA will employ the escalator clause.

Re: the replaceability of players (ie, Sarcastro's post in the other thread). True. If Sammy, Hudler and Hossa all leave, they will be replaced and the Wings will not crumble into dust. Yzerman left. Konstantinov couldn't play any more. Hasek retired. Fedorov left. Etc, etc, etc.

My point here isn't who is irreplaceable, as I don't think anyone is (and I mean anyone on the roster... I don't think Holland or Babcock are replaceable), it's who is most easily replaced. IMO that's Hudler, given we have a guy like Leino right behind him who has looked fairly effective at ES.

I don't think his comparisons to Schneider, Markov and Williams are at all appropos because all of those guys, at the salary levels listed at the time they were moved/not re-signed, would be overpaid players. Even at 2-2.5 mil, for what he does Sammy would not be overpaid.

Concerning Schneider, I think the idea of going out and getting a guy to play top-pairing minutes was a very wise one. I don't think I would have liked Schneider at 5.5, but Rafalski at 6 has been a fantastic acquisition. Honestly, I don't think Kronwall will ever be best used as a top-pairing guy... as in, 24 minutes a night and playing a bunch in all phases of the game. I think he is most effective as a 'complimentary' dman on a second pairing.

Concerning Markov, I thought he was a bit overpaid on his entry deal. His in-game role is essentially Andreas Lilja's, the skill sets are just a different.

Concerning Williams, Sammy >>>>>> Williams. By a lot. At even approximate salary amounts I'd want Sammy before I'd pick Williams 100 times out of 100.

It's interesting that Sarcastro brought Williams up, though... because I think Hudler's game most closely resembles Williams'. It's probably a decent part of the problem Jiri Hudler has had latching onto a consistent role.

HockeyinHD is offline  
Old
05-25-2009, 01:30 PM
  #28
Roy S
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
Trading Datsyuk is non-sensical.

Trading Filppula is non-sensical.

The reason the Wings can go with 12 forwards is that, if they keep him, Meech can serve as a depth replacement up front.

At this point I don't see how keeping Hossa is even remotely likely. Let's just cut it out.

At this time, the only variables of any relevant note whatsoever are:

1) What the cap number will be.

2) What Sammy will take to stay.

3) What Hudler would take to stay.

IMO, I think the Wings will want answers to those questions in the listed order. I think they've already made every other relevant roster-related decision. They've said Helm is up, I think Abdelkaders a 99% lock to be in GR, Howard's going to be up, they're going to bring Leino back if at all possible, they can't keep Hossa, etc. IMO the only significant decision left for the Wings is how much cap they'll have left after all of that, and then which of Sammy and Hudler they could keep with what remained.

Of coruse, some kind of unforseeen calamity like the cap dropping by a couple mi changes a number of those things, but I think it's safe to assume that the NHLPA will employ the escalator clause.

Re: the replaceability of players (ie, Sarcastro's post in the other thread). True. If Sammy, Hudler and Hossa all leave, they will be replaced and the Wings will not crumble into dust. Yzerman left. Konstantinov couldn't play any more. Hasek retired. Fedorov left. Etc, etc, etc.

My point here isn't who is irreplaceable, as I don't think anyone is (and I mean anyone on the roster... I don't think Holland or Babcock are replaceable), it's who is most easily replaced. IMO that's Hudler, given we have a guy like Leino right behind him who has looked fairly effective at ES.

I don't think his comparisons to Schneider, Markov and Williams are at all appropos because all of those guys, at the salary levels listed at the time they were moved/not re-signed, would be overpaid players. Even at 2-2.5 mil, for what he does Sammy would not be overpaid.

Concerning Schneider, I think the idea of going out and getting a guy to play top-pairing minutes was a very wise one. I don't think I would have liked Schneider at 5.5, but Rafalski at 6 has been a fantastic acquisition. Honestly, I don't think Kronwall will ever be best used as a top-pairing guy... as in, 24 minutes a night and playing a bunch in all phases of the game. I think he is most effective as a 'complimentary' dman on a second pairing.

Concerning Markov, I thought he was a bit overpaid on his entry deal. His in-game role is essentially Andreas Lilja's, the skill sets are just a different.

Concerning Williams, Sammy >>>>>> Williams. By a lot. At even approximate salary amounts I'd want Sammy before I'd pick Williams 100 times out of 100.

It's interesting that Sarcastro brought Williams up, though... because I think Hudler's game most closely resembles Williams'. It's probably a decent part of the problem Jiri Hudler has had latching onto a consistent role.
I still think Kronwall could handle the role of the #1 guy, if need be. If/when Lids retires, who else will take over that role? I think Rafalski is an average #1 guy, and an outstanding #2 D-man. And, comparing his salary to other D-men, that is exactly how he is paid. With that said, I would imagine he would stay in that role, and not have his role expanded as he inches closer and closer to 40. Stuart is another guy who is probably better suited to be a second-pairing guy (and one of the best in the game on the second pairing). Could Big E be that guy? I suppose, but Kronwall is more proven than E. I see Kronwall as the guy who takes over that role when Lids retires.

Either way, his 3 million dollar cap hit for the next three years is high-way robbery. What a deal that has turned out to be.

-And, for the record, I would take Sammy over Williams any day of the week. And, I think Hudler is better than Williams, as well. That is a pretty good comparison, but I would much rather have Hudler if I had to choose between the two. I thought it was an addition by subtraction when Holland traded away Williams. Despite what I have written about Hudler, I won't feel that way if Huds leaves.


Last edited by Roy S: 05-25-2009 at 01:41 PM.
Roy S is offline  
Old
05-25-2009, 01:31 PM
  #29
r0bert8841
Registered User
 
r0bert8841's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,523
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to r0bert8841
Any players in Europe people want the wings to sign? Linus Klasen looks interesting and he is Dick Axelsson's teammate on the Swedish inline hockey team.

r0bert8841 is offline  
Old
05-25-2009, 01:41 PM
  #30
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,976
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottwood View Post
I still think Kronwall could handle the role of the #1 guy, if need be. If/when Lids retires, who else will take over that role?
Maybe no-one, really. Maybe Detroit throws a little more than 2 million dollars at the goalie position (one can only hope... ) once Lidstrom is gone and uses 3-4 mil of that to land another #2-#3 kind of guy and focus more on depth on the blue line than trying to find another year in and year out Norris finalist.

Quote:
Either way, his 3 million dollar cap hit for the next three years is high-way robbery. What a deal that has turned out to be.
I think Ozzie's deal runs away with the 'best deal on the roster' award, but Kronwall's is a solid #2.

HockeyinHD is offline  
Old
05-25-2009, 01:49 PM
  #31
Roy S
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
Maybe no-one, really. Maybe Detroit throws a little more than 2 million dollars at the goalie position (one can only hope... ) once Lidstrom is gone and uses 3-4 mil of that to land another #2-#3 kind of guy and focus more on depth on the blue line than trying to find another year in and year out Norris finalist.



I think Ozzie's deal runs away with the 'best deal on the roster' award, but Kronwall's is a solid #2.
I could see that. It depends on a number of factors. When will Lids retire? How big of a raise will both E and Kronwall get? Will Rafalski sign for another deal after his expires in 3 years? How big of a pay cut will he take?

Shall we speculate on all of these questions?

Roy S is offline  
Old
05-25-2009, 02:10 PM
  #32
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,976
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottwood View Post
I could see that. It depends on a number of factors. When will Lids retire? How big of a raise will both E and Kronwall get? Will Rafalski sign for another deal after his expires in 3 years? How big of a pay cut will he take?

Shall we speculate on all of these questions?
I think Lidstrom retires after next year. If the team wins a Cup this year I wouldn't be remotely surprised to see him hang them up now. I just don't see Lidstrom playing until he can't play any more, like Chelios. He seems more like a 'go out on top' kind of guy. Maybe he stays active for another couple years in the SEL or what have you in order to make the 2012 Olympic team, but I think he'll be out of the NHL before then.

I think Kronwall would top out at 5 mil on the open market, so maybe he goes to 3.5-4.5 in Detroit?

By the time Ericsson's deal expires he could be in line for a huge, huge deal. 4-5 mil isn't unreasonable there. Or, he could plateau a la Fischer and not really make strides until his second or third NHL season. Not unheard of with rangy guys like that.

I don't think Rafalski signs another deal after his current one unless someone just blows him away with a dollar figure. He won't get anything multi-year, and it's not impossible he'd have 5 Cups by the time it runs out. Maybe he'd sign a one-year offer for 3-4 mil, but that'd be a significant risk for a team to take (obviously dependant on what the cap is by then).

HockeyinHD is offline  
Old
05-25-2009, 02:31 PM
  #33
Roy S
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
I think Lidstrom retires after next year. If the team wins a Cup this year I wouldn't be remotely surprised to see him hang them up now. I just don't see Lidstrom playing until he can't play any more, like Chelios. He seems more like a 'go out on top' kind of guy. Maybe he stays active for another couple years in the SEL or what have you in order to make the 2012 Olympic team, but I think he'll be out of the NHL before then.

I think Kronwall would top out at 5 mil on the open market, so maybe he goes to 3.5-4.5 in Detroit?

By the time Ericsson's deal expires he could be in line for a huge, huge deal. 4-5 mil isn't unreasonable there. Or, he could plateau a la Fischer and not really make strides until his second or third NHL season. Not unheard of with rangy guys like that.

I don't think Rafalski signs another deal after his current one unless someone just blows him away with a dollar figure. He won't get anything multi-year, and it's not impossible he'd have 5 Cups by the time it runs out. Maybe he'd sign a one-year offer for 3-4 mil, but that'd be a significant risk for a team to take (obviously dependant on what the cap is by then).
If Lids retires after this year, his cap hit still counts for next year, right? I can't see him doing that to us. I see him retiring after next year.

I can see both E and Kronwall getting between 4-5 million a year from us (but that is way down the line, and will depend on the cap number at the time).

Going back to Lids. If he does wish to come back after next year, things could get dicey (assuming the cap does drop to 50 million). Assuming it does, here is a hypothetical line-up w/o Lids:

Forwards:
Pavel- 6.7
Z- 6.083
Franzen-3.954
Flip-3
Cleary- 2.8
Sammy or Hudler-2.25
Draper- 1.583
Homer (?)-1.5
Helm- 1.5
Abs- 1
Leino- .900
Kopecky- .750

Total: 32.02 million


D-men
Rafalski- 6
Stuart- 3.75
Kronwall-3
E- .900
Kindl- .900
Lebda- .750
Meech- .650

Total: 15.95 million

Goalie
Ozzie- 1.416
Howard- .716

Total: 2.132 million

Total for the roster: 50.10 million

Obviously, this is an extremely rough estimate. Homer may not be back, and we would save $750,000 by replacing him with a guy from the minors. And, Helm may not be making 1.5 million (but I do see him signing a 3 year- 4.5 million dollar deal, or something close to it). But, the point is, if the cap drops to 50 million for the 2010-2011 season, Lids is going to have take a major pay cut or we are going to have to get rid of some significant salary to fit him in.

Let's hope those doomsday scenarios for the cap does not come to fruition.

Roy S is offline  
Old
05-25-2009, 05:34 PM
  #34
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,976
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottwood View Post
If Lids retires after this year, his cap hit still counts for next year, right? I can't see him doing that to us. I see him retiring after next year.
I totally forgot he was signed through next year. Yeah, he's definitely not retiring after this season.

Quote:
Let's hope those doomsday scenarios for the cap does not come to fruition.
The thing is, even if that sort of thing does happen, it's going to drive prices down all over the NHL. Sammy's not going to get more than a 2 mil offer under a 50 mil cap. Hudler's likely not going to get any offer that size either.

Sure, it limits Detroit's cap space, but it also (theoretically anyway) depresses the prices of impending FAs, too.

HockeyinHD is offline  
Old
05-25-2009, 05:41 PM
  #35
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
I totally forgot he was signed through next year. Yeah, he's definitely not retiring after this season.



The thing is, even if that sort of thing does happen, it's going to drive prices down all over the NHL. Sammy's not going to get more than a 2 mil offer under a 50 mil cap. Hudler's likely not going to get any offer that size either.

Sure, it limits Detroit's cap space, but it also (theoretically anyway) depresses the prices of impending FAs, too.

The Sammys and Hudlers will still get some pay. There are a number of teams that would have the cap room and justification to pay them. So while a lower cap would reduce overall salaries, it would hurt Detroit's ability to pay more than say, Toronto's.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
05-25-2009, 05:57 PM
  #36
Roy S
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
I totally forgot he was signed through next year. Yeah, he's definitely not retiring after this season.



The thing is, even if that sort of thing does happen, it's going to drive prices down all over the NHL. Sammy's not going to get more than a 2 mil offer under a 50 mil cap. Hudler's likely not going to get any offer that size either.

Sure, it limits Detroit's cap space, but it also (theoretically anyway) depresses the prices of impending FAs, too.
True, but Sammy and Hudler will get paid this off-season at a 55 million dollar cap hit, and not next year at a 50 million dollar cap hit. That makes a difference. Either way, we would be right up against the cap if it does drop to 50 million. If Lids retires, we won't have any problems fitting under the cap. If he doesn't retire (and I don't want him to) we are going to have to move more people to fit him in unless he takes a massive, massive pay cut.

Roy S is offline  
Old
05-25-2009, 06:10 PM
  #37
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,976
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottwood View Post
True, but Sammy and Hudler will get paid this off-season at a 55 million dollar cap hit, and not next year at a 50 million dollar cap hit.
Only if their new GM is spectacularly unaware that the cap will be going down.

Granted, there are GMs that stupid out there... but man, that would be a doozy of a mental cramp.

Quote:
That makes a difference. Either way, we would be right up against the cap if it does drop to 50 million. If Lids retires, we won't have any problems fitting under the cap. If he doesn't retire (and I don't want him to) we are going to have to move more people to fit him in unless he takes a massive, massive pay cut.
Well hell, he's making 7.45 mil right now and his IT has been sliding south in a huge hurry. If he's even playing in two years, by then he won't be more than a 20 minute a night guy at best. 4 mil would be more than fair, considering that next year has all the potential to be a substantial overpayment.

HockeyinHD is offline  
Old
05-25-2009, 09:42 PM
  #38
Roy S
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
Only if their new GM is spectacularly unaware that the cap will be going down.

Granted, there are GMs that stupid out there... but man, that would be a doozy of a mental cramp.



Well hell, he's making 7.45 mil right now and his IT has been sliding south in a huge hurry. If he's even playing in two years, by then he won't be more than a 20 minute a night guy at best. 4 mil would be more than fair, considering that next year has all the potential to be a substantial overpayment.
Ultimately, a lot will depend on his play next year. I still think he is the best D-man in the game. How much, if any, will his play fall off? And, if he is only playing 20 minutes a night by that point, he will basically be our #4/5 D-man in terms of ice time. If that is the case, then he should only be paid like one. With a 50 million dollar cap, I think a going rate for that ice time would probably be about 3 million or so. I imagine he would accept that big of a pay cut for the good of the team. But, I honestly believe that next year is his final year, and this discussion is a moot point.

Roy S is offline  
Old
05-26-2009, 07:38 AM
  #39
solo16
Registered User
 
solo16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: CT
Posts: 3,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VooX View Post
I've always wanted a response to the last posts our salary cap disagreement, solo16.

You posted this chart:


And this response to my thoughts about the cap not increasing next season:

solo16 on 01-22-2009, 12:09 PM


VooX on 01-26-2009, 04:57 AM




I went on to quote several reputable sources from the time of the post above that proved I wasn't wildly speculative, and which reinforced my opinion in the following post, and added:

VooX on 01-28-2009, 02:42 PM


Given the recent things that have come to light in Phoenix about how Bettman was providing assistance to the Coyotes and the actual financial state of that sunbelt team, as well as this:



I think we should re-open our discussion, solo16. How wildly speculative does my opinion look now?
Nice post (i just saw it). Well tbh I dont believe your doomsday scenario is entirely likely. I just think in the long term its inevitable that we go back to some sort of a growth trend. In regards to our salary cap in the next 2-3 years this could be very detrimental. However when we look 10 years down the road the effect appears minor.

The forecast above looks reasonable to me still in this day and age. Phoenix is a load of crap imo even if they loose money the next year or two if they do inevitably move (and i think they will) their profit alone would increase dramatically. That being said a 2% growth for next year seems reasonable (though probably not realistic with current facts). Id geuss our growth will be closer to 0% though playoff interest seems to be up this year so that could have an effect. As for next year a 7% drop I still stand by as being fairly possible. If i recall that was my own version of a Doomsday scenario. I personally will be surprised if the cap goes down 7%. After that I have the growth rebound at 5% then continue upward at a fairly healthy rate (which seems accurate for a sport in a serious growth phase). Yes the economy sucks but the NHL is rapidly growing its fan base. This rapid growth imo will and should offset a fair portion of the down economy.
Time will tell but my prediction is only worth discussing in the 2 year window where our cap is really tight and sadly I think we both know we are fairly screwed especially if we keep Hossa.

Dunno if that hit your point Voox. But feel free to pick at me again and I can BS another response for a active debate. Finally europac.net is not a reliable source. You have to realize this is a guy who makes his living essentially predicting doomsday scenarios. There are a few of them out there and we only hear about them when the economy happens to match their theory. I believe this is more a function of luck them an accurate prediction. I dunno how focused you are on proving this is a valid source, but i truly believe that conversation is a waste of my time and I may not engage in it going forward if that is your key point which you are looking to debate.


Last edited by solo16: 05-26-2009 at 02:15 PM.
solo16 is offline  
Old
05-26-2009, 12:50 PM
  #40
Roy S
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,887
vCash: 500
On a side note: Is there any particular reason why the NHL uses a hard cap, instead of a soft cap that the NBA uses?

I prefer the NBA's cap more b/c of the Larry Bird rule. I don't understand why a team should be punished if it drafts well, and those players produce well. B/c if they do, some of those guys will probably become cap casualty's. Exhibit A will be the Blackhawks in a couple years.

Roy S is offline  
Old
05-26-2009, 01:42 PM
  #41
solo16
Registered User
 
solo16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: CT
Posts: 3,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottwood View Post
On a side note: Is there any particular reason why the NHL uses a hard cap, instead of a soft cap that the NBA uses?

I prefer the NBA's cap more b/c of the Larry Bird rule. I don't understand why a team should be punished if it drafts well, and those players produce well. B/c if they do, some of those guys will probably become cap casualty's. Exhibit A will be the Blackhawks in a couple years.
I think the point of it is parity. If you allow teams who draft well to be the best talent is still concentrated. Hard cap forces good teams to send their good talent to other teams. In the end all teams become roughly equal.

The only factors that currently distinguish good teams currently is Good managment (ie cap dollars), and a good coach. Everything else in theory becomes balanced by our cap.

Not saying i agree but thats the system.

solo16 is offline  
Old
05-26-2009, 01:56 PM
  #42
heyfolks
Registered User
 
heyfolks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 999
vCash: 500
From all I read the cap will not go down. IT will increase by 2-3 %.

QTN: If a player retires how does the salary count against the Cap? Better to ask Nick to go on the LTIR for "mental exhaustion" than to have him, or anyone in the league retire before the contract is due. I can see why the league did this, I mean the Wings are certainly locking in future dollars with these tail contracts, but it seems hard to do.

The Wings do NOt have a capissue for next season. Holland said all along Hossa was a 1 and done deal. It is.

heyfolks is offline  
Old
05-26-2009, 02:14 PM
  #43
solo16
Registered User
 
solo16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: CT
Posts: 3,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyfolks View Post
From all I read the cap will not go down. IT will increase by 2-3 %.

QTN: If a player retires how does the salary count against the Cap? Better to ask Nick to go on the LTIR for "mental exhaustion" than to have him, or anyone in the league retire before the contract is due. I can see why the league did this, I mean the Wings are certainly locking in future dollars with these tail contracts, but it seems hard to do.

The Wings do NOt have a capissue for next season. Holland said all along Hossa was a 1 and done deal. It is.
Contracts signed before 35 come off the cap when the player retires. Post 35 they stay on.

solo16 is offline  
Old
05-26-2009, 03:00 PM
  #44
r0bert8841
Registered User
 
r0bert8841's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,523
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to r0bert8841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottwood View Post
On a side note: Is there any particular reason why the NHL uses a hard cap, instead of a soft cap that the NBA uses?

I prefer the NBA's cap more b/c of the Larry Bird rule. I don't understand why a team should be punished if it drafts well, and those players produce well. B/c if they do, some of those guys will probably become cap casualty's. Exhibit A will be the Blackhawks in a couple years.
During a game this season, I remember someone in the wings organization saying teams were going to discuss this in the offseason. It would be great if this could get done.

r0bert8841 is offline  
Old
05-26-2009, 03:13 PM
  #45
Winger98
Moderator
powers combined
 
Winger98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 14,610
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Winger98
Quote:
Originally Posted by r0bert8841 View Post
During a game this season, I remember someone in the wings organization saying teams were going to discuss this in the offseason. It would be great if this could get done.
translation: Bettman's worried about the Pens' cap crunch and is trying to look after his boy.

Winger98 is offline  
Old
05-26-2009, 03:35 PM
  #46
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyfolks View Post
From all I read the cap will not go down. IT will increase by 2-3 %.

QTN: If a player retires how does the salary count against the Cap? Better to ask Nick to go on the LTIR for "mental exhaustion" than to have him, or anyone in the league retire before the contract is due. I can see why the league did this, I mean the Wings are certainly locking in future dollars with these tail contracts, but it seems hard to do.

The Wings do NOt have a capissue for next season. Holland said all along Hossa was a 1 and done deal. It is.
Are you ignoring Daly's own comment.... he says the cap will go down UNLESS the NHLPA imposes the 5% kicker (+ the NHL agrees to it, since they can negotiate any number). If they do impose the 5% kicker, then the cap stays the same.

Now, this does fly in the face of what the league was saying earlier, that revenues were going up by 1-2% this year. Then again, they said all 30 NHL franchises were healthy and there was no reason for concern (including Phoenix).

I think teams are going to lose sponsor money, the CAD has retracted slightly, and very few teams are planning price hikes for next season. Some have had to reduce prices to keep selling. This summer will be a good indicator though as they'll realize up to 75% of their revenues by the end of the summer. (That's the lag the Burke mentions.)

 
Old
05-26-2009, 04:17 PM
  #47
solo16
Registered User
 
solo16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: CT
Posts: 3,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Are you ignoring Daly's own comment.... he says the cap will go down UNLESS the NHLPA imposes the 5% kicker (+ the NHL agrees to it, since they can negotiate any number). If they do impose the 5% kicker, then the cap stays the same.

Now, this does fly in the face of what the league was saying earlier, that revenues were going up by 1-2% this year. Then again, they said all 30 NHL franchises were healthy and there was no reason for concern (including Phoenix).

I think teams are going to lose sponsor money, the CAD has retracted slightly, and very few teams are planning price hikes for next season. Some have had to reduce prices to keep selling. This summer will be a good indicator though as they'll realize up to 75% of their revenues by the end of the summer. (That's the lag the Burke mentions.)
Its a pretty good prediction considering ad revenues are way way down in every other industry. Question is how big of the buy are sponsor/ad revenues to the leagues whole pie. I believe this will happen even with increases in viewership as ad revenues have fallen dramatically. However I personally think GATE will be up this year.

solo16 is offline  
Old
05-26-2009, 04:59 PM
  #48
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by solo16 View Post
Its a pretty good prediction considering ad revenues are way way down in every other industry. Question is how big of the buy are sponsor/ad revenues to the leagues whole pie. I believe this will happen even with increases in viewership as ad revenues have fallen dramatically. However I personally think GATE will be up this year.
It's definitely possible that Chicago's resurgence plus the Caps success will help. Is it enough to negate the losses in softer markets; and the fact that CAD I think will finish down about 10% versus last year (although I need to check that figure). If Cdn teams contributed a third of league revenues last year, then a CAD decline of 10% (and not growth in Canada this year) would mean a loss of $80-85 million due to currency translation alone. I do believe that the Canadian markets were healthy this past year however.

 
Old
05-26-2009, 08:10 PM
  #49
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,976
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottwood View Post
On a side note: Is there any particular reason why the NHL uses a hard cap, instead of a soft cap that the NBA uses?
Well, considering the 'hard' cap Bettman and his braintrust crafted has loopholes in it large enough to drive a zamboni through, I can only guess that the reason they didn't go with a soft cap was that even they knew they'd fubar it.

Quote:
I prefer the NBA's cap more b/c of the Larry Bird rule. I don't understand why a team should be punished if it drafts well, and those players produce well. B/c if they do, some of those guys will probably become cap casualty's. Exhibit A will be the Blackhawks in a couple years.
The Blackhawks are so screwed. I mean, they'll certainly be a good team... it's not like they are going to fall of the table or anything... but their goaltending situation is a disaster, they've got a defenseman making over 7 mil a year against the cap who isn't a top pairing guy, and they are going to have to start handing out raises between this year and next to a bunch of young guys who will be RFA-eligible.

Barker's a RFA next year.
Kane, Toews and Keith will all be RFAs the year after that.

HockeyinHD is offline  
Old
05-26-2009, 08:32 PM
  #50
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,976
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Are you ignoring Daly's own comment.... he says the cap will go down UNLESS the NHLPA imposes the 5% kicker (+ the NHL agrees to it, since they can negotiate any number). If they do impose the 5% kicker, then the cap stays the same.
As a general rule, I think it's usually pretty safe to conclude that Bill Daly says what he's told to say. IMO his public comments are nothing more than a tool to exert some degree of pressure on the NHLPA to not employ their escalator, thereby giving the 7 or 8 struggling franchises that much lower of a salary floor to hit.

That guy was lying outlandishly about the situation with the Coyotes, so he's firmly on the 'spin doctor' side of my internal translator's ledger.

Quote:
I think teams are going to lose sponsor money, the CAD has retracted slightly, and very few teams are planning price hikes for next season. Some have had to reduce prices to keep selling. This summer will be a good indicator though as they'll realize up to 75% of their revenues by the end of the summer. (That's the lag the Burke mentions.)
Doesn't the league figure the next years cap based on the actual revenue in the previous year, not estimated future revenue?

Here's what we 'know', given that the numbers out there may be wrong:

Attendance went up a whopping 167 fans a game, so not quite 1%.
Average ticket price was up 94 cents, so not quite 2%.

So, unless a bunch of businesses voided their sponsorships before the season even started, and I think that unlikely, the only thing that would serve as a significant drag on the cap number next year is whatever the decline in the Cdn dollar would cause on overall league revenues.

Honestly, I think if the NHLPA decided to use their escalator the cap would at worst stay flat, and it'd probably go up a mil or so.

HockeyinHD is offline  
Closed Thread

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 07:48 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.