HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

the problem isnt salaries

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-30-2004, 06:35 PM
  #26
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
And to be fair, its not that the Leafs had no chance at the Cup, but more that they had no long term unfair advantage in developing a champ the right way, the only way.

Both Ottawa and Toronto have different means at their disposal. The classic opposites. Biggest of the big vs. smallest of the small. Yes Toronto can spend and we cant, and maybe early on this will give them more playoff appearances, but in the long run I dont feel they have such an unfair advantage over us in ability to develop a champ our way that I cant live with the differences. I dont think we need to be afraid of this advantage. It is just a difference, but if you are courageous, you can still do it the right way. They have beaten us, but I cant honestly say I think its the money they spend that gives them an unfair advantage over us anymore. It used to seem that way.

But spending now is starting to help Toronto less and less. If you go too far, there comes a point where you get to like where the Rangers or Washington did, and Dallas may soon follow, where it just must be torn down. Not because you cant afford it, but because it just stops working. If you end up with the entire core of your team is over 31, and you arent winning, you have hit rock bottom. Time for rehab.
While not giving an unfair 'on ice' advantage (which I agree with), do you think that Toronto spending like they do (i.e. the 'buy' strategy to building a team) has a negative impact on NHL economics? Do you think that it plays a role in escalating player salaries?

I do...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 06:40 PM
  #27
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
While not giving an unfair 'on ice' advantage (which I agree with), do you think that Toronto spending like they do (i.e. the 'buy' strategy to building a team) has a negative impact on NHL economics? Do you think that it plays a role in escalating player salaries?

I do...
i dont ... what effect has signing Belfour, Roberts, Neiwendyk, Marchment etc had on any other teams efforts to build ?

none.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 06:52 PM
  #28
handtrick
Registered User
 
handtrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 3,090
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
i dont ... what effect has signing Belfour, Roberts, Neiwendyk, Marchment etc had on any other teams efforts to build ?

none.

dr
How can you say that? When Belfour signs for $8 mill don't you think that has a bearing on what Vokoun can negotiate in his 9 mill over 3 yr deal....or especially in arbitration do you think Joe Thornton 6,750 mill had anything to do with Roenick's 7 mill, Yashin's 10 mill, or Sundin's 8 mill......of course it did.
When you are trying to build that team...you have to pay them as they prove themselves [Vokoun's example] or they are going to sign a 1 yr deal as a RFA, just to get the UFA status instead of the 3 yr deal.
What other teams sign a player for has everything to do with league economics.


Last edited by handtrick: 10-30-2004 at 11:05 PM.
handtrick is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 07:07 PM
  #29
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by handtrick
How can you say that? When Belfour signs for $8 mill don't you think that has a bearing on what Vokoun can negotiate in his 9 mill over 3 yr deal....or especially in arbitration do you think Joe Thornton 6,750K had anything to do with Roenick's 7 mill, Yashin's 10 mill, or Sundin's 8 mill......of course it did.
When you are trying to build that team...you have to pay them as they prove themselves [Vokoun's example] or they are going to sign a 1 yr deal as a RFA, just to get the UFA status instead of the 3 yr deal.
What other teams sign a player for has everything to do with league economics.
1) if NSH doesnt feel Vokoun is worth 3m, they are under NO obligation to offer it to him. they offer it because they know he is worth that, even in the context of their teams budget. vokoun is worth 10% of a teams budget, so whats the problem ? wouldnt vokoun be a good investment if belfour was retired and never had that contract ? thats why i think belfour has nothing to do with it.

2) jr, yashin and sundin dont even have arbitration rights ... and in reverse, Thornton can not use UFA's as a comparable, so Joe's contract has nothing to do with those types of players.

3) why do you have a problem with paying players as they improve themselves ? thats what this system is for ! they start cheap, they get better, they get more expensive but until they hit 25 (7 NHL years) they have some leverage, with arbitration. what arbitation awards werent merited ? even if its 3 per year, thats such a small % of the 1.5billion in player salaries. they make JR and SUndin money when they hit UFA age. in most cases players at UFA age and big contracts HURT teams more then HELP. so who cares then if some team wants to overpay for a old declining player, it HURTS them. good teams should encourage their competition to waste money on old overpaid declining players.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 07:25 PM
  #30
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,250
vCash: 500
The problem with the prior arrangement was that the big market teams set the market. That has made it more difficult yet not impossible for the small market teams. It's very short sighted to think that the big market teams offering larger salaries than the small market teams has no impact on the rest of the league.

It amazes me how people can look at the way the system was working before and think there was nothing wrong. Then again they probably think it's foolish that I think it was not working.

From a competitive standpoint, I find it more compelling to see competitors of equal chance performing. Now everything doesn't have to be regulated, but it can be benefitial for the playing ground for some basic things to be equal. What has the NHL done up until this point to provide an even playing ground?

The draft rules per the prior CBA's helped to keep it even so that the teams were rewarded by investing in scouting and drafting personel. If not for this regulation, and all entry level players entered the league as free agents, the richer teams could outright outbid the poorer teams and own the developmental system in the league.

The RFA rules per the prior CBA were supposed to help keep it even so that other teams couldn't impact the asking price of RFA's. This worked within reason, but arbitration nullified that as other team's players were used as comparisons. Then there were player holdouts who would then be traded to another team who were willing to pay the price for the player. These rules didn't entirely protect the teams from each other.

There are more rules the CBA's have had to enforce an even playing field, were they enough?

Guest is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 08:03 PM
  #31
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
It amazes me how people can look at the way the system was working before and think there was nothing wrong. Then again they probably think it's foolish that I think it was not working.
I agree...

Equally amazing to me is how people say that the economic problem is 'revenue disparity between markets'... Yet, the 'spending disparity' between markets isn't an economic problem... How exactly is revenue disparity an economic problem if it is not tied to disparity in ability and desire to 'spend it'?... What does it matter to the other teams if Toronto has 3 times the revenue of the rest - if Toronto doesn't spend it? What's the 'revenue disparity' problem if it's not how the richer teams are spending their superior revenue?

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 08:17 PM
  #32
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,312
vCash: 500
Gotta love the title of this thread... dr is a real character... he must be the equivilent of the Claude Lemeiux of these boards, love to have him on your team in the playoffs, but hate to play vs him! The problem isn't the salaries :lol thanks man I needed that laugh!

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 08:48 PM
  #33
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
I agree...

Equally amazing to me is how people say that the economic problem is 'revenue disparity between markets'... Yet, the 'spending disparity' between markets isn't an economic problem... How exactly is revenue disparity an economic problem if it is not tied to disparity in ability and desire to 'spend it'?... What does it matter to the other teams if Toronto has 3 times the revenue of the rest - if Toronto doesn't spend it? What's the 'revenue disparity' problem if it's not how the richer teams are spending their superior revenue?
Too much logic is emanating from this reply!!

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 09:16 PM
  #34
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
I agree...

Equally amazing to me is how people say that the economic problem is 'revenue disparity between markets'... Yet, the 'spending disparity' between markets isn't an economic problem... How exactly is revenue disparity an economic problem if it is not tied to disparity in ability and desire to 'spend it'?... What does it matter to the other teams if Toronto has 3 times the revenue of the rest - if Toronto doesn't spend it? What's the 'revenue disparity' problem if it's not how the richer teams are spending their superior revenue?
the point is that the ability to spend does not translate to an unfair advantage...

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 09:30 PM
  #35
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
the point is that the ability to spend does not translate to an unfair advantage...

dr
I agree... It just translates into an economically unhealthy league...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 10:34 PM
  #36
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
The problem with the prior arrangement was that the big market teams set the market. That has made it more difficult yet not impossible for the small market teams. It's very short sighted to think that the big market teams offering larger salaries than the small market teams has no impact on the rest of the league.
Who has set the market?

For players who entered the league under the previous CBA, the most influential contract was the last one Calgary signed with Iginla.

For the players who have yet to gain arbitration rights, Tampa Bay set the market when they signed Brad Richards to a multi year contract. He would have been the yardstick when his age group gets to arbitration had the previous CBA remained in place.

For the players between Iginla and Richards, the market was set by Thornton's contract with Boston. And we know that the Bruins are loose with the wallet.

Montreal set the market for goalie when they signed Theodore, but that signing was influenced by iginla's contract.

The biggest markets in the NHL are New York, Toronto, LA, and Chicago. Who have they signed to an extravagant contract that would set the market high for other clubs?

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 10:57 PM
  #37
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
I agree... It just translates into an economically unhealthy league...
Absolutely

Maybe they need you there to get the negotiations started, you're one of the few with some sense around here.

Sotnos is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 01:11 AM
  #38
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Who has set the market?

For players who entered the league under the previous CBA, the most influential contract was the last one Calgary signed with Iginla.

For the players who have yet to gain arbitration rights, Tampa Bay set the market when they signed Brad Richards to a multi year contract. He would have been the yardstick when his age group gets to arbitration had the previous CBA remained in place.

For the players between Iginla and Richards, the market was set by Thornton's contract with Boston. And we know that the Bruins are loose with the wallet.

Montreal set the market for goalie when they signed Theodore, but that signing was influenced by iginla's contract.

The biggest markets in the NHL are New York, Toronto, LA, and Chicago. Who have they signed to an extravagant contract that would set the market high for other clubs?
I think you are making my point for me, but you just don't realize your point is invalid. Iginla's contract didn't come up out of thin air for Calgary, they were required to give him that contract because it was the going rate for a player of his calibre.

I find it hard to consider Montreal a small market at any rate as well. The Theodore contract was unique no doubt, but only because as a goalie Theodore was the team MVP and carried the team like he did.

In the case of Theodore & Iginla, two franchise players who carried their teams on their backs, the teams had to pay them based on the market that was set by the big market teams paying their franchise players. If Colorado had given Sakic or Forsberg a $6 million/year contract or Toronto had done the same with Sundin, then you wouldn't see the small market teams having to compete with these bigger salaries.

Realistically, most teams probably couldn't afford to pay their marquee player more than $5-6 million a year. Yet the major breakout contract these emerging stars are getting is that same fee. At the current pace, Iginla will quickly price himself out of the Flames payroll with his next contract, and it'd be another victim of the mindset of the prior CBA.

If Montreal wasn't as strong of a market as it is, they would face the same problem with Theodore. As Edmonton did with Doug Weight, as Ottawa will with Marian Hossa, and Vancouver will with Todd Bertuzzi if things are not changed. It'll happen to every team that cannot afford to spend win or lose.

Guest is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 09:25 AM
  #39
Goulet17
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,482
vCash: 500
Some on this board are making the argument that the primary issue with revenue disparities in individual markets is spending levels. In my opinion, that argument presents a superficial view of the situation and fails to focus on the core problems.

The fact is that many so-called "small market" teams have operated under a de facto salary cap for years, most at or under the $31 million level. So how does a team that already operates at or under the proposed hard cap level improve their revenues? We already now that many of these teams are still losing significant amounts of money while operating at or near the hard cap level. So how does profit increase for these teams?

Revenue disparity is a huge problem facing the league, regardless of the level of spending by the "big-market" teams. The New York Rangers make over $25 million per year from their television contracts, while a team like Nashville makes $2 million or less. Even if a "big-market" team is restricted from spending based on their revenue advantage, the fact is that a team like Nashville will always have a difficult time remaining economically viable given its respective revenue generation.

I've alluded to it before, but I would love for someone to review the archives in one of the Raleigh newspapers from this past January or February. The newspaper had a pointed article in which Peter Karmanos explicitly acknowedged that a hard cap without revenue sharing will do little to help his franchise.

Many on these boards want to believe that a hard cap is the magical elixir for all of the league's woes, but at a certain point economic reality has to be a part of the discussion.

Goulet17 is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 10:04 AM
  #40
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
I think you are making my point for me, but you just don't realize your point is invalid. Iginla's contract didn't come up out of thin air for Calgary, they were required to give him that contract because it was the going rate for a player of his calibre.
Going rate? There was no going rate for Iginla. That's why he didn't go to arbitration. There was no one comparable for him to get him the money that he did.

Calgary set the high mark for players who have entered the league under the old CBA. No one else did.

Quote:
I find it hard to consider Montreal a small market at any rate as well. The Theodore contract was unique no doubt, but only because as a goalie Theodore was the team MVP and carried the team like he did.
And his contract was based upon Iginla's. I don't consider Montreal a small market either but they've been whining like they are.

Quote:
In the case of Theodore & Iginla, two franchise players who carried their teams on their backs, the teams had to pay them based on the market that was set by the big market teams paying their franchise players. If Colorado had given Sakic or Forsberg a $6 million/year contract or Toronto had done the same with Sundin, then you wouldn't see the small market teams having to compete with these bigger salaries.
Bull! None of those contracts had ANYTHING to do with Iginla or Theodore. Neither player could use them as comparables. If the older players had been signed to $6M a year contracts it just would have meant that Iginla and Theodore would have the highest paid players in the league. After all, they were the two best players in the league when they signed.

If those teams didn't feel those players were worth it, they could have held out longer for a lower contract. Neither Iginla or Theodore had any leverage except for not playing.


Quote:
Realistically, most teams probably couldn't afford to pay their marquee player more than $5-6 million a year. Yet the major breakout contract these emerging stars are getting is that same fee. At the current pace, Iginla will quickly price himself out of the Flames payroll with his next contract, and it'd be another victim of the mindset of the prior CBA.
Next contract? That time is now and if the CBA weren't up the Flames probably would have signed him already. Right now in Calgary the fans think the team is a contender. If they deal him away now, the fans will think the team is a pretender. There's a big difference in revenues between a contender and a pretender.


Quote:
If Montreal wasn't as strong of a market as it is, they would face the same problem with Theodore. As Edmonton did with Doug Weight, as Ottawa will with Marian Hossa, and Vancouver will with Todd Bertuzzi if things are not changed. It'll happen to every team that cannot afford to spend win or lose.
Bullcrap again. Edmonton couldn't keep Weight because they couldn't bring in revenues of a contender. Vancouver has more money then most teams in the NHL since their fans perceive them as a contender. They can keep whoever they want. Similiarly, everyone thought that Ottawa couldn't keep Alfredsson but he signed a long term deal instead of leaving.

Teams that win can keep their players. Teams that lose can't unless they are the Leafs or Rangers or they want to lose lots of money.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 01:44 PM
  #41
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goulet17
So how does a team that already operates at or under the proposed hard cap level improve their revenues? We already now that many of these teams are still losing significant amounts of money while operating at or near the hard cap level. So how does profit increase for these teams?
These teams have to build from a young, inexpensive 'core'... Over time, if their respective GMs have done a good job in assembling a good young core, these teams will make the playoffs - and reap the rewards of playoff revenue... If the GM has done a very good job in assembling a good young core, this team will make the playoffs year-after-year... The more success a team has, the more paying fans, the more $ fans are willing to pay for tickets, etc... This revenue-generating opportunity is the same for both the big and small market teams...

If the GM has not done a good job in assembling a good young core, over time, this team will not have success- and thus, the GM will not have significantly increased revenues, and thus, the team will not be able to afford to keep his team together... The GM will have to trade their expensive core for young players/draft picks to try and build a good young core again...

This is not the same for big and small market teams... Rich teams have another strategy at their disposal... Rich teams can afford to keep their expensive, aging players - even though the team doesn't have success... Rich teams can afford to try and 'skip team development/re-development steps' by replacing their expensive, aging players with other expensive, aging players, where rich teams do not want to take the necessary steps back to re-build properly again... Poorer teams cannot do this... Neither team should be doing this - if team success does not increase as the players become older and more expensive... Every team has to 'take steps back' to re-build their teams if success doesn't come...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goulet17
Revenue disparity is a huge problem facing the league, regardless of the level of spending by the "big-market" teams. The New York Rangers make over $25 million per year from their television contracts, while a team like Nashville makes $2 million or less. Even if a "big-market" team is restricted from spending based on their revenue advantage, the fact is that a team like Nashville will always have a difficult time remaining economically viable given its respective revenue generation.
I'm all for revenue sharing... But what is Nashville going to do with their increased revenue? Invest it for a rainy day - to keep their young, inexpensive core together one day? Use it to sign their stud 1st rounder?... Or are they going to try and sign (or trade for) Sergei Fedorov - i.e. are they going to try and 'skip developmental steps' while inflating the market for Fedorov (if he's an UFA), or trade one, two, or three of their young, promising core players in order to get him via a trade? If Nashville uses the money to get Fedorov (or any expensive, aging player), this disrupts (increases) their team salary structure, as well as hampers the proper, natural development of Nashville's team (a young, promising player should be gaining valuable experience playing in the role Fedorov is currently occupying)...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goulet17
Many on these boards want to believe that a hard cap is the magical elixir for all of the league's woes, but at a certain point economic reality has to be a part of the discussion.
I personally don't want a hard cap... and I'm all for a revenue sharing component... It's not spending per say that I'm against... It's what teams (regardless if they're rich or poor) spend their revenue on (given where they are in the 'franchise life cycle')... There should be a lot more proper team re-building going on in the NHL... When desired success and team milestones aren't achieved (given where the team is in the 'franchise life cycle'), GM's should be taking steps back to properly (and inexpensively) fix the problem - not looking for expensive bandaid solutions that do nothing but escalate player salaries... If every team tried to build and re-build their teams properly, the majority of the league's problems would naturally solve themselves... IMHO, a hard cap isn't needed (nor is it an attractive alternative)... Have the proper team building strategy guide the CBA rules and solution - not how much money the owners or the players will make... How teams are built shouldn't be based around how much money owners and players should make... How much money owners and players make should be based on how teams should be built...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 01:54 PM
  #42
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
Have the proper team building strategy guide the CBA rules and solution - not how much money the owners or the players will make...
IMO, the current CBA is very close to that. prrof because money hasnt helped anyone win.

the players have agreed to tweak this framework to fix some of the trouble areas for the owners.

the owners want a cap and nothing else.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 02:03 PM
  #43
handtrick
Registered User
 
handtrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 3,090
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=I in the Eye]These teams have to build from a young, inexpensive 'core'... Over time, if their respective GMs have done a good job in assembling a good young core, these teams will make the playoffs - and reap the rewards of playoff revenue... If the GM has done a very good job in assembling a good young core, this team will make the playoffs year-after-year... The more success a team has, the more paying fans, the more $ fans are willing to pay for tickets, etc... This revenue-generating opportunity is the same for both the big and small market teams...

If the GM has not done a good job in assembling a good young core, over time, this team will not have success- and thus, the GM will not have significantly increased revenues, and thus, the team will not be able to afford to keep his team together... The GM will have to trade their expensive core for young players/draft picks to try and build a good young core again...

This is not the same for big and small market teams... Rich teams have another strategy at their disposal... Rich teams can afford to keep their expensive, aging players - even though the team doesn't have success... Rich teams can afford to try and 'skip team development/re-development steps' by replacing their expensive, aging players with other expensive, aging players, where rich teams do not want to take the necessary steps back to re-build properly again... Poorer teams cannot do this... Neither team should be doing this - if team success does not increase as the players become older and more expensive... Every team has to 'take steps back' to re-build their teams if success doesn't come...



I'm all for revenue sharing... But what is Nashville going to do with their increased revenue? Invest it for a rainy day - to keep their young, inexpensive core together one day? Use it to sign their stud 1st rounder?... Or are they going to try and sign (or trade for) Sergei Fedorov - i.e. are they going to try and 'skip developmental steps' while inflating the market for Fedorov (if he's an UFA), or trade one, two, or three of their young, promising core players in order to get him via a trade? If Nashville uses the money to get Fedorov (or any expensive, aging player), this disrupts (increases) their team salary structure, as well as hampers the proper, natural development of Nashville's team (a young, promising player should be gaining valuable experience playing in the role Fedorov is currently occupying)...

QUOTE]

Nashville has done it the right way. They have built from the draft, trading away their aging veterans for draft choices and are now at the point of finally reaping those rewards for the next few years. The taste of the playoffs transmitted into huge excitement and vocal sellout crowds with a big spike in season ticket sales had this season proceeded. Revenues would have increased in suite. All this talk of Nashville being on the contraction hit list amazes me when everything is poised for success...having done it The RIGHT Way.

Now, with just signing our lifeblood core of Vokoun, Timonen, Walker to multiyear deals, and extending Lewand's option and signing Sullivan...the Preds expenses are set increase significantly. I could assure you, I in the Eye, that with David Poile as our GM, revenue sharing would not be spent on the likes of Federov, but on paying our above core what they are entitled to, having done it The Right Way in transitioning from an expansion team to a contending team.

handtrick is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 02:34 PM
  #44
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by handtrick
Nashville has done it the right way. ....in transitioning from an expansion team to a contending team.
ok, so another team that doesnt require a complete crushing victory over the players.

OTT, NSH, TBY and CGY dont need a work stoppage to compete, why cant the other small markets make this claim ?

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 06:10 PM
  #45
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
While not giving an unfair 'on ice' advantage (which I agree with), do you think that Toronto spending like they do (i.e. the 'buy' strategy to building a team) has a negative impact on NHL economics? Do you think that it plays a role in escalating player salaries?

I do...
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
Equally amazing to me is how people say that the economic problem is 'revenue disparity between markets'... Yet, the 'spending disparity' between markets isn't an economic problem
You just said it yourself. The spending disparity doesnt give them an on-ice advantage. You still arent fully convinced of that are you? I know how you feel, it is somewhat counter-intuitive. It takes a leap of faith if you will. I have to always remind myself too.

I think Goulet17 makes a good point, the cap isnt the elixir, Nashville needs revenue sharing until they are big spenders, not salary caps. yOu reply to him that they shouldnt need to do it, but you also admit it doesnt give them on-ice advantage, so the need for prohibition would seem to be taken care of wouldnt it?

So fair enough, if we settle it doesnt leave an on-ice unfair long term advantage, does it then lead to an economic problem? Fair question. How speecifically? IF we can isolate exactly where the problem is maybe we can see how to fix it.

Is it UFAs then. Hippopotamus? No, no, not a hippopotamus. How about entry level contracts? No, no not a rhinoceros.

What if each year we lined up arbitration cases in reverse order of team payroll. In other words, the lowest payroll teams get to go to arbitration first and thus set all comparables. Would that solve the problem? Really what incentive does NYR have to pay Lundmark too much. Or the Leafs with Kaberle. They dont want to spend anymore than Nashville wants to.

What if all RFA salaries were negotiated at head office? One of the owners 6 solutions I believe. They dont really have full market rights anyway. They cant really play one team off against another. Maybe RFA's would accept a $6mil salary cap Not many get more anyway, and the few special ones maybe can get it through extraordinary bonuses. Perhaps the solution is an RFA cap. It seems many of these players are the ones calling to give in to Bettman too, so maybe it works.

Every team like Nashville should be able to afford all of their RFAs and get subsidies from rich teams if they cant afford all their RFAs. But UFAs is a choice. No one should receive money to subsideize their UFA purchases in this environment where, as you say, it doesnt give them on-ice advantage.

Nashville by the way, from what Im led to believe are in very good hands with Mr. David Poile, a very wise hockey man it is said.


Quote:
Originally Posted by handtrick
How can you say that? When Belfour signs for $8 mill don't you think that has a bearing on what Vokoun can negotiate in his 9 mill over 3 yr deal
Id think if Belfour is worth $8mil, Vokoun is worth more than $3mil. It doesnt seem like it had any effect. Hasek signed for $2mil. Besides as said, Vokoun RFA, is prohibited in CBA from comparing to Belfour UFA. Giggy and Theodore may affect Vokoun, but UFA's are in a different salary world.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 09:27 PM
  #46
handtrick
Registered User
 
handtrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 3,090
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Every team like Nashville should be able to afford all of their RFAs and get subsidies from rich teams if they cant afford all their RFAs. But UFAs is a choice. No one should receive money to subsideize their UFA purchases in this environment where, as you say, it doesnt give them on-ice advantage.

Nashville by the way, from what Im led to believe are in very good hands with Mr. David Poile, a very wise hockey man it is said.

I can almost buy that statement. The thing I wonder re: Nashville is: if the CBA hadn't have been coming up, would Nashville had been able to sign Steve Sullivan for $3.8 mill as an UFA? He was the missing puzzle piece that helped us spring into the playoffs last year.....it would have been a shame had we not been able to sign him this year due to economics.

And yes, Nashville is in very good hands with David Poile as GM.

handtrick is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 09:49 PM
  #47
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by handtrick
The thing I wonder re: Nashville is: if the CBA hadn't have been coming up, would Nashville had been able to sign Steve Sullivan for $3.8 mill as an UFA? He was the missing puzzle piece that helped us spring into the playoffs last year.....it would have been a shame had we not been able to sign him this year due to economics.
Well first it should be noted, that in these times of $10mil dollar players that we are all complaining about, you got Sully as a missing piece for $3.8mil. And he sure seemed worth it. Do you not want to pay that much for a missing piece or not that much for him?

It would of been a shame if you couldnt afford him. But not the end of the world either. Its possible even that he signs with another team that doesnt make the playoffs by trade deadline, and you rent him back for one or two paycheques and the playoffs again. Or someone else like him. There are always options. Long term, you want young players that can take his role. UFAs are rentals to cover you until you get there.

If trading him for prospects and a pick, frees up ice time for one of your NHL ready prospects and he and un unexpected trade start to work out, you can manipulate your pieces and come out ahead. And Poile will find ways to do this.

But until you have a team that is contending, you are sifting through pieces until you get there. Its not the UFAs you want to be keeping long term.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 10:02 PM
  #48
handtrick
Registered User
 
handtrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 3,090
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=thinkwild]Well first it should be noted, that in these times of $10mil dollar players that we are all complaining about, you got Sully as a missing piece for $3.8mil. And he sure seemed worth it. Do you not want to pay that much for a missing piece or not that much for him?QUOTE]

I thought $3.8 mill was a fair price. He wanted a two yr contract but they decided on a one year with the uncertainty of the upcoming CBA. But with signing Vokoun, Walker, and Timonen [our llifebood core] recently to multiyear deals....I just don't know if they could have pulled the trigger for Sully's 3.8 mill without the hopes of a new level playing field under the new CBA.

I like your points about manipulating things around to make it work, but I would hate to have to rent him back for something like two Number 2 draft choices again, as that is what we paid to Chicago to get him in the first place, and David Poile is known to be very stingy with trading his draft choices.

handtrick is offline  
Old
11-01-2004, 12:13 AM
  #49
oilers_guy_eddie
Registered User
 
oilers_guy_eddie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Intolerable climate
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 10,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
the players have agreed to tweak this framework to fix some of the trouble areas for the owners.

the owners want a cap and nothing else.

dr
I'm not hung up on the idea that the solution has to be a cap, but let's get rid of the notion that "tweaking" is going to fix anything. And let's get rid of the notion that the NHLPA proposals are anything close to a starting point. Any idiot with a pocket calculator and a little spare time can figure out that the NHLPA's proposal raises less than $10 million league-wide in luxury tax. Divide that up however you see fit-- it's next to worthless. Doesn't do anything to deter ridiculous spending or talent-hording. Doesn't give any team enough money to do more than pay the raise on one or two typical RFAs. It makes the Canadian small-market assistance money that the Oilers, Flames, and Senators receive look like the Powerball Lottery by comparison... so if getting this luxury tax in meant the end of the Canadian small-market assistance money, it would literally be worse than the old CBA for those 3 teams.

I'm sure you'll tell me that the NHLPA would be willing to negotiate on their deal. But come on. That's like if you're selling your car, and the kid down the street offers you his skateboard as a trade and tells you that's a starting-point for negotiations. I'm sure Goodenow is willing to throw in his bottle-cap collection and maybe even a few comic-books, but I seriously doubt he's open to anything that will change the NHLPA offer from stupid to substantial. I know they're not open to anything substantial. Doug Weight was on my TV just a few weeks ago telling me that people in the union feel they've already offered too much.

I'm not hung up on a cap, and in fact if the NHLPA was offering something more along the lines of Brian Burke's proposal, I would be behind them 100%. But they're not, and they'd fight Burke's proposal as fiercely as they'd fight a hard cap, because ultimately it's not just a hard cap that they oppose, it's anything that would discourage free-spending teams from jacking up their payrolls.

oilers_guy_eddie is offline  
Old
11-01-2004, 02:39 AM
  #50
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
i think i've got it. the players don't want a cap, so why not let the players pay themselves. let the owners entice the players to their teams with signing bonuses and number of years for the contract. When the owners have their teams each member of the team has to throw a certain monetary figure into the salary pot. the owner would put nothing into it. then the players themselves would sit down and split up the money to figure out their own salaries. Yep that's it, no more complaining that the owners are ripping them off. no complaining about a salary cap. no more nothing. every so many months the players can sit down again and say ok everyone's still earning their keep, or they can say nope you're not earning your keep but i on the other hand have played well above what i put in so i'm taking your money.

the owners would have the arena lease (if there is one) to pay and that would be that, i'd propose a luxury tax or revenue sharing if the owners fall a little short on arena rent or other bills pertaining to the arena or hockey itself. there you have it. stop the cba proposals this is IT. i hope the sarcasm is dripping of the post like i hoped it to.

bottom line with the above is that the players would be paid whatever they felt they should earn.(the pa would love that). they'd be held accountable, but they wouldnt' have anyone but themselves to blame (the pa would hate that).
and the owners would still be making some kind of profit.(the owners only goal in this whole dispute)

garry1221 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 05:00 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.