HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Roster Thoughts and Offseason Speculation for the 2012-2013 Season II

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-10-2012, 08:40 PM
  #951
piston
Registered User
 
piston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: Denmark
Posts: 568
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to piston
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herby View Post
I think K17 brought up a couple of points that have been overlooked.

1. The strength of the dollar. The dollar will eventually gain strength, it may not be for a few years, but when it does you are going to see the same thing that happened in the late 90's with the exodus of teams out of Canada. No way can Winnipeg or Edmonton survive if the dollar gets back to it's levels of the 90's. Remember these teams are taking in gates, merchandise and local TV deals in Canadian dollars and paying out salaries in American dollars. If the cap were to stay in the same ballpark it's at right now with what the exchange rate was in say 1997, not only would those teams struggle, you would also possibly lose Calgary and Ottawa.

2. The salaries for bottom line role players. Like I mentioned earlier with my post about Bill Veeck and his great quote. And as we saw with the other thread about Zach Parise and jersey sales, it's not the star players salaries that are awful, it's the lesser players.



Anze Kopitar will recoup that money in on ice performance combined with ticket and merchandise sales because people want to see him play. If Anze Kopitar were to leave the Kings his loss would be felt not only on the ice but on the Kings bottom line. If Fraser or Stoll left no one would really care, some people love Stoll, some people love Fraser but they are replaceable on the ice and make little to no impact on the bottom line. How many people are saying "hey the Kings are in town, Jarret Stoll is worth the price of admission" or how many Colin Fraser jerseys do you see at Staples?

If anything the star players are underpaid.

If Stoll is worth $3.5 million, what is Kopitar's true value, I would argue in the neighborhood of 9 million.
If Jiri Hudler is worth 4, what is Iginla worth, probably around 8-9.

There are examples like this on every team, as the salaries of role players go through the roof.
Herby,

Thanks for the note. I agree that the recent strength of the Canadian dollar is responsible for at least 50% of the rise in league revenues and subsequent lifting of the cap to where it is,today. The total revenue number is denominated in U.S. dollars. Even if Canadian team revenues don't budge on an absolute basis, they go up relatively if the Canadian dollar rises relative to its U.S. counterpart. I don't believe the U.S. dollar will rise because Canada has far better fiscal and monetary policies than we do, and because the Canadians are not a bunch of idiots and actually exploit their oil and gas resources, but that is for another discussion...

Fehr's strategy has always been to stretch salaries on the top end because he knows that will lift those in the middle and bottom eventually thanks to salary arbitration. Hence, he wants to have a few high revenue team that will spend wildly on the stars. Revenue sharing impinges on those teams' ability to spend at will. Put another way, Nashville is stuck paying Weber far more than they had planned because the Flyers don't have the same fiscal constraints. If the Flyers had to pay a penalty for spending, they would have been more rational in how much they offered Weber. As you correctly surmise, there will now be a host of second tier d-men who will see their pay pulled up by the height of the Weber ceiling.

The question I have is how much power will the players cede Fehr. Fehr could not care less about the long term health of the business. he only wants to extract the maximum that he can in the short term. That was his MO in Baseball. The problem is that Hockey is stil not as well established and lacks a monster TV deal. Do the players really want to go through another lost season? We shall see.

piston is offline  
Old
08-10-2012, 08:50 PM
  #952
KingLB
Registered User
 
KingLB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,271
vCash: 500
Someone with a little better understanding of the cap might be able to explain this. But doesn't contracting 3-4 teams just push the problems on 4 new teams? If the bottom 4 revenue teams are dropped, then the remaining players get a very very similar chunk of a slightly smaller sum (believe like top 5-8ish teams combine for over 50% of revenues). Thus when you drop Pho/Isle/Fla/Car it just means the Stars/Avs/Nash/Edm etc etc have to pay that much more to reach the floor/compete and they become the new "teams unable to compete in failing markets".

EX.(lets assume 50% split NHL/PA for sake of easiness and 3 billion in revenues)
30 teams

3,000,000,000 (in revenues)/2 (NHL/PA split) =1,500,000,000 PA cut

1,500,000,000 (in revenues, PA cut)/30 (teams)= 50,000,000 a team

Now 26 teams (I assumed 50 mil in revenues a piece for the bottom 4 which may even be generous in this scenario)

2,800,000,000 (adjusted revenue minus low earning teams)/2 (NHL/PA split) =1,400,000,000 PA cut

1,400,000,000 (revenue, PA cut)/26 (teams)=~54,000,000,000 a team

Obviously I have no facts here, but it was mostly to lay out, that if the bottom teams are dropped the impact it has on the "lower middle class".

As seen above the drop of the low revenue teams would actually hurt the teams 15-25 financially every season on top of the cost of "buying out" the 4 "contracted teams". So ultimately, right now the only reason some mid level teams are profitable is because the low revenue teams that are keeping the cap down. When the Kings are left with only the Rangers/Flyers/Leafs/Habs/Wings/Hawks/Bruins to compete with, the Kings by default become the new Hurricanes. This is because the difference in revenue between the Yotes and Kings is smaller then the difference between the Kings and Leafs.... Yotes<<Kings<<<<<<Leafs in terms of revenue for the visual learners

To put in a poor analogous term, "when running from the bear, you don't have to be the fastest, just faster than the slowest"

KingLB is offline  
Old
08-10-2012, 09:12 PM
  #953
Fishhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjm22 View Post
If the NHL contracts then that just means 16 out of 28 teams are losing money instead of 18 out of 30.

And there can be a lot of reasons why a franchise is failing. It doesn't always mean the market isn't viable. Columbus and NYI are struggling for obvious reasons, and I don't think it's because the markets are necessarily bad.



They used to say the same thing about the Pound Sterling.
Increased TV revenue per team and extra revenue sharing money available would be enough to push a few teams into the black. There are 8 or so teams losing $6M or less, so with 2 less teams and some tweaks to sharing, the NHL could easily get the number of teams losing money down to 10, if not single digits.

As for that 2nd point, I think the NHL needs some accountability as far as owners keeping their teams in shape. There are some markets that are obvious failures, but teams in good markets who are losing money year after year should be examined.

Fishhead is offline  
Old
08-11-2012, 11:00 AM
  #954
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 32,285
vCash: 500
We can now put those Huet rumors to bed.
http://twitter.com/SpectorsHockey/st...97918578900992
Quote:
So much for Cristobal Huet's NHL comeback. The 36 year old has reportedly inked a 4-year deal with HC Lausanne in Switzerland.

Ziggy Stardust is offline  
Old
08-11-2012, 01:43 PM
  #955
Jason Lewis
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Jason Lewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,110
vCash: 500
If they contract the league....well you can almost guarantee that New Jersey and Phoenix are the first heads up on the chopping block.

One east, one west.....

Jason Lewis is offline  
Old
08-11-2012, 02:56 PM
  #956
Primakov!
Registered User
 
Primakov!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Yesteryear
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
You think AEG would have operated the Kings at a loss for this long if they weren't the anchor tennant in a building they own surrounded by restaurants and other entertainment venues that are located on land that AEG owns and developed? Most NHL owners/teams don't have that luxury. We are very fortunate as Kings fans that the team is a very small piece of a much bigger puzzle. That isn't the case for most franchises.
Apparently only two teams currently have that particularly profitable setup in place around their venues. The Los Angeles Kings and the Toronto Maple Leafs are those teams and eventually the Vancouver Canucks are going to make that happen as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishhead View Post
Hockey will not survive in Seattle or Kansas City. Seattle doesn't have an arena. If they wouldn't renovate Key for an NBA team, why would they do it for a hockey one? Kansas City = Phoenix, but smaller. The Leafs would never approve another team in Hamilton. The only probably place for relocation right now is Quebec City. I highly doubt any of these cities have made a serious offer for an NHL franchise, because if they did, Phoenix would be gone already. They might be offering low values to offset the risk, but that's about it.
You really need an ownership group put together and an arena capable of hosting a NHL game with specific features like amenities and crowd capacity before you can make a strong case to even ask about a team. Winnipeg already had those items checked off and with fortunate timing they were able to nab the Thrashers from Atlanta.

Which is precisely why Quebec went ahead and got approval to begin work on a $400 million dollar facility slated for completion by September 2015.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishhead View Post
The only other option is to fix revenue sharing, which is very broken. The bottom 15 money teams are eligible to get money from the pool. The problem is, many of them don't qualify or get a full share. There are attendance goals to be met. Phoenix and Dallas didn't hit the 80% home attendance needed to qualify. Columbus and the Islanders barely made it, I'm not sure how it affects their share. Certain teams in the bottom half don't even qualify because their markets are too big. Teams like the Islanders, Devils, Ducks, and again Dallas aren't even eligible.
Wait, what...?

Primakov! is offline  
Old
08-11-2012, 03:00 PM
  #957
Primakov!
Registered User
 
Primakov!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Yesteryear
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Oh, and for those interested there was an interesting blog article that Elliotte Friedman of CBC's Hockey Night in Canada wrote regarding a variety of issues related to the hot topics in the CBA negotiations.

Things like financially, what it really means when the owners and players fight over the revenue split. Right now it's at a 57% to 43% split in revenue with the bigger chunk going towards the players.

What most don't realize is that every 1% represents about $30 million dollars. So if you were to suggest a 50-50 split then you're potentially telling the players that they should give up a $210 million dollars share of the pie. So it's not chump change being talked about and it's not all that simple to just change a few percentage points and call it even.

He even talks about the revenue sharing model being used by the NFL and the MLB - important since that's the system that Donald Fehr helped put together when he was working as the Player's Association rep over there.

Article Link

Primakov! is offline  
Old
08-11-2012, 05:33 PM
  #958
tsanuri
Registered User
 
tsanuri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Grants Pass OR
Country: United States
Posts: 2,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Primakov! View Post
Oh, and for those interested there was an interesting blog article that Elliotte Friedman of CBC's Hockey Night in Canada wrote regarding a variety of issues related to the hot topics in the CBA negotiations.

Things like financially, what it really means when the owners and players fight over the revenue split. Right now it's at a 57% to 43% split in revenue with the bigger chunk going towards the players.

What most don't realize is that every 1% represents about $30 million dollars. So if you were to suggest a 50-50 split then you're potentially telling the players that they should give up a $210 million dollars share of the pie. So it's not chump change being talked about and it's not all that simple to just change a few percentage points and call it even.

He even talks about the revenue sharing model being used by the NFL and the MLB - important since that's the system that Donald Fehr helped put together when he was working as the Player's Association rep over there.

Article Link
It might not be chump change but it only comes down to about 300K average per player on the 7% mark. For those at or near the min it is bad but for those making much larger sums like 7m a year it is about 4%. I can tell you many places in my area that in this hard time have rolled back salaries by more than that on workers that make a whole lot less. But just looking at the average salary that I remember reading of 2.4 mil it is 12.5% and I know many companies that have cut by 10-20%.

tsanuri is offline  
Old
08-11-2012, 06:31 PM
  #959
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 32,285
vCash: 500
They could redefine what makes up hockey related revenues (HRR) to make up for the players' 57% stake in league revenues. Let's say they did not equate luxury box/suites into HRR (after all, it could be argued that in some arenas, the hockey team isn't the main tenant and the lease agreements for those boxes/suites is with the arena, not the team or specific sport).

I do believe that a defined allocation of revenues should be split between both parties, say a fixed percentage for how much the league and the players will gain from national and local broadcast rights. Least that makes the most sense to me if they truly are interested in a "partnership."

Ziggy Stardust is offline  
Old
08-11-2012, 09:03 PM
  #960
Fishhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Primakov! View Post

Wait, what...?
It's under Article 49, sec. 3 in the CBA

Some of the key stuff in a nutshell.

3b) A Club shall be an Ineligible Club for a particular League Year if, for
such League Year, it meets any of the following criteria:

(i) The Club is among the fifteen (15) highest Clubs in terms of its Club Gross
Preseason and Regular Season Revenues) for such League Year

(ii) If the Club is in a DMA (market area) with a value of greater than or equal to 2.5 million households

(iii) If the Club has Available Team Player Compensation that exceeds the Targeted Team Player Compensation for such League Year. (available compensation is based on 54% of their revenues, if I'm reading it correctly)

If a team is eligible for a full share, here are some modifiers (sect 49.3d):

(i) Beginning in 2007-08, the eligibility of Clubs for a "full share"
Distribution shall be conditioned on Club revenue performance
standards, as follows:

a) The club has to keep growing revenue at a rate exceeding the league average

b) Paid attendance average has to exceed either 13,125 (14,000 after 08-09) or the league average, whichever is lower. I misinterpreted this, I think. Those numbers are based on 75% and 80% of 17,500. Teams that don't qualify are Phoenix and the Islanders. Dallas snuck in, but they are in a big market so it doesn't matter.

If teams are eligible but do not meet full share criteria:

First time they don't meet criteria - 75% share
2nd time - 60% share
3rd time - 50% share



There are some illustrations in the section, its surprisingly interesting.


Last edited by Fishhead: 08-11-2012 at 09:08 PM.
Fishhead is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 11:42 AM
  #961
Mattias
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,026
vCash: 500
And flyers lose another defenseman?

Mattias is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 01:55 PM
  #962
JBernierFan
Drink up!
 
JBernierFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego
Country: United States
Posts: 3,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattias View Post
And flyers lose another defenseman?
Wait, what?? Now who? Do they even have another dman to lose at this point?

JBernierFan is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 02:09 PM
  #963
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,849
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBernierFan View Post
Wait, what?? Now who? Do they even have another dman to lose at this point?
Andreas Lilja is out 4 months.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...XWWHFvRYFivLYF

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 02:09 PM
  #964
Muzzinga
Regehr GOAT
 
Muzzinga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,112
vCash: 500
Lilja is out, but he barely qualifies as an NHL defenceman

Muzzinga is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 02:15 PM
  #965
Chazz Reinhold
Registered User
 
Chazz Reinhold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Stanley Cup
Country: United States
Posts: 6,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
I assumed the reference was to Meszaros.

Chazz Reinhold is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 03:47 PM
  #966
Jason Lewis
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Jason Lewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,110
vCash: 500
That hurts. They aren't deep to begin with.

Now what...the 5/6/7 guys are Bourdon, Gervais, and Gustafsson. Looks like the achilles heel for Philly will AGAIN be defense/goaltending.

Coburn, Timonen, Grossman, Schenn, Bourdon, Gustafsson/Gervais. That's not very good at all.

Jason Lewis is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 05:21 PM
  #967
damacles1156
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 13,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaygokings View Post
That hurts. They aren't deep to begin with.

Now what...the 5/6/7 guys are Bourdon, Gervais, and Gustafsson. Looks like the achilles heel for Philly will AGAIN be defense/goaltending.

Coburn, Timonen, Grossman, Schenn, Bourdon, Gustafsson/Gervais. That's not very good at all.
That's fine

They can crash and burn again in the playoff's; then blame Giroux, and trade him to the Kings.

damacles1156 is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 06:21 PM
  #968
kingsboy11
Thank You Landon
 
kingsboy11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by damacles1156 View Post
That's fine

They can crash and burn again in the playoff's; then blame Giroux, and trade him to the Kings.
I second this. He needs to join his former flyer buddies.

kingsboy11 is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 07:04 PM
  #969
LaFan1967
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 476
vCash: 500
Rescue from Dry Island II ........ do it Dean

LaFan1967 is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 07:12 PM
  #970
Stupid Sexy Flanders
Registered User
 
Stupid Sexy Flanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by piston View Post
... and because the Canadians are not a bunch of idiots and actually exploit their oil and gas resources, but that is for another discussion...
Rather than replying to this bizarre load of crap and derailing the thread, I think I'll just say 'thanks' for helping me figure out I can quickly ignore your future opinions.

Stupid Sexy Flanders is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 07:58 PM
  #971
BigKing
Spot Picker
 
BigKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Belmont Shore, CA
Posts: 3,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by piston View Post
A couple of quick points:

- Fehr is opposed to revenue sharing as he needs big money teams (think Yankees) to use their financial heft to drive salaries for players ever upward. He opposed the so-called luxury tax in Baseball which forced the big spending teams to share revenues with their weaker brethren if they spent over a certain amount on player salaries.

- this system will never be fixed without contraction. Contracting the weakest franchises will make the remaining teams stronger. I like the idea of an extra roster spot to assure fewer player jobs will be lost.
That would definitely help in making contraction more palatable for the players, although if you have 40-65 players out there for the taking and only 27-28 extra spots, you are still looking at a lot of lost jobs, including players not on the contracted teams.

In the end, contraction would provide for better hockey but, as a fan of fighting, I think it would further reduce that aspect of the game which frightens me. However, if it means less "all i do is skate up and down, play defense and never score or fight" guys in favor of Nolan and Clifford types, then I am all for it.

BigKing is online now  
Old
08-13-2012, 02:55 PM
  #972
Muzzinga
Regehr GOAT
 
Muzzinga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,112
vCash: 500
I hope the new CBA changes offer sheet compensation for large offersheets. When i look at the Weber one, 4 1st round picks just isn't worthwhile when you consider the fact it could be 7 or 8 years before that last 1st round pick actually sees NHL action which is absurd.

Id like to see it changed to something like 3 1st's + the gm losing the player gets a choice of any player from the other team with <10 nhl games played

Muzzinga is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 10:31 PM
  #973
rajuabju
Registered User
 
rajuabju's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 2,086
vCash: 500
I'd like to see Dean make some (not all) of the following moves-

1) Holloway for a mid-round pick. There's no doubt he has the talent to make it in the NHL, but I see 0% chance of it happening with the Kings. Perhaps a team like NYI or Florida might be willing to give a pick for Holloway and lure him back here.

2) Same with Moller, but perhaps a later round pick.

3) Move Loktionov (as part of a package perhaps with Bernier). With our top C positions LOCKED down, he has no future here. He's never going to be effective as a bottom 6 C, and the experiment with him on the wing was a failure.

4) Either move Martinez while his value is high and let Hickey take his spot and see what happens, or dump Hickey as part of a trade package for a pick.

Basically my feeling is that right now, we need to bulk up a bit on picks in next years (and 2014) drafts. We have "spare" parts that can be moved, without doing any serious damage to our roster or cap, to achieve that goal. Whereas our prospect pool was among the deepest just a season or two ago, graduations/trades and winning have severely depleted that pool of high end talent, and I believe its time to start looking to do some replenishment

rajuabju is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 10:43 PM
  #974
johnjm22
16,005
 
johnjm22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Barstow, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rajuabju View Post
I'd like to see Dean make some (not all) of the following moves-

1) Holloway for a mid-round pick. There's no doubt he has the talent to make it in the NHL, but I see 0% chance of it happening with the Kings. Perhaps a team like NYI or Florida might be willing to give a pick for Holloway and lure him back here.

2) Same with Moller, but perhaps a later round pick.

3) Move Loktionov (as part of a package perhaps with Bernier). With our top C positions LOCKED down, he has no future here. He's never going to be effective as a bottom 6 C, and the experiment with him on the wing was a failure.

4) Either move Martinez while his value is high and let Hickey take his spot and see what happens, or dump Hickey as part of a trade package for a pick.

Basically my feeling is that right now, we need to bulk up a bit on picks in next years (and 2014) drafts. We have "spare" parts that can be moved, without doing any serious damage to our roster or cap, to achieve that goal. Whereas our prospect pool was among the deepest just a season or two ago, graduations/trades and winning have severely depleted that pool of high end talent, and I believe its time to start looking to do some replenishment
Disagree with 3 and 4. I don't think those moves are necessary at all.

I don't understand why everyone is in such a rush to move Loktionov/Martinez/Hickey.

johnjm22 is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 11:42 PM
  #975
King'sPawn
Enjoy the chaos
 
King'sPawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjm22 View Post
Disagree with 3 and 4. I don't think those moves are necessary at all.

I don't understand why everyone is in such a rush to move Loktionov/Martinez/Hickey.
Mostly because they can be claimed for free off waivers.

King'sPawn 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 10:02 AM.

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

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