HFBoards

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

Now lets get it straight

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-17-2012, 11:17 AM
  #26
Number8
Registered User
 
Number8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,092
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mancini0518 View Post
Jeremy Jacobs is complaining about the way contracts have been given out.

jeremy Jacobs gave out 70 million dollars this week.

Still don't see it?
There are some NHL owners that produce some really terrible business results. Maybe it's being lousy businessmen, maybe bad luck, maybe both. Regardless JJ is not one of those owners and he's actually being very smart:

1) He's going to survive and do well regardless of how the CBA shakes out. So, learn from the complete mess he made of last lockout and make sure you have high quality team locked up going into lockout this time.

2) If salaries get rolled back, then he's ok.

3) If salaries don't get rolled back, he'll still be ok as he is one of teams that is profitable.

4) At same time he knows the leagues finances are screwed up and must be resolved, even if his team is ok. That's going to happen one of two main ways: take it out of players paychecks or completely revise revenue sharing in the league.

5) The first solution (players salary) is a huge win for JJ. The second solution (different revenue share) is a huge loss for JJ no matter how you slice it.

So what does he do?

Operates as business as usual in event not much changes in CBA (not likely of course) and signs good players to contracts he can afford. At the same time, he says the solution to the league problems is player share/salaries and NOT revenue sharing between teams.

Seems like pretty sound business strategy to me.

By the way, to those who say JJ is cheapest owner in sports? Ancient history -- as that is NOT the case now. Also, as some others point out, it seems increasingly likely that HS was the curmudgeon in Boston and JJ was just following the advise of a hockey legend (one that, sadly, could not even remotely keep up with the modern league by the time he was forced out).

Number8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 11:39 AM
  #27
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 25,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number8 View Post
There are some NHL owners that produce some really terrible business results. Maybe it's being lousy businessmen, maybe bad luck, maybe both. Regardless JJ is not one of those owners and he's actually being very smart:

1) He's going to survive and do well regardless of how the CBA shakes out. So, learn from the complete mess he made of last lockout and make sure you have high quality team locked up going into lockout this time.

2) If salaries get rolled back, then he's ok.

3) If salaries don't get rolled back, he'll still be ok as he is one of teams that is profitable.

4) At same time he knows the leagues finances are screwed up and must be resolved, even if his team is ok. That's going to happen one of two main ways: take it out of players paychecks or completely revise revenue sharing in the league.

5) The first solution (players salary) is a huge win for JJ. The second solution (different revenue share) is a huge loss for JJ no matter how you slice it.

So what does he do?

Operates as business as usual in event not much changes in CBA (not likely of course) and signs good players to contracts he can afford. At the same time, he says the solution to the league problems is player share/salaries and NOT revenue sharing between teams.

Seems like pretty sound business strategy to me.

By the way, to those who say JJ is cheapest owner in sports? Ancient history -- as that is NOT the case now. Also, as some others point out, it seems increasingly likely that HS was the curmudgeon in Boston and JJ was just following the advise of a hockey legend (one that, sadly, could not even remotely keep up with the modern league by the time he was forced out).
That statement in bold is just rewriting history, IMO. Sinden was running the team and given the parameters of how to do so by ownership. If you honestly think a businessman like Jacobs was simply following the advice of Sinden, then I'm not sure what to say. Sinden may have not given out many overpriced deals and was a hardline negotiator, but I'm more than confident that Jacobs praised profitability more than anything else. If Sinden hadn't managed to keep salaries down, then he'd have been ousted.

To further illustrate my point, was it Harry Sinden pushing hard for the cost certainty of a hard cap during the last CBA? Yeah, I didn't think so. Don't paint Jacobs as some naive owner who didn't understand how the NHL worked. He's a shrewd businessman, and he has his finger on the pulse of every business he's involved in. He gave Sinden his orders. Just because Sinden seemed to delight in executing them doesn't mean Jacobs was naive.

LSCII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 02:51 PM
  #28
Number8
Registered User
 
Number8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,092
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
That statement in bold is just rewriting history, IMO. Sinden was running the team and given the parameters of how to do so by ownership. If you honestly think a businessman like Jacobs was simply following the advice of Sinden, then I'm not sure what to say. Sinden may have not given out many overpriced deals and was a hardline negotiator, but I'm more than confident that Jacobs praised profitability more than anything else. If Sinden hadn't managed to keep salaries down, then he'd have been ousted.

To further illustrate my point, was it Harry Sinden pushing hard for the cost certainty of a hard cap during the last CBA? Yeah, I didn't think so. Don't paint Jacobs as some naive owner who didn't understand how the NHL worked. He's a shrewd businessman, and he has his finger on the pulse of every business he's involved in. He gave Sinden his orders. Just because Sinden seemed to delight in executing them doesn't mean Jacobs was naive.
You are right.... I was perhaps guilty of some hyperbole. However, I do think there is some middle ground.

You are correct that JJ was not naively following the whims of HS. At the same time (and as you point out) Harry joined into vindictive fights with his players with a bit more gusto than someone who was merely doing the bidding of his boss.

I think they were a match made in heaven and collectively put the Bruins and their fans through some horribly, and unnecessarily, dark days.

Whatever the reasons, I am glad that Harry is gone and that JJ has changed his ways. I say that because you can say a lot of things about JJ but one cannot argue that he is a penny pincher these days.

By the way, I still harbor deep resentments against JJ and HS. I was around for Harry's hey days and loved him for it, but cannot forgive some of the things he did later in his career when he was little more than a bitter dinosaur.

Number8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 04:04 PM
  #29
BubbaBoot
Registered User
 
BubbaBoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Fenway
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 10,992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taz#24 View Post
.

That said, I really like what PC has done here, he has been patient with players and coaching staff, never really having knee jerk reactions. His way of doing business has really stabilized this franchise since taking over. I know some have concerns about the future cap situation but I think he has a plan. If I had to guess, SEGUIN will eventually make KREJCI expendable, BERGERON will be re-uped between now and his pending UFA status in 14 and be the long term #2 guy (6.5ish per) and guys like SPOONER/KNIGHT etc will slide into the line-up. HORTON will either take a "bromance" discount (4.5-5.0 ish) so he can hang with LUCIC or he'll be allowed to test the UFA market. THOMAS' money will go toward re-uping RASK and SAVARD's money will be utilized as buffer.

By 13-14 opener we may see something like...

LUCIC-SEGUIN-HORTON
MARCHAND-BERGERON-KNIGHT
KELLY-SPOONER-PEVERLEY
PAILLE-CAMPBELL-THORNTON
CARON?

CHARA-BOYCHUK
SEIDENBERG-HAMILTON
FERENCE-MCQUAID
CROSS

RASK
SUBBAN
Hopefully this is true.

Because the last time this happened most GM's were aware of the possibility of a lockout being a reality and prepared for it, with a lot of short term contracts. For the Bruins it was a wholesale flushing of the team with disastrous results.

2005-06 (29-37-16 / 74 points) holdovers from 2003-04 (41-19-15-7 / 104 points) team.
CTR
- Patrice Bergeron
- Joe Thornton (then infamously traded).
- Travis Green (moved from RW to CTR)

gone
- Ted Donato
- Brian Ralston (one of three bad non-resignings)
- Andy Hilbert
- Kris Vernasky
- Michael Nylander

signed on
- Brad Boyes
- Wayne Primeau (via Thornton trade)
- Marty Reasoner
- Dave Scratchard
- Yan Stastny

RW
- Marty Lapointe
- Glen Murray (Trading of Thornton post-lockout started his decline?)

gone
- Michael Grosek
- Sandy McCarthy
- Martin Samuelsson

signed on
- Tom Fitzgerald
- Brad Isbister
- Mariusz Czerkawski (33 yr old waiver pickup. Released and then never played in NHL again)
- Josh Langfield
- Eric Nickulas

LW
- Mike Knuble (second and the worst non-resigning)
- PJ Axelsson
- Sergei Samsonov

gone
- Rob Zamuner
- Doug Doull

signed on
- Dan LaCouture
- Patrick Healy
- Shawn McEachern (36 yrs old)
- Marco Sturm (via Thornton trade)

DEF
- Hal Gill
- Nick Boynton
- Jiri Slegr (injured for half season. never played in NHL again.)
- Ian Moran

gone
- Shaone Morrisson
- Sean O'Donnell (the third bad non-resigning)
- Sergei Gonchar (deadline pick-up)
- Dan McGillis
- Jeff Jillson

signed on
- Andrew Alberts
- Milan Jurcina
- Kevin Dallman
- Brian Leetch
- Brad Stuart (via Thornton trade)
- David Tanabe

GK
- Andrew Raycroft

gone
- Felix Potvin

signed on
- Tim Thomas
- Hannu Toivonen

I don't know what happened.....pretty much only 12 guys were retained and some of those let go were stiffs. Was the use of a lot of inexperienced rookies, especially on defense (because they were cheaper?) on the 05-06 team the problem? Were the UFA pick-ups just garbage? Did the transition result in no continuity?....it was almost as drastic as an expansion team.

Lordy, just thinking about the last time a lockout happened just gives me shivers. All I know is this core group is a helluva lot stronger.....with a Cup under their belt to boot. Barring injuries it is rosier looking group than the last time.

BubbaBoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 08:32 AM
  #30
BMC
PerJohan Axelsson
 
BMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Northeastern CT
Country: United States
Posts: 21,247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Quincy View Post
Because people, organizations, situations never change and are frozen in time forever?

The Jacobs were cheap. They aren't any more.

It's not as hard as you are making it.
IMO they have learned that sometimes in order to make money you have to spend money. By making serious investments in their players the Bruins filled their arena on a regular basis and made huge amounts of money on their merchandise. You can bet JJ has seen the difference winning can make to the bottom line.

BMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 08:47 AM
  #31
Therick67
Registered User
 
Therick67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South of Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 4,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMC View Post
IMO they have learned that sometimes in order to make money you have to spend money. By making serious investments in their players the Bruins filled their arena on a regular basis and made huge amounts of money on their merchandise. You can bet JJ has seen the difference winning can make to the bottom line.
This. I'm sure he only has to look back at some of the lousy teams they iced earler in the 2000's. A full house, lots of beer sales, lots of Lucic jerseys, advertising and not being the laughing stock of Boston sports = more money for JJ.

Therick67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 10:04 AM
  #32
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 8,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Quincy View Post
Because people, organizations, situations never change and are frozen in time forever?

The Jacobs were cheap. They aren't any more.

It's not as hard as you are making it.
More like they were practical businessmen.

And still are.

Only difference now is that there is a league dictated Cap instead of an owner enforced budget.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 10:20 AM
  #33
Therick67
Registered User
 
Therick67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South of Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 4,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
More like they were practical businessmen.

And still are.

Only difference now is that there is a league dictated Cap instead of an owner enforced budget.
JJ an Harry were saving the league, at the expense of Bruins fans. Great, all those years of spending top dollar and watching other teams win. Atlest I can look back at all those years without a cup and know Harry & JJ were doing the noble thing.
I understand these guys want to make money, but the goal of most pro sorts owners is to win. You usually don't see owners say, 'we are here to make money'.

Therick67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 10:28 AM
  #34
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 25,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therick67 View Post
JJ an Harry were saving the league, at the expense of Bruins fans. Great, all those years of spending top dollar and watching other teams win. Atlest I can look back at all those years without a cup and know Harry & JJ were doing the noble thing.
I understand these guys want to make money, but the goal of most pro sorts owners is to win. You usually don't see owners say, 'we are here to make money'.
That's the irony of the cap being in place, isn't it? That Jacobs spends up to it is heralded as proof of him changing his ways, but does anyone really think that he'd be spending the dollars to compete with free spending teams if there were no cap? The only thing the cap did was bring those free spending teams back to earth and level the playing field for traditionally fiscally responsible teams like Boston. It didn't change the fact that Jacobs has always looked at the team as a business first and foremost. The concept of being championship driven isn't what's important to him. Turning a profit is. No big deal and I get it, but throwing this straw man argument about spending to the cap as if it proves something is just silly.

LSCII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 11:24 PM
  #35
Cabin Mirror
Registered User
 
Cabin Mirror's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North America
Posts: 415
vCash: 500
It's the former. If it was up to the Jacobs', they wouldn't be spending this money.

Cabin Mirror is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 10:31 AM
  #36
trenton1
Paille Good
 
trenton1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Loge 31 Row 10
Country: Belize
Posts: 6,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
For several years before the salary cap era, the Bruins were among the top third in the league in spending.

Jacobs and Sinden got a bad rap for trying to keep salaries from skyrocketing. Look what has happened, just as they foresaw; double digit year contracts and salaries that hamstring some clubs. New Jersey is an example.

I applaud Jacobs and Sinden for their efforts at financial responsibility. The league failed to take notice. Now, another work stoppage for owners to try to rein in salaries and expenses.
They broke their own rules on the rookie deal with Joe Thornton and with the insane personal vendetta contract given to Martin Lapointe. That's 2 reasons why more notice wasn't given.

trenton1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 11:49 AM
  #37
toomanymen
Registered User
 
toomanymen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,300
vCash: 500
I believe since the cap era began, the Jacobs have been close to, or at the cap each year. The 'cheap' days have been over for a long time. Before that, while they didn't act like the Rangers or Leafs it seemed that every time they did try to spend bigger (Stevens, Mullen etc.) it backfired. Good business people don't repeat the same mistakes too often. Now, if you want to say good business people would have replaced Sinden earlier, then I'm listening.

toomanymen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 02:27 PM
  #38
smithformeragent
Moderator
 
smithformeragent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Manchester NH
Country: United States
Posts: 9,273
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to smithformeragent
The salary cap is good i principal, but was very flawed because of the loopholes.

smithformeragent is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:26 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.