HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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.

Lockout V: Take the Long Way Home

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-17-2012, 01:40 PM
  #101
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyhounds View Post
It's the same talking heads that keep making stupid comments, isn't it?

slam just had an article on Chara, saying all he wants is for the lockout to end. This from a guy who just a few weeks ago was spouting some non-sensical PA propaganda. Does that sound to anyone, like a guy who will be voting for the disclaimer? Do you think all the other cowardly lemmings hiding in Europe feel a whole lot different? Pacioretty can't even pay his bills, that sound like someone who will be voting for the disclaimer?

Say Horcoff, I have an idea. Why don't you try growing some brain cells? Anything's worth a shot, when you don't seem to have any.
What you have to question is whether they'll vote based on their own self interests, of if they'll vote on what they think will be best for the PA as a whole, or if they'll just vote based on what crap Fehr has sprouted lately.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 01:41 PM
  #102
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Keep in mind that this isn't a vote to decertify, it's a vote to allow the board to vote on decertifying.
So essentially another stall tactic. They vote yes now, put more pressure on the situation primarily by eating up more time; and then if that doesn't work they vote no later (likely).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
What you have to question is whether they'll vote based on their own self interests, of if they'll vote on what they think will be best for the PA as a whole, or if they'll just vote based on what crap Fehr has sprouted lately.
Or if they vote: This isn't what we bought into this for!

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 01:44 PM
  #103
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Keep in mind that this isn't a vote to decertify, it's a vote to allow the board to vote on decertifying.
Semantics. The leadership of the union wouldn't be carrying out this vote unless they intended to have it in their quiver on, let's say, the day before the NHL drop dead date.

tantalum is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 01:46 PM
  #104
Falconone
Registered User
 
Falconone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Suburb of Boston MA
Country: United States
Posts: 192
vCash: 500
Betterin the movies

WHAT WE HAVE HERE BOYS, IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE !

LOL

we shall see what we shall see..........

Great Theater...... would make even better reality TV *S*

Falconone is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 01:49 PM
  #105
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
Semantics. The leadership of the union wouldn't be carrying out this vote unless they intended to have it in their quiver on, let's say, the day before the NHL drop dead date.
The thing is though, as far as I'm understanding, decertifying takes away from the players as much as it gives. And eventually they'll want to form a union again and then they're all back to square one. However the owners handle the situation will obviously be different from when there was a union, but that's all likely to revert back just as soon as the players unionize again; and are the owners going to be any softer then... Haha... High hopes!

If the players do ultimately decertify, I understand that it means that the Salary Cap is then void. However, would there be anything preventing owners from offering only short contracts, or would that be considered "colusion".


Last edited by MoreOrr: 12-17-2012 at 01:54 PM.
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 02:09 PM
  #106
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
The thing is though, as far as I'm understanding, decertifying takes away from the players as much as it gives. And eventually they'll want to form a union again and then they're all back to square one. However the owners handle the situation will obviously be different from when there was a union, but that's all likely to revert back just as soon as the players unionize again; and are the owners going to be any softer then... Haha... High hopes!

If the players do ultimately decertify, I understand that it means that the Salary Cap is then void. However, would there be anything preventing owners from offering only short contracts, or would that be considered "colusion".
Nothing at all, but nothing forced the owners to give out long term contracts like the Kovalchuk deal except competition with each other. So if Pittsburgh only offers Sidney Crosby a 5 year deal at $10 million per they'll be blown away when the Rangers offer a 10 year deal a $15 per with most of it up front in a signing bonus. You might think that will only happen for the big names but once they are all signed and many teams are struggling to fill a roster guess what happens when Christian Ehrhoff is the best player left? He gets tons of money and term.

Halibut is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 02:10 PM
  #107
HavlatMach9
Registered User
 
HavlatMach9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,552
vCash: 500
So which do we want?

Vote passes on DOI authorization > puts pressure on both sides to come to an agreement, could drag on

Vote doesn't pass > all pressure on the PA? because I can't think of their next course of action

HavlatMach9 is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 02:14 PM
  #108
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
Nothing at all, but nothing forced the owners to give out long term contracts like the Kovalchuk deal except competition with each other. So if Pittsburgh only offers Sidney Crosby a 5 year deal at $10 million per they'll be blown away when the Rangers offer a 10 year deal a $15 per with most of it up front in a signing bonus. You might think that will only happen for the big names but once they are all signed and many teams are struggling to fill a roster guess what happens when Christian Ehrhoff is the best player left? He gets tons of money and term.
You missed the point of my question. If the owners know that the players will reunionize in 1 year and then the CBA negotiations are back on the table... What's the point of offering more than 1 year contracts?

I certainly wouldn't be offering more than 1 year contracts. I'd say look, I can pay you as much as I want during this 1 year, but once the union is back and then the Salary Cap returns, I have to cut costs to be within the Cap. Offering more than 1 year contracts then create a problem.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 02:26 PM
  #109
Greyhounds
Registered User
 
Greyhounds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Nashua
Country: United States
Posts: 11,049
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
What you have to question is whether they'll vote based on their own self interests, of if they'll vote on what they think will be best for the PA as a whole, or if they'll just vote based on what crap Fehr has sprouted lately.
That's what I'm afraid of. Most of these guys are teens to early twenties. That mostly means one thing: gullible and malleable. No question that's what Fehr is counting on.

Greyhounds is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 02:30 PM
  #110
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyhounds View Post
That's what I'm afraid of. Most of these guys are teens to early twenties. That mostly means one thing: gullible and malleable. No question that's what Fehr is counting on.
Would decertification also open the door to teams being able to acquire recently drafted young talents away from their drafting team? I can see the exodus of the Oilers young talents now. It would be carnage in Edmonton.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 02:36 PM
  #111
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
You missed the point of my question. If the owners know that the players will reunionize in 1 year and then the CBA negotiations are back on the table... What's the point of offering more than 1 year contracts?

I certainly wouldn't be offering more than 1 year contracts. I'd say look, I can pay you as much as I want during this 1 year, but once the union is back and then the Salary Cap returns, I have to cut costs to be within the Cap. Offering more than 1 year contracts then create a problem.
I would think any longer term contracts would be invalidated if players joined a union and agreed to be bound by a CBA. That's something that would likely have to be worked out when or if a union is formed. Assuming that a union forms again is a little bit presumptious though. There seems to be more and more thought that unionizing doesnt really provide much benefit for pro athletes.

Halibut is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 02:40 PM
  #112
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,528
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Would decertification also open the door to teams being able to acquire recently drafted young talents away from their drafting team? I can see the exodus of the Oilers young talents now. It would be carnage in Edmonton.
That would be the idea. Exclusive bargaining rights are not legally enforceable unless they are given with the agreement of the player in question, or in a collective bargaining agreement with the players' bargaining agent (the union).

Thirty teams agreeing among themselves that only one of them can negotiate with a particular player forms collusion: restraint of trade and all that bad stuff.

Mork is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 02:44 PM
  #113
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,332
vCash: 500
The players should definitely vote to approve executive power to disclaim interest.

Overwhelming majority is pretty much guaranteed, since they've all been told this is necessary for the process (which is BS).

Even though I think it's a complete sham, until proven otherwise it's a legitimate weapon that they should have in their arsenal.

However, it should NOT take a whole WEEK to get only 700 people to vote. That's insane and a waste of precious time.

Also, the whole point of a threat is that you don't have to actually do it...it just has to be possible. So they should be negotiating, right now. The league's preemptive lawsuit has already started this phase of the game, so waiting for the player vote is just stalling.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 02:53 PM
  #114
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
Teams can't just move. they have leases. You can't just contract teams. People paid for the teams. I just don't get how all these canadian people on this forum think the answer is moving teams. I am sure same canadian fans didn't like it when teams in winnipeg and quebec city moved out and there was talk of moving edmonton or calgary. No one here in the US was saying get rid of the canadian teams last lock out.

Why do you guys over value your markets so much? <snip> If the US government fixes things by raising taxes and cutting expenditures in a few weeks you will be right back to where you were a few years ago.

Failing franchised, contraction, and moving franchises around isn't good for the league. The teams are not competing each other. They are competing against other sports leagues and other entertainment sources.
The league is a lot different today than it was 20 years ago. Winnipeg and Quebec City moved for 2 reasons. Both teams needed new arena's, and neither team could find a buyer who would keep the team in either of those locations. In addition to both teams needing new arenas, the Canadian dollar was at an alltime low (.55-.60 cents on the dollar - IIRC). Kind of the same as the crap that Phoenix is experiencing (in terms of trying to find an owner willing to keep the team there). So much so that the only way someone will consider buying the team and committing to Phoenix is if the city gives them a very healthy arena management deal.

The reason fans cry for more Canadian teams is two fold. One because we're patriotic, and we see hockey (rightly or wrongly) as our game. And two is because it's hard to argue that a team in Hamilton/Southern Ontario/Toronto#2 or a team in Quebec City would not do infinitely better than Phoenix is doing - even if the US's economy improved, and Canada's tanked. That's not to say that there's not markets in the US (Seattle, Houston, etc) that would not do better than Phoenix.

I'm not advocating that we relocate a ton of teams (and this is where I'm probably in the minority). Heck I'm not really even advocating that we move anyone other than Phoenix. Mainly because I know it's not really feasible, or practicable, or really necessary. And I think that expansion is far more realistic and practicable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
atomic is partially right about players not exactly jumping to play in Canada. Basically the only Canadian teams that gets FA's is Toronto. The Edmonton crap with Pronger last until 2010 and that was the cap era. People, especially the younger guys are not jumping up to play in Edmonton. These guys grow up and they want to live in warmer climates. Look at the stink the yotes made two years ago about moving to Winnipeg. It was unnecessary but we got to see what the average Canadian think once they get a taste of the constant sunshine and low taxes. Canadians need to be serious and realize all that stuff that's said is probably true.
Pronger was something else, but you can't really paint all Canadian cities with that brush. Vancouver signed Garrison (paid too much, imo, but they still signed him), and he was highly sought after. Edmonton just got Schultz - someone who every team in the league wanted - and Edmonton could NOT over pay him due to him being on an ELC, they also signed Souray a while back (highly sought after). Calgary hasn't done much recently (mind you their team's been on a decline for a few years now - sorry Flames fans). Montreal signed Cammilari and Gionta a couple years ago. Toronto signed a few UFAs.

Yes there's differences in living in some places in Canada, and in some places in the US (snow vs sandy beaches, etc). I don't think anyone doubts that. So while some teams may have issues attracting star players, that shouldn't be a reason why we slam them. Regardless of that, those teams will still be in much better shape financially than many of their US counter parts. Even if the dollar went back to .75 (which is where it was at in 04), those teams are still in better shape. Not a lot, but they're not losing millions yearly. Something to keep in mind, is that when 30%+ of the revenue is Canadian based, that when the dollar goes down (will happen at some point), the NHL's HRR will likely decrease... meaning that the cap/floor will drop as well.

Riptide is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 03:02 PM
  #115
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
Semantics. The leadership of the union wouldn't be carrying out this vote unless they intended to have it in their quiver on, let's say, the day before the NHL drop dead date.
Not really. TSN indicated that it gives the board until Jan 2nd to vote. So the PA now has from now (well Thursday) to Jan 2nd to use it as a threat against the NHL, to try and get better terms. Then from my understanding they'll need the players approval again if they didn't carry through on their threat between Thursday and Jan 2nd.

The big thing is if the players agree to give the board that power, then its most likely that they (the board) would go through with it.

I suspect that it will pass. But man-o-man would it ever be funny if it didn't pass. The PA would be screwed, and the NHL would have even less reasons to lessen their demands.

Riptide is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 03:15 PM
  #116
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Not really. TSN indicated that it gives the board until Jan 2nd to vote. So the PA now has from now (well Thursday) to Jan 2nd to use it as a threat against the NHL, to try and get better terms. Then from my understanding they'll need the players approval again if they didn't carry through on their threat between Thursday and Jan 2nd.

The big thing is if the players agree to give the board that power, then its most likely that they (the board) would go through with it.

I suspect that it will pass. But man-o-man would it ever be funny if it didn't pass. The PA would be screwed, and the NHL would have even less reasons to lessen their demands.
And this is exactly why it will pass, with "huge" numbers. Even the slowest players can see that a "No" vote would kill their leverage and the NHL would pull more off the table. The NHLPA leadership has backed their membership into a corner and a "Yes" vote is the only answer.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 03:15 PM
  #117
Greyhounds
Registered User
 
Greyhounds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Nashua
Country: United States
Posts: 11,049
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Would decertification also open the door to teams being able to acquire recently drafted young talents away from their drafting team? I can see the exodus of the Oilers young talents now. It would be carnage in Edmonton.
That would be exciting for everyone but the Oilers. One way or another the league would put controls in to prevent this. I doubt the league plays another game, until a new union is formed/certified.

What would really be interesting is if they decertified, and another party (say Paul Kelly and Mark Recchi) stepped in to certify, receiving majority support.

Regardless, if they decertify, there won't be any hockey this year, and probably next.

Greyhounds is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 03:17 PM
  #118
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
The league is a lot different today than it was 20 years ago. Winnipeg and Quebec City moved for 2 reasons. Both teams needed new arena's, and neither team could find a buyer who would keep the team in either of those locations. In addition to both teams needing new arenas, the Canadian dollar was at an alltime low (.55-.60 cents on the dollar - IIRC). Kind of the same as the crap that Phoenix is experiencing (in terms of trying to find an owner willing to keep the team there). So much so that the only way someone will consider buying the team and committing to Phoenix is if the city gives them a very healthy arena management deal.

The reason fans cry for more Canadian teams is two fold. One because we're patriotic, and we see hockey (rightly or wrongly) as our game. And two is because it's hard to argue that a team in Hamilton/Southern Ontario/Toronto#2 or a team in Quebec City would not do infinitely better than Phoenix is doing - even if the US's economy improved, and Canada's tanked. That's not to say that there's not markets in the US (Seattle, Houston, etc) that would not do better than Phoenix.

I'm not advocating that we relocate a ton of teams (and this is where I'm probably in the minority). Heck I'm not really even advocating that we move anyone other than Phoenix. Mainly because I know it's not really feasible, or practicable, or really necessary. And I think that expansion is far more realistic and practicable.



Pronger was something else, but you can't really paint all Canadian cities with that brush. Vancouver signed Garrison (paid too much, imo, but they still signed him), and he was highly sought after. Edmonton just got Schultz - someone who every team in the league wanted - and Edmonton could NOT over pay him due to him being on an ELC, they also signed Souray a while back (highly sought after). Calgary hasn't done much recently (mind you their team's been on a decline for a few years now - sorry Flames fans). Montreal signed Cammilari and Gionta a couple years ago. Toronto signed a few UFAs.

Yes there's differences in living in some places in Canada, and in some places in the US (snow vs sandy beaches, etc). I don't think anyone doubts that. So while some teams may have issues attracting star players, that shouldn't be a reason why we slam them. Regardless of that, those teams will still be in much better shape financially than many of their US counter parts. Even if the dollar went back to .75 (which is where it was at in 04), those teams are still in better shape. Not a lot, but they're not losing millions yearly. Something to keep in mind, is that when 30%+ of the revenue is Canadian based, that when the dollar goes down (will happen at some point), the NHL's HRR will likely decrease... meaning that the cap/floor will drop as well.
I have looked at the destinations of top FAs in the past. It is really a narrow list of teams that grab top of market FAs and I look at it over a very extended timespan. Most of the guys that have been named were not the top available at their position in that year which has been my criteria regarding the attractiveness of markets.

There was an article and poll some time ago about the players' opinions of cities as destinations. Edmonton and Buffalo were bottom of the list. I don't share the opinion but it is what it is. There have also been some teams that were previously rejected for what I would term very unfriendly relations with their respective front offices. It was obvious which teams those were.

Summarizing, NY and Philly topped the list as favorite destination. Chicago (recently), Boston, Colorado and Detroit were up there. Nashville and Anaheim had one off entries in the sweepstakes. Toronto and Montreal have frequently seen entries in the second tier of FAs, but never the first tier (best available at the postion, forward, dman, goalie).

SJeasy is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 03:20 PM
  #119
Greyhounds
Registered User
 
Greyhounds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Nashua
Country: United States
Posts: 11,049
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
And this is exactly why it will pass, with "huge" numbers. Even the slowest players can see that a "No" vote would kill their leverage and the NHL would pull more off the table. The NHLPA leadership has backed their membership into a corner and a "Yes" vote is the only answer.
So are you saying that hockey players don't have balls?

Not sure what leverage anyone thinks they would be getting. The NHL's best offer is already on the table.

Greyhounds is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 03:25 PM
  #120
KPower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyhounds View Post
So are you saying that hockey players don't have balls?

Not sure what leverage anyone thinks they would be getting. The NHL's best offer is already on the table.
If the best offer is on the table, there will be no season.

KPower is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 03:26 PM
  #121
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,528
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
. . . it should NOT take a whole WEEK to get only 700 people to vote. That's insane and a waste of precious time . . . So they should be negotiating, right now . . .
Negotiating what? The NHL's most recent "take it or leave" offer?

That's not a negotiation; it's merely a decision to . . . well . . . take it or leave it.

It's quite possible that faced with this choice, the NHLPA decided to leave the NHL's offer on the table. Having exhausted all other means of negotiation, the only thing left to do would be to take steps to decertify.

Short of accepting the league's last offer, there's nothing more that could be done to resolve the work stoppage.

Mork is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 03:28 PM
  #122
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyhounds View Post
That would be exciting for everyone but the Oilers. One way or another the league would put controls in to prevent this. I doubt the league plays another game, until a new union is formed/certified.

What would really be interesting is if they decertified, and another party (say Paul Kelly and Mark Recchi) stepped in to certify, receiving majority support.

Regardless, if they decertify, there won't be any hockey this year, and probably next.
That would be the best route, I'm thinking, for the owners to take. Dealing with the players on a decertified basis would be an astronomical step backwards for the League; extremely few teams would benefit from it in the short term. And we know that the owners have stood together in bringing the League to where it is today, none of them are going to want to destroy all of that.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 03:32 PM
  #123
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mork View Post
Negotiating what? The NHL's most recent "take it or leave" offer?

That's not a negotiation; it's merely a decision to . . . well . . . take it or leave it.

It's quite possible that faced with this choice, the NHLPA decided to leave the NHL's offer on the table. Having exhausted all other means of negotiation, the only thing left to do would be to take steps to decertify.

Short of accepting the league's last offer, there's nothing more that could be done to resolve the work stoppage.
But all disclaimer of interest does is accelerate the negotiation process. It would take years to fight and win an antitrust suit.

Besides, how can all other means of negotiation be exhausted...when even an antitrust suit relies on the THREAT of uncertainty....to spur NEGOTIATION.

Essentially what you're saying is that there's no room to negotiate now...which is tantamount to saying that a deal is impossible to reach anyhow.

In short, I completely disagree. If the NHLPA were to table an offer right now that only changes ONE of the THREE owner demands and gives up on compliance buyouts, I guarantee that would restart negotiations.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 03:42 PM
  #124
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
And this is exactly why it will pass, with "huge" numbers. Even the slowest players can see that a "No" vote would kill their leverage and the NHL would pull more off the table. The NHLPA leadership has backed their membership into a corner and a "Yes" vote is the only answer.
Agreed.

Riptide is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 03:52 PM
  #125
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
I have looked at the destinations of top FAs in the past. It is really a narrow list of teams that grab top of market FAs and I look at it over a very extended timespan. Most of the guys that have been named were not the top available at their position in that year which has been my criteria regarding the attractiveness of markets.

There was an article and poll some time ago about the players' opinions of cities as destinations. Edmonton and Buffalo were bottom of the list. I don't share the opinion but it is what it is. There have also been some teams that were previously rejected for what I would term very unfriendly relations with their respective front offices. It was obvious which teams those were.

Summarizing, NY and Philly topped the list as favorite destination. Chicago (recently), Boston, Colorado and Detroit were up there. Nashville and Anaheim had one off entries in the sweepstakes. Toronto and Montreal have frequently seen entries in the second tier of FAs, but never the first tier (best available at the postion, forward, dman, goalie).
Not doubting what you found out. But was it put into context as well? How many top end FA's were available, and how relative/competitive were Canadian teams at that time? Since the lockout, only Ottawa, Montreal, Vancouver and Edmonton (briefly anyway) had competitive teams. Teams go through cycles of having success, and rebuilding/retooling. When Edmonton is blowing goats like they have the last few years, it doesn't surprise me in the least that a star player didn't sign there.

My point is there's so much that goes into a player making this decision that while we can point and go Canadian teams never get the top UFA's, it's not that simple. There's 30 teams in the league... and that UFA can only sign with one of them. They all have their own reasons for choosing the team they choose (competitiveness, money, location, team/GM/ownership environment, etc), and that saying that players only go to these locations is generalizing too much.

Riptide 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 04:57 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.