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.

Another Interesting Article from Bob McKenzie

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-21-2004, 09:09 AM
  #1
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Another Interesting Article from Bob McKenzie

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp

As it turns out, some of the most damaging contracts NHL ownership handed out weren't dumb at all.

Let's use Montreal's signing of goalie Jose Theodore as an example.

Theodore was making $1.65 million in the 01-02 season, when he won the Hart and Vezina trophies. Coming into the next season, the Habs were under extraordinary pressure to get a new deal done with Theodore. That 'under the gun' mentality was based on his accomplishments of the year before as well as the fact he's a good-looking, francophone hockey hero in a puck-crazed marketplace. If the Canadiens started the season without him, the fans and media would cause a kerfuffle like no other.



But Theodore's contract -- big bucks for a goalie with limited NHL experience -- turned out to be the catalyst for hyper-inflation of goaltender contracts throughout the league. Jean-Sebastien Giguere in Anaheim, Marty Turco in Dallas, Evgeni Nabokov in San Jose, and virtually every young No. 1 goalie in the league...they all used Theodore as the leverage to get huge salary increases. Theodore's deal, after all, can be used in salary arbitration.


A good read on how one teams decision escalates salaries throughout the league...

djhn579 is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 04:38 PM
  #2
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp

As it turns out, some of the most damaging contracts NHL ownership handed out weren't dumb at all.

Let's use Montreal's signing of goalie Jose Theodore as an example.

Theodore was making $1.65 million in the 01-02 season, when he won the Hart and Vezina trophies. Coming into the next season, the Habs were under extraordinary pressure to get a new deal done with Theodore. That 'under the gun' mentality was based on his accomplishments of the year before as well as the fact he's a good-looking, francophone hockey hero in a puck-crazed marketplace. If the Canadiens started the season without him, the fans and media would cause a kerfuffle like no other.



But Theodore's contract -- big bucks for a goalie with limited NHL experience -- turned out to be the catalyst for hyper-inflation of goaltender contracts throughout the league. Jean-Sebastien Giguere in Anaheim, Marty Turco in Dallas, Evgeni Nabokov in San Jose, and virtually every young No. 1 goalie in the league...they all used Theodore as the leverage to get huge salary increases. Theodore's deal, after all, can be used in salary arbitration.


A good read on how one teams decision escalates salaries throughout the league...
gee, a poor, defenseless Canadian team like that, how can they compete?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 04:43 PM
  #3
Legolas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 770
vCash: 500
It seems to me that this article only proves further that owners are idiots. If an agent says "My player is just as good as Jose Theodore, pay him the same" then the response obviously is "Go and see if Montreal will give him the same contract then, because we sure can't afford to in our market, etc." A hardline for sure, but when all the owners are taking a smart position on contracts, players and agents lose leverage.

Legolas is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 04:46 PM
  #4
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legolas
It seems to me that this article only proves further that owners are idiots. If an agent says "My player is just as good as Jose Theodore, pay him the same" then the response obviously is "Go and see if Montreal will give him the same contract then, because we sure can't afford to in our market, etc." A hardline for sure, but when all the owners are taking a smart position on contracts, players and agents lose leverage.
Well said, the owners and GM's have to start to use some common $en$e!!!

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 04:52 PM
  #5
montreal
Go Habs Go
 
montreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Sark
Posts: 23,695
vCash: 500
Bob fails to say that none of those goalies just came off a MVP and Vezina season. If they used Theodore's contract as a base, then the gms' are too stupid to realize that the Habs had the best goalie in the league and the NHL's top player, at the time of the contract. What other goalie can say that? So why base their contracts on that one?

I do think that deal stinks and is going to give Gainey trouble after this year when he's up for another contract. Theodore has been a problem to sign twice already and Savard didn't help any by giving him so much money.

As for McKenzie, I got an idea, why not bring up one of the worst contracts I've seen in the NHL, the rangers giving Holik 45M? Why do an article on Theodore and his 16.5M, who at least was named top goalie and MVP of the entire NHL. Holik at 9M is a damn joke.

montreal is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 04:55 PM
  #6
Legolas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal
Bob fails to say that none of those goalies just came off a MVP and Vezina season. If they used Theodore's contract as a base, then the gms' are too stupid to realize that the Habs had the best goalie in the league and the NHL's top player, at the time of the contract. What other goalie can say that? So why base their contracts on that one?

I do think that deal stinks and is going to give Gainey trouble after this year when he's up for another contract. Theodore has been a problem to sign twice already and Savard didn't help any by giving him so much money.

As for McKenzie, I got an idea, why not bring up one of the worst contracts I've seen in the NHL, the rangers giving Holik 45M? Why do an article on Theodore and his 16.5M, who at least was named top goalie and MVP of the entire NHL. Holik at 9M is a damn joke.
I think his point is that Holik's contract and Jagr's contract weren't used as measuring sticks for future deals, which I find hard to believe. I'm sure Chris Pronger's agent brought up all the $10 million guys when he was doing his deal.

As for Theodore, like all players he'll have to take less money on his next deal most likely, and if he's smart, he'll understand he wants to be the next Martin Brodeur, not the next Jocelyn Thibault. Staying in Montreal, even with all of the inherent distractions and issues that Theodore faces, is the best move for him to make...but then again I'm biased!

Legolas is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 05:14 PM
  #7
guitaraholic*
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 898
vCash: 500
don't mix apples and oranges, guys, as deals signed by UFAs like Holik cannot be used in arbitration cases. Furthermore Pronger's 10 mill a year contract was more a response to the Ducks having just given Kariya, at the time considered the best young forward in the game as Pronger was (and still is) considered the best dman in the game (or one of the top 2) so it was a comparison of another player in the same age bracket. Again, perhaps some of YOU are forgetting that Pronger signed that deal after having won the Hart and Norris Trophys which hadn't been done since Orr. If YOUR team had given Pronger that money under those circumstances NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU would be complaining about it now, would you?

Having re-read some of the previous posts I think you guys seriously need to brush up on the history of Pronger's contracts with the Blues....

guitaraholic* is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 07:12 PM
  #8
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guitaraholic
don't mix apples and oranges, guys, as deals signed by UFAs like Holik cannot be used in arbitration cases. Furthermore Pronger's 10 mill a year contract was more a response to the Ducks having just given Kariya, at the time considered the best young forward in the game as Pronger was (and still is) considered the best dman in the game (or one of the top 2) so it was a comparison of another player in the same age bracket.
Exactly the point. The best thing for the NHL about the Theodore contract is that it set the bar. Turco, Giguere and Nabokov got significantly less because they have not won either a Hart or a Vezina. The top guy sets the top wage and the rest follow. Pronger and Kariya are a little different because both guys came into the league before this CBA. They set the bar for a different age group.

Pronger is still getting $10 million because St. Louis had to qualify him or let him go like Kariya was let go. They decided to keep him.

The defenseman who set the bar for post CBA dollars is Jovanovski. The forward who set the bar for forwards is Iginla. As McKenzie noted for goalies it is Theodore.

This is a point that has not been made very loudly by the NHLPA. I suppose it is because it is too complicated to fit into a sound bite. The bar for the very best is lower today than it was five years ago. The difference between players who came into the league before the entry level salary cap system was imposed and those who came in after is quite striking.

It is very hard to argue that the entry level system has not provided a significant drag on salaries.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 07:43 PM
  #9
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,311
vCash: 500
And a 10% drop in contracts should continue that trend even more, as the bar will be 10% lower.

Of course some fans are trying to make the case that because players under the ALS get 110% qualifying offers, the 10% rasie would be wiped out. Of course. Why didnt I think of it. The problem with the CBA is that players get raises.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 07:57 PM
  #10
montreal
Go Habs Go
 
montreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Sark
Posts: 23,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guitaraholic
don't mix apples and oranges, guys, as deals signed by UFAs like Holik cannot be used in arbitration cases. Furthermore Pronger's 10 mill a year contract was more a response to the Ducks having just given Kariya, at the time considered the best young forward in the game as Pronger was (and still is) considered the best dman in the game (or one of the top 2) so it was a comparison of another player in the same age bracket. Again, perhaps some of YOU are forgetting that Pronger signed that deal after having won the Hart and Norris Trophys which hadn't been done since Orr. If YOUR team had given Pronger that money under those circumstances NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU would be complaining about it now, would you?

Having re-read some of the previous posts I think you guys seriously need to brush up on the history of Pronger's contracts with the Blues....

I would be pissed if the Habs gave any player that kind of money. I was extremely pissed off when I heard Theodore went from 1.65M to 5M. Why cause it's not right to see a player jump that high in salary as it will throw off his future contracts, thus causing the team to either over pay down the road or much worse, not be able to afford him. Hart and Norris is not better then Hart and Vezina, so yea I'd be pissed but that's just me.

montreal is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 08:36 PM
  #11
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
And a 10% drop in contracts should continue that trend even more, as the bar will be 10% lower.

Of course some fans are trying to make the case that because players under the ALS get 110% qualifying offers, the 10% rasie would be wiped out. Of course. Why didnt I think of it. The problem with the CBA is that players get raises.
The trend line has to be for lower salaries anyway. One of the impacts of expansion is that it creates new jobs. About half those jobs are taken by players who were not in the NHL prior to expansion. The other half is taken up by the best players extending their careers. It happened in the 1970's, too - the average age of an NHL player went up. Many more players in the 1970's and 1990's played until age 35 than did so in either the 1960's or 1980's.

Within three or four years of expansion stopping, the trend towards older also stops. We can see that today. The league is getting younger.

Under the CBA that is just expiring, older players are rewarded with contracts far beyond their value while younger players are underpaid. If the league did nothing as far as a CBA is concerned, salaries will drop on the demographics alone. They will get this boost under any CBA. younger players are paid less and the league is getting younger. The overall salary tab has to go down.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin 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 06:36 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.