HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Making $31 million work

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-27-2004, 10:22 AM
  #1
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Making $31 million work

I've been thinking about what it would mean to the NHL if the players caved (say after a year or so) or if Bettman declares an impasse and is allowed to unilaterally implement his $31 million hard cap. The following is what I believe to be a very likely scenario (though feel free to refute it).

Basically, the players would be unofficially divided into four classes based on skill and salary:
  1. Elite players: elite goalies, #1 d-men, forwards that anchor a top line. These players would likely make $4-6 mil, so we'll say $5 mil on average.
  2. Very good players: #1, though not elite, goalies, #2-3 d-men, forwards who can compliment a 1st liner or anchor a 2nd line. These players would make $2-3 mil ($2.5 on average).
  3. Good players: Borderline #1 goalies, #4-5 d-men, average 2nd line/good 3rd line forwards. These players would make $1-1.5 mil ($1.25 on average).
  4. Depth players: Backup goalies, #6-7 d-men, 3rd/4th line grinders and enforcers. These players would make $500k on average.

With these figures, I'll take you through four possible teams under the cap.

Team 1:
2 elite (E) players
3 very good (VG) players
6 good (G) players
12 depth (D) players

G-E-VG
D-G-G
D-D-D
D-D-D (D and D scratched)
VG-VG
G-G
G-D (D scratched)
E
D

Total payroll: $31 mil

Team 2:
1 elite player
5 very good players
6 good players
11 depth players

G-VG-VG
G-VG-G
D-G-D
D-D-D (D and D scratched)
E-VG
G-G
D-D (D scratched)
VG
D

Total payroll: $30.5 mil

Team 3:
0 elite players
7 very good players
7 good players
9 depth players

G-VG-VG
G-VG-G
D-G-G
D-D-D (D and D scratched)
VG-VG
VG-G
G-D (D scratched)
VG
D

Total payroll: $30.75 mil

Team 4:
3 elite players
2 very good players
2 good players
16 depth players

G-E-VG
D-E-D
D-D-D
D-D-D (D and D scratched)
VG-G
D-D
D-D (D scratched)
E
D

Total payroll: $30.5 mil

What does this mean?
It means the end of elite teams in the NHL. No team would be able to keep more than 2 elite players and surround them with any kind of meaningful talent. Colorado would not have been able to keep Forsberg, Sakic, and Roy (or Blake, or Foote, or Hedjuk, etc.). Detroit would not have been able to keep Yzerman, Fedorov, and Lidstrom. Dallas would not have been able to keep Modano, Zubov, and Belfour. All teams would be mediocre, with a few stars sprinkled throughout. The NHL would become a neverending series of Islander-Oiler games--some talent on both sides, but largely just a pair of average teams slogging it out. I don't know if that's the NHL I would want.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
09-27-2004, 10:39 AM
  #2
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,247
vCash: 500
Great situation, eh?

getting penalized for drafting and trading well. I know many teams currently experience such a problem (when they cannot afford players at a certain point - although when a player is RFA they should exercise their right to have them sit indefinitely if they won't sign), but now it would apply to all teams. I guess that's what it means to be fair.

While I don't like the situation where 10 teams can spend $45+ million and 10 teams can't spend $35 million, I think there's a different way to bridge the gap than to say $31 million, and that's it. I'm still not convinced I trust league figures on expenses and revenues first of all (and I'll cite this again - $40 million loss for the Rangers, who publicly state that a lockout would negatively affect results - and that's almost 20% of the entire loss that's being cited league-wide - that's a joke!). I don't think the players are convinced either.

Fletch is offline  
Old
09-27-2004, 10:53 AM
  #3
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Great situation indeed, Fletch. I think that Bettman's hardline stance that there has to be a hard cap will do more harm than good. It doesn't address the problem of a lack of revenues at all. Jim McKenzie said in a recent article (it's on the Business of Hockey Board) that the Preds lost money with a $25 million dollar payroll. How is a $31 million cap supposed to help them? That's why I've been in favor of a soft cap all along.

And I don't trust the league figures much either. I don't doubt that the "New York Rangers" lost money last year, but I wonder how much money "MSG Networks" made from advertising last year and if that was factored in. The Rangers are one of the few teams that don't have a TV deal. I wonder how that plays into it.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
09-27-2004, 12:15 PM
  #4
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
Bettman declares an impasse and is allowed to unilaterally implement his $31 million hard cap.
Would that make all current contracts null and void?

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
09-27-2004, 12:58 PM
  #5
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,247
vCash: 500
The Preds lost money?

see, there's the NHL's problem and the NHL won't come out and admit. You have an exciting, young team that makes the playoffs for the first time, has a low payroll and still cannot make money. Now either one of two things happened here: either the gross from attendance isn't high enough and likely never will be to pay the bills or the team is horribly run from a management perspective.

This lockout is driving me crazy. The stalemate is absolutely ridiculous.

[and I wonder if the $300 million spent on the 'lockout fund' was included in the league's loss figures]

Fletch is offline  
Old
09-27-2004, 01:26 PM
  #6
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
see, there's the NHL's problem and the NHL won't come out and admit. You have an exciting, young team that makes the playoffs for the first time, has a low payroll and still cannot make money. Now either one of two things happened here: either the gross from attendance isn't high enough and likely never will be to pay the bills or the team is horribly run from a management perspective.
http://www.tennessean.com/sports/pre...nt_ID=58432472

Quote:
McKenzie said he believes a salary cap, favored by the league's owners, makes little sense for teams like the Predators.

''What I don't understand is if our payroll was around $25 million last season and we were losing money, then how does a salary cap in the mid-30s help?'' McKenzie said. ''How does that bring in more money?''
Hartnell makes a good point in the same article.
Quote:
Hartnell said he wonders what effect the lockout will have on a market that was getting interested in the Predators again thanks to their first playoff appearance.

''There was a lot of buzz, and I understand a lot of season-ticket renewals,'' Hartnell said. ''That could all go out the window because of the lockout, and it's frustrating to us because we want to play.''
Tampa and Nashville are probably going to lose a lot of the new fans they gained with a lengthy lockout.

Quote:
This lockout is driving me crazy. The stalemate is absolutely ridiculous.

[and I wonder if the $300 million spent on the 'lockout fund' was included in the league's loss figures]
FWIW, I read somewhere that the NHL does not have $300 mil sitting in a bank account as its "war chest." A lot of the money is in the form of pre-approved loans that have not been taken out.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
09-27-2004, 02:12 PM
  #7
NYRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
Would that make all current contracts null and void?
No NHL = No contracts

NYRangers is offline  
Old
09-27-2004, 02:18 PM
  #8
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
Would that make all current contracts null and void?
I don't think so. The contracts are pre-existing. The players are not in violation of their contracts (they want to play). The owners are locking them out. I do not think that an impasse would nullify existing contracts.
Fletch & Kodiak are hitting it right on the head. If Nashville is loosing money with a $25m payroll, why would a $31m cap help them?
And as far as your equation goes, Kodiac, you are right. Basically what Bettman would be saying is that since the Nasvilles of the world can afford no more than one superstar and a few other good players, it would not be fair to allow the Colarado's of the world to have more. Even though, they have done it the right way and drafted well. So basically, if you draft well, you just become a farm team for the rest of the league.

True Blue is offline  
Old
09-27-2004, 04:59 PM
  #9
sickboy35
Registered User
 
sickboy35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: trenton
Posts: 1,882
vCash: 500
well if you all read brooks yesterday he also mentioned that nashville had the lowest payroll and the 15th highest ticket prices and the rangers had the highest payroll and the 12th highest ticket prices? bettman is scaming everyone of us, the funny thing is that it seems' at least a recent poll did, that the canadian market believes the owners are right here? well like i said read brooks from yesterday and read what he has writtem since the lockout began and you'll see that while brooks may be a tool when it comes to reporting potential trades he does know something about the business of hockey. bettman's a liar and should open the audit so we, the public can see who flim flamming who here! if he is so right about whats going on here let see and judge from there? he won't though because he is the biggest tool to ever come in to this league and his legacy will be revealed shortly! f-sather, f-do;an and a big ** to mr buttman!!

sickboy35 is offline  
Old
09-27-2004, 05:45 PM
  #10
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,247
vCash: 500
I think Canada by and large...

support the owners because a cap would put an end to all the spending that has hurt the Canadian teams in recent years. It would help the viability of hockey in Canada.

Fletch is offline  
Old
09-27-2004, 05:49 PM
  #11
nyr7andcounting
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
What does this mean? It means the end of elite teams in the NHL. No team would be able to keep more than 2 elite players and surround them with any kind of meaningful talent. Colorado would not have been able to keep Forsberg, Sakic, and Roy (or Blake, or Foote, or Hedjuk, etc.). Detroit would not have been able to keep Yzerman, Fedorov, and Lidstrom. Dallas would not have been able to keep Modano, Zubov, and Belfour. All teams would be mediocre, with a few stars sprinkled throughout. The NHL would become a neverending series of Islander-Oiler games--some talent on both sides, but largely just a pair of average teams slogging it out. I don't know if that's the NHL I would want.
Yep, just doesn't make much sense. It seems to me like a lot of people look at the success of the NFL and think that every league should be like that... but what they don't realize is that football is a very different sport from hockey. Sure it would be great if everyone had a chance to win, but that's not the way sports are. There are winners and there are losers. If management makes bad decisions and the team doesn't make the playoffs, it's their fault, those fans shouldn't be blaming the Red Wings because they have money. Plus there is nothing wrong with having good-great teams in your league.

Besides, money means very little in sports. Wether you have the highest paid player or the highest paid team, in the end the games are played on the ice or on the field. The Rangers are a perfect example of how money can be both good and evil. St. Louis spends money every year and puts a competative team out there, yet when was the last time they won the cup? Look at the recent teams in the cup finals... Calgary, Tampa Bay, Anaheim, New Jersey, Carolina. All smaller markets. Yanks spend a ridiculous amount and they make the playoffs every year, but look at who has beaten them as of late... Florida, Anaheim, Arizona. All smaller markets. When are people going to realize that because of the talent of the players and the emphasis on scouting, player personel and the like, most teams today are even despite how much they pay their players. Now, more than ever, winners and losers are decided on the ice through the effort and strategy of the entire team. Having one or two star players no longer wins you anything, at all, which is why people shouldn't be complaining about who has the most money and who has to use their's wisely. In fact, and the Rangers are proof, sometimes not having as much money as others is an advantage. Glen Sather built a dynasty and a perennial playoff team in Edmonton despite not having as much money as the big markets/barely having any money at all. He comes to NY and he can't even get the Rangers to the playoffs despite having all the money he wants. Having to use your money wisely leads to smarter decisions.

- put in a luxury tax, both on team and player salaries. Anything over $50 millon as a team, you pay a tax distributed to the smaller markets. Any player salary over $6 million and you do the same. And share some of the revenue, this way smaller markets don't lose as much (if they are even losing as much as they say, who knows).
- get rid of arbitration and increase RFA compensation for the lower level RFA's. It's bad enough team's have to give RFA's 10% raises if they want to keep their rights, atleast in raising compensation for the lower level guys you will take away most of their market and they won't have much leverage to demand much higher than the auto 10% raise.
- and, instead of supporting the owners, Bettman should slap them on their collective wrist and demand that in the future they don't shell out the $$$ like they have been doing.

The idea the NHL has that they can change the entire financial landscape of the league in one CBA is patently retarded. These changes will still allow players to shop services in a free market but their salaries will decrease, especially over time, and smaller market teams will have more $$$ coming in. Now if I can think of something that could reasonably help out, than how the hell can't execs making 6 figures do the same?

nyr7andcounting is offline  
Old
09-27-2004, 05:52 PM
  #12
nyr7andcounting
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
support the owners because a cap would put an end to all the spending that has hurt the Canadian teams in recent years. It would help the viability of hockey in Canada.
And unfortunetly Bettman feels he can take that opinion and make it the official opinion of all NHL fans,

nyr7andcounting is offline  
Old
09-28-2004, 08:26 AM
  #13
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr7andcounting
Look at the recent teams in the cup finals... Calgary, Tampa Bay, Anaheim, New Jersey, Carolina. All smaller markets. Yanks spend a ridiculous amount and they make the playoffs every year, but look at who has beaten them as of late... Florida, Anaheim, Arizona. All smaller markets.
Just as a point of parlimentary procedure, I have a very hard time calling Anaheim, Jersey, and Arizona small markets. These are not small market teams. These teams play in some of the biggest markets in the country.

True Blue is offline  
Old
09-28-2004, 08:39 AM
  #14
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,247
vCash: 500
For hockey...

it is small. Jersey plays in the shadow of New York despite being the far better team for 7 seasons, and the Isles still have a following, and down the pike are the Flyers fans who are die-hard. So what's left for New Jersey? A smallish market, albeit one that can afford the ticket prices.

Anaheim and Phoenix are in areas that just don't care about hockey. Heck, Sourthern California drove out two NFL franchises, basically.

Fletch is offline  
Old
09-28-2004, 08:50 AM
  #15
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
it is small. Jersey plays in the shadow of New York despite being the far better team for 7 seasons, and the Isles still have a following, and down the pike are the Flyers fans who are die-hard. So what's left for New Jersey? A smallish market, albeit one that can afford the ticket prices.

Anaheim and Phoenix are in areas that just don't care about hockey. Heck, Sourthern California drove out two NFL franchises, basically.
I disagree. The size of the "market" is not to be deterimined by wether or not you are drawing fans. Jersey is NOT a small market. The market is big enough. They just happen to play (and always have) in an area that they will never draw enough fans. They are a prime example of a team that should relocate.
Anaheim is owned by Disney and plays in the 2nd biggest media market in America. Again, becuase your fans do not care and ownership CHOOSES to have a small payroll, does not make you a small-market team. Ditto for Arizona.

True Blue is offline  
Old
09-28-2004, 09:11 AM
  #16
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,247
vCash: 500
Tb...

with part of Jersey being Rangers fans, part of Jersey being Flyers fans, some of Jersey being Isles fans, doesn't that reduce the market to small?

Anaheim's a large media market, but that doesn't translate into support for hockey, is what I'm saying. Heck, the Raiders couldn't sell out (although the Coliseum was huge, they still had some passive fans and a lot of seats) and the Rams ended up in St. Louis, and that's football.

Fletch is offline  
Old
09-28-2004, 09:24 AM
  #17
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
But the definition of large vs. small

is not derived from how many fans you ARE drawing. Those teams are capable of having a much bigger fanbase. The fact that they do not, points out to several things. In Anaheim's case, it is just another example of Bettman idiocy. They should have never expanded into there. In NJ's case, they are a prime example of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Ownership DOES have money. After all, a $60m payroll is not paltry. They DO play in a large media market, so there chance for better exposure is right there. However, what does it say when you can go up to the ticket window during the Stanley Cup finals and but a ticket? Either you cannot properly market your team or there is not a sufficient enough fanbase. NJ does not support sports team in there own backyards. The Devs and Nets will ALWAYS be second fiddle to the NY teams. Both are example of teams that deserve to be relocated becuase they deserve better fanbases.

True Blue is offline  
Old
09-28-2004, 06:53 PM
  #18
Sicilian
Registered User
 
Sicilian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 261
vCash: 500
my biggest problem with a hard cap in hockey is what it's going to do to fringe players. these are players that, all things being equal, would be decent 2nd line forwards, but if there is a hard cap, likely they would be boosted up to 1st line duties, playing with those elite players, and having their stats padded. then their contract expires, their stats look great, and they can reasonably ask for very good/elite money, and all of the sudden teams can't afford them either. i don't know, i'm probably missing something here, but it seems like having all the talent constantly spread out in a game where teamwork is imperative is going to make it impossible to determine who deserves what, and who the elite players actually are. it's a band-aid on a gunshot wound.

Sicilian 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 07:26 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.