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
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Why can't Goodenow just understand?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-02-2004, 09:55 AM
  #51
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Van and NYR were in the last CBA, and outside the 10 year range you set. So now you've got 11 teams out of 30, just over 30%, nowhere near the "half the league" you're trying to paint. Just keep going back and back, you can probably get that number up to 90%.

And note that 5 teams are in the "1" final four appearance list, in 10 years making the finals once in a Cinderella run. Basically, for 75% of the league, the best they can hope for is a single run to the final four every 10 years.

And that's with almost zero chance of actually winning the thing.
Did you prefer it before the mid 90's, when most teams had the same or at least very similar payrolls ???

Take a look at competitive balance from 1971 to 1990.

The NHL was DOMINATED by the Bruins, Habs, Flyers, Isles and Oilers.

Sarting with the 1970-71 season:

Cup Wins
Montreal - 7
Edmonton - 5
New York Isles - 4
Philadelphia - 2
Calgary - 1
Boston - 1

Finals Appearances
Montreal - 8
Boston - 6
Philadelphia - 6
Edmonton - 6
New York Isles - 5
Chicago - 2
Calgary - 2
New York Rangers - 2
Buffalo - 1
Minnesota - 1
Vancouver - 1


Semi-finals
Montreal - 11
Philadelphia - 10
Chicago - 9
New York Isles - 9
Boston - 9
New York Rangers - 7
Edmonton - 6
Minnesota - 4
Calgary/Atlanta - 3
St. Louis - 2
Buffalo - 2
Quebec - 2
Detroit - 2
Toronto - 1
New Jersey/Colorado - 1
Washington - 1
Vancouver - 1


Teams that never made a Semi-Final appearance - Kings, Jets, Penguins and Whalers.

That's 12 of 21 teams that made 2 or less semi-finals appearances over a 20 year period (Not all teams were there for all 20 years, but all for at least 10).

The "Big 5" made up 77.5% of the Stanley Cup Finalists, and Edmonton and the Isles didn't even exist the entire 20 years.


Last edited by John Flyers Fan: 10-02-2004 at 09:59 AM.
John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 10:11 AM
  #52
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruwinz20
The one thing this post tells me is that you dont really have much of a clue about the NFL. Your post MIGHT have some validity if the same amount of teams made the playoffs in both leagues. Since they dont it is far more impressive that the NFL has had the same amount of teams reach the "final four" as the NHL in terms of parity.

Now take your pick: A) you dont really know what you are talking about or B) your last name is Goodenow.
I disagree there, and I'm an avid watcher of the NFL.

Just because the NHL has more teams make the playoffs 16 of 30 (53%) than 12 of 32 (37.5%) doesn't mean it's significantly tougher to make a Conference Titla game.

It's still 4 out of 30 vs. 4 out of 32 .... slightly tougher in the NFL, but only slightly.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 11:06 AM
  #53
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garry1221

payroll shouldn't be a key player yet for the last decade it's been THE key in many cases,
I can see why you might think this is the case. But NJ, Colorado and Detroit won their cups first, then gave big contracts. Because they had great teams with the best players. They get correspondingly compensated. Conveniently, flush with playoff success revenue, increased interest and demand allowing more tickets to be sold at higher prices, they can afford it.

Payroll isnt the cause. The winners have all developed great teams first. Of course after they win they will be expensive. Its because they can now afford it. Every team that tried to spend their way to dethroning one of the teams that developed their champ failed. The first team to do it was another developed team - Tampa Bay. This is how you have to do it. I dont know why they refuse to admit it. Not one of the big spending teams who are mostly claiming big losses and a need to protect them from themselves could buy a team to knock off the champs that had developed theirs..


Developing a team takes years. Insisting on payroll equality each year is counter productive to proper team development strategies.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 11:16 AM
  #54
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
Get rid of mandatory wage increases and qualifying offers. To me those lead to inflationary problems.
These are things given to RFAs. RFAs start off capped by the rookie cap. What would Crosby get without it? Well, what was the WHA prepared to offer? Crosby wont get anywhere near that value he could get on a open market. He starts off capped and then slowly gets raises through arbitration until he is 31 and can finally get full market value. To say that these things are inflationary completely misses the point. Of course they are. They are the method of bringing up his artifically capped salary to its market value over 13 years. If you cant compete in this league with a team full of players getting less than their market value, surely a cap isnt going to help either.

If you want to lower the salary for an RFA, all you have to do is the equivalent of putting him through waivers. And then negotiate his market value on the open market. which obviously by not qualifying him you didnt think he was worth. Why are you so concerned about having to negotiate in the open market for players you think are overpaid underachievers? Set him free, if he loves you guys, he'll come back.

We did it with Bonk, Lalime. Its not disastrous. There are other options. Sens fans arent being crybabies about it like they would of been a few years ago if this happened.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 02:19 PM
  #55
two out of three*
 
two out of three*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Newbury Park, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to two out of three* Send a message via AIM to two out of three*
I love how everybody has the answers.. lol

two out of three* is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 03:36 PM
  #56
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Did you prefer it before the mid 90's, when most teams had the same or at least very similar payrolls ???

Take a look at competitive balance from 1971 to 1990.
The NHL was DOMINATED by the Bruins, Habs, Flyers, Isles and Oilers.

That's 12 of 21 teams that made 2 or less semi-finals appearances over a 20 year period (Not all teams were there for all 20 years, but all for at least 10).

The "Big 5" made up 77.5% of the Stanley Cup Finalists, and Edmonton and the Isles didn't even exist the entire 20 years.
Yes, absolutely, we preferred it back then. The simple difference which folks can't seem to grasp:

Back then the league was one sided because those teams were run well. All those teams had great owners, management, drafting, coaching, and therefore talent. Those guys dominated because of their combined skills.

Lousy pathetic teams like my own Canucks were that way because they didn't have any of those things. But the hope was always there, that if you did, you'd improve and be excellent. And that was the case once the Pat Quinn era started.

That isn't the case anymore. It's all based on money now. Even if you have all the keys I mentioned, it still ultimately comes down to cold hard cash.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 03:40 PM
  #57
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
These are things given to RFAs. RFAs start off capped by the rookie cap. What would Crosby get without it? Well, what was the WHA prepared to offer? Crosby wont get anywhere near that value he could get on a open market. He starts off capped and then slowly gets raises through arbitration until he is 31 and can finally get full market value. To say that these things are inflationary completely misses the point. Of course they are.
Of course the converse applies. If the players want a true market system as they keep saying they want, then they shouldn't want or need an artificial raise system.

But they'll fight tooth and nail to keep that QO system in place, because they know how one-sided it is.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 04:29 PM
  #58
Paul Martin Jones
DontTouchMyDonskoi!
 
Paul Martin Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,975
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
But they'll fight tooth and nail to keep that QO system in place, because they know how one-sided it is.
so you are making stuff up now ? the players offered to negotiate abritration and the qualifying offer system.

they offered to negotiate anything that didnt include a salary cap.

dr

Paul Martin Jones is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 04:33 PM
  #59
Paul Martin Jones
DontTouchMyDonskoi!
 
Paul Martin Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,975
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
It's all based on money now. Even if you have all the keys I mentioned, it still ultimately comes down to cold hard cash.
ok, enough with the damn cliches.

give me one example of a team that is only good becuase it has money. i can give you teams that are bad in spite of the money they have (NYR, WSH and STL)

i can give you numerous examples of teams that have done well and are not considered "money teams". here are three: OTT, VAN and TBY

ok, three more from last season: CGY, NSH and SJS.

So come on and tell me even one team that has only done well because of money.

DR

Paul Martin Jones is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 06:04 PM
  #60
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality

So come on and tell me even one team that has only done well because of money.

DR

Hopefully he mentions Detroit. I haven't had to defeat that argument in a few days.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 06:08 PM
  #61
Paul Martin Jones
DontTouchMyDonskoi!
 
Paul Martin Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,975
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Hopefully he mentions Detroit. I haven't had to defeat that argument in a few days.
well the most obvious answer is TOR. but despite their off ice success, they still havent managed to win a cup in a few decades.

dr

Paul Martin Jones is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 07:27 PM
  #62
quat
winsome, loathsome
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 11,756
vCash: 50
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
and do you not pay attention ? only players making less than the league negotiated average salary are entitled to a 10% increase.

secondly, if you dont want the player to leave as UFA, that means he is WORTH the QO. If he isnt, why QO him, just use the money to sign someone else or promote a young cheaper guy ?

Its called "using the system" and if more GM's had the balls and savy to do that, we wouldnt be where we are today.

dr
Pay attention to what? Your take on reality? I gave an example of a flaw... but suddenly it means nothing because it only applies to players making under the average salary? Why is that? It's still an increase. Perhaps the player still shows some promise, but to date hasn't played up to his salary. So the team is just supposed to dump the guy? I like how you use the word "worth" as some kind of value all teams can afford. I suppose that Doug Weight wasn't "worth" keeping for the Oilers. You seem to be arguing that having deeper pockets won't give you an advantage in the NHL. Well teams like the Avs and the Wings and the Stars simply wouldn't have been able to keep their rosters together if they couldn't afford to pay guys like Forsberg, Sakic, Roy and Blake huge salaries. If the Avs were like the Oilers then they would have lost Sakic to the Rangers... but the fact is, they had enough cash to keep him.

Reading your posts on these boards over the past weeks leads me to believe there's little wrong with the NHL as it stands today. I've read nothing that convinces me you understand what you're talking about.

quat is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 07:35 PM
  #63
Paul Martin Jones
DontTouchMyDonskoi!
 
Paul Martin Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,975
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quat
....Doug Weight wasn't "worth" keeping for the Oilers..
correct ... keeping Doug Weight wasnt worth it for the Oilers. Not when, even under a cap, he would command 5million and the Oilers had no support to help him take the team consistently into the playoffs.

the Oilers were better off with Reasoner, Stoll and Deslauriers and the 1/5th of the salary commitment than with Weight. They were able to use the extra 4 or 5m per season to start filling in their roster and signing Staios, Smith, Smyth etc to extensions.

EDM won that deal, what has Weight (and his 8m salary) done for STL to prove that EDM was better off keeping him. Think about it, STL is a team that has spent alot of money (like you say EDM cant do) and done nothing. Imagine if the Oil could also spend a lot of money, the evidence shows Doug Weight + other stars + big salaries does not = winning.

DR

Paul Martin Jones is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 07:36 PM
  #64
Paul Martin Jones
DontTouchMyDonskoi!
 
Paul Martin Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,975
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quat
.. Perhaps the player still shows some promise, but to date hasn't played up to his salary. So the team is just supposed to dump the guy? .
so do you have an example of a player that fits this description or is just another "fictional example".

dr

Paul Martin Jones is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 08:06 PM
  #65
quat
winsome, loathsome
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 11,756
vCash: 50
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
correct ... keeping Doug Weight wasnt worth it for the Oilers. Not when, even under a cap, he would command 5million and the Oilers had no support to help him take the team consistently into the playoffs.

the Oilers were better off with Reasoner, Stoll and Deslauriers and the 1/5th of the salary commitment than with Weight. They were able to use the extra 4 or 5m per season to start filling in their roster and signing Staios, Smith, Smyth etc to extensions.

EDM won that deal, what has Weight (and his 8m salary) done for STL to prove that EDM was better off keeping him. Think about it, STL is a team that has spent alot of money (like you say EDM cant do) and done nothing. Imagine if the Oil could also spend a lot of money, the evidence shows Doug Weight + other stars + big salaries does not = winning.

DR

Sorry DR but you can't just plug Weight's salary into a cap situation... even though somehow you've decided it's now only 5 million instead of the 8 he actually makes. (The point I'm making here is 5 million seems extremely arbitrary... why not 3.5 or 4?) Why would Weight go anywhere else if the Oilers would be paying as much as he would get elsewhere?

Weight was badly injured his first season with the Blues, and I'm certainly not one to say spending money like a fool will win you anything. All the Blues needed was a better goaltender, but they spent like crazy on every other position.

Personally, I think the Oilers would have challenged for a cup with Weight, Guerin, Cujo and Smyth, or would have been a threat pretty much every season. Suggesting that the Oilers chose to get rid of Weight because he wasn't good enough to pay what he asked is extremely revisionist. Go to the Oilers board and ask if they would have rather have Doug Weight stay on their team.

quat is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 11:05 PM
  #66
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
so do you have an example of a player that fits this description or is just another "fictional example".

dr
How about Alexander Svitov, Kris Beech or Pavel Brendl? Worth the money they've been paid? No. Deserving of a 10% raise? No. Potentially worth keeping at a 10% raise. Yes. A team's only options are to offer a 10% raise or let him walk for nothing. You can give him the 10% and then trade him, but you can't offer him a pay cut or force him into arbitration.

BM67 is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 11:28 PM
  #67
Paul Martin Jones
DontTouchMyDonskoi!
 
Paul Martin Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,975
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67
How about Alexander Svitov, Kris Beech or Pavel Brendl? Worth the money they've been paid? No. Deserving of a 10% raise? No. Potentially worth keeping at a 10% raise. Yes. A team's only options are to offer a 10% raise or let him walk for nothing. You can give him the 10% and then trade him, but you can't offer him a pay cut or force him into arbitration.
all three players can be sent to the minors on a two way contract for development wihtout clearing waivers.

next.

dr

Paul Martin Jones is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 04:12 AM
  #68
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
give me one example of a team that is only good becuase it has money. i can give you teams that are bad in spite of the money they have (NYR, WSH and STL)

So come on and tell me even one team that has only done well because of money.
Nice try, but nobody said X "team that has only done well because of money". I said you have to have *both* money and good management, drafting, coaching etc. Money alone ain't enough, and neither is just good management any more.

Many teams have the money, but not the personnel. That's your Rangers, St. Louis etc. Others have the personnel, but not the money. That's your Ottawa and Vancouver. Both teams are notorious playoff under-performers, and money has played a big part in that. Both teams have had to stand pat in the past, and haven't been able to add the parts needed to get over the hump.

Tampa is the only team that's managed to win the Cup in the past 12 years without the money aspect. And that was a fluke, in that they managed to win it so quick, they beat out the money curve. Hart and Art Ross trophy winners aren't usually picked up off waiver wires for free, and paid a pittance. That's not a plan of action most teams can follow.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 04:53 AM
  #69
me2
Team Ben Anti-Tank 0
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Team Tank 1
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 28,129
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
then that means the player is worth the money if the team can not afford to release him over such a *measly amount*.
Measely amounts become big problems with. Its half the reason the league salary structure is completely f***ed up. Once one player gets overpaid it comes the league standard then every similar player demands that money and that overpayment becomes the norm. The 30% overpayment becomes the norm. Thats were we are at in the NHL at the current time.


Quote:
give me a few real examples of a player who is 30% overpaid at 1.5m that the team cannot afford to release.

DR
There has not been a player in the game who is unreleasable, from Mario to Orr. The consequences are just not very nice.

As an example lets take Umberger. He clearly wasn't worth the money he wanted as an RFA prospect but the Canucks were low on prospects and still refused to pay it. He left. As a UFA Philly picked him up for more than the Canucks would pay, again thats as a UFA. The Canucks took the stand you suggested and lost a player, a cheap player, a piece of the future, the kind of player they needed for your system to work.

The Canucks now have to pay some UFA at 2-3x the price or trade more of their future to end up in the same position.


Last edited by me2: 10-03-2004 at 04:59 AM.
me2 is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 08:56 AM
  #70
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
all three players can be sent to the minors on a two way contract for development wihtout clearing waivers.

next.

dr
So you're going to give them 10% raises to play in the minors? You are also assuming that they will sign a two-way contract, which isn't a given. They will all see some NHL time anyway, so you can't just ignore their NHL salaries. Eventually waivers will apply as well.

BM67 is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 09:11 AM
  #71
c_mak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Waterloo
Country: Canada
Posts: 801
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to c_mak
Forgive my ignorance, if its precieved that way, but doesn't this salary cap, more money for players, more competitive balnce come down to the abiltiy to choose... Small market teams are not afforded the abiltiy to choose in the same way as larger market teams can and before you all jump on me for using the CBA to thier teams advantage and only giving 10% raises, or wlking away from arbitration if we as fans are honest with ourselves we most likely would admitt that ..given a better chance of our team wining the cup we'd want player X to be signed for whatever money to increase our chances..or at least ice a more competitive team
Ottawa had a choice in who they were trading yashin to but they had no choice but to trade him
Edmonton had a similar choice with weight who they traded him to was their choice but they were going to have to trade him
That give teams with more money a bigger advantage because they can choose to sign a guy they feel will help them or pass on him ( this is essentially the players arguement for a free market, which given a capitalist view is understandable) the problem I see with this is a biding war will drive up prices.. so why not have a maximun you can pay a player.. what's the difference between 6 million or 8 million its like killing yourself by jumping off the 30th floor as a pose to the 27th dead is dead and rich is rich.
The NBA made it that the team that you are drafted by is allowed to pay you the most under the cap thus keeping star players paid what they feel they deserve and keeping the stars fans grow to enjoy.. this has not stopped movement in the NBA but it has made players think twice before changing teams to chase a championship or a pay cheque..
I don't know which system is the one for the NHL but one that allows all teams to compete on equal financial footing and have choice would seem to be a good starting point.
IMO the owners want a cap that is too low.. one that gaurentees their profits ..the players want to keep making money they don't deserve.. both are greedy ********

c_mak is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 11:12 AM
  #72
Paul Martin Jones
DontTouchMyDonskoi!
 
Paul Martin Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,975
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
Measely amounts become big problems with. Its half the reason the league salary structure is completely f***ed up. Once one player gets overpaid it comes the league standard then every similar player demands that money and that overpayment becomes the norm. The 30% overpayment becomes the norm. Thats were we are at in the NHL at the current time..
the players offered to negotiate both the QO and arbitration processes and rules. so this could be fixed without a cap if hte owners were willing to negotiate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
As an example lets take Umberger. He clearly wasn't worth the money ...... The Canucks took the stand you suggested and lost a player .
as you can see, the system works if teams use it. whats the problem, if the Canucks felt he was worth the money, all they had to do was sign the contract. they made business decision and sometimes its a gamble.

Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
a cheap player .
obviously not cheap enough. i know somewhere else in this thread or another, someone was complaining how much young unproven 1st rounders cost, and now you call him a cheap player. which is it ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
the kind of player they needed for your system to work..
BS ... they decided they didnt need him at the cost he was demanding. how can you in one breath say the players are paid too much and then the other side say that same player is a *required* piece of the puzzle. if he is so important PAY HIM THE MONEY.

Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
The Canucks now have to pay some UFA at 2-3x the price or trade more of their future to end up in the same position.
That remains to be seen and certainly isnt a forgone conclusion.

Why must you cappers always speak in cliche and hypotheticals?

dr

Paul Martin Jones is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 11:15 AM
  #73
Paul Martin Jones
DontTouchMyDonskoi!
 
Paul Martin Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,975
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by south end super star
Ottawa had a choice in who they were trading yashin to but they had no choice but to trade him
ok, lets imagine a world where OTT could afford to pay Yashin 90m A DAY, never mind over 10 years.

why wouldnt they make that trade 100 times out of 100 ? Yashin for Chara alone is a huge win, never mind for Chara and Spezza.

so how did the inability to pay Yashin 90m for 10 years hurt OTT ?

DR

Paul Martin Jones is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 11:20 AM
  #74
Paul Martin Jones
DontTouchMyDonskoi!
 
Paul Martin Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,975
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by south end super star
That give teams with more money a bigger advantage because they can choose to sign a guy
you mean like how PHI had the choice to pay LeClair 9m per season or let him go ? why should we STOP teams like PHI from tying up resources in over the hill players like Leclair. With 9m tied up in Leclair, its awefully difficult for PHI to improve their team further. If they didnt sign Leclair for 9m, they would have money to sign *good* players. Now with the money tied up in JL, they dont.

I say let PHI sign Leclair for 9m, let DAL sign Turgeon for 7m, let STL sign Tkachuk for 11m and WSH Jagr 11m. Who cares ? It only ties those teams hands and no agent in his right mind is going to say, "well Leclair makes 9m and player X is better, so pay him more". The GM if he has half a brain would laugh the GM out of his office.

Being stuck with those huge ugly contracts IS the punishment, why are we looking for ways to NOT punish those stupid teams.

DR

Paul Martin Jones is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 11:21 AM
  #75
Paul Martin Jones
DontTouchMyDonskoi!
 
Paul Martin Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,975
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67
So you're going to give them 10% raises to play in the minors? You are also assuming that they will sign a two-way contract, which isn't a given. They will all see some NHL time anyway, so you can't just ignore their NHL salaries. Eventually waivers will apply as well.
1) they dont get the NHL contract in the minors
2) if you have QO'd them and they dont sign, they sit.
3) if by the time they are waiver elegible they still arent contributing NHL'ers, why bother signing them anyhow ? chances are they arent very good and its time to cut the cord.

DR

Paul Martin Jones 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 12:55 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.