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.

Cup Winners vs Payroll Rank

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-02-2004, 10:40 PM
  #26
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Detroit would have to start over. It is one of the real downsides to their strategy. They haven't produced enough good players to form a decent young core.

...

All that said, I'd bet on Pittsburgh over the next decade absent change to the CBA. At the same time as that, Pittsburgh could very well blow a tire on the rebuild trail, too. It is really hard to build the elite team.
I disagree on this assessment based upon one assumption, that management stays the same for both teams. Craig Patrick has been done a brutal job since the glory days of the Penguins. He's done a horrible job evaluating young talent in both drafting and trading.

The Red Wings have Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Fischer to build around. The Penguins don't have any established young players that can match that trio. Sure they've got lots of great looking prospects but until Pittsburgh demonstrates they can develop prospects, I'd take my chances on a Red Wing rebuild over a Penguins rebuild.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 12:38 AM
  #27
quat
winsome, loathsome
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 9,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
I don't think that is true at all about the Canucks. I don't know whether you were a Canuck fan when Quinn and Burke first rode into town in 1987. The team had been awful for years and it still needed a complete overhaul. The fanbase had bailed. To get us back Burke went on the radio every night and laid out the philosophy. He explained why the team was trading the likes of Sundstrom and Snepts in terms of getting the team closer to the Cup. It worked. The team got to within a goal of the prize. Then the Orcans came to town, Bure got hurt, and it all went South.
I recall that the demise of the Canucks had more to do with the kinds of contracts Quinn handed out like candy after the run... all to players who never really played that well again.

quat is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 01:20 AM
  #28
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
Assuming all else is equal... If Pittsburgh employs the strategy of keeping and growing their young core, and if Detroit employs the strategy of 'buying veteran players to replace an aging core'... over this period of time (10 years), my money is on Pittsburgh winning many more post-round-two playoff games... My money is on Pttsburgh being 'elite' (with a young core growing together that features Fleury, Malkin, Crosby , and Detroit being, at best, the NYR...
I think the biggest dilemna for current owners is: make profit or win the cup. The smaller budget teams that don't spend much actually make more money (or lose a lot less) than the "big" teams, even if they don't make the playoffs. They simply plan their budget to make a small profit if they don't make the playoffs and grow it larger if they do. Business wise, this is pretty smart, as this is how good companies are run. However, it does conflict with winning the Stanley Cup, where chances are you will lose money, and a lot of it if you don't go far in the playoffs. So managing your team that way is not intelligent (and leads to unbearable salary inflation like we've seen).

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 02:20 AM
  #29
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
IMO, 'skipping steps' unnecessarily inflates the salary market... I've got a few posts about my reasoning in a couple of other threads...

I don't think they should be stopped... but I do think they should be punished...
You don't think having to pay Ray Whitney, Derian Hatcher and Robert Lang for the next three years isn't punishment enough? on this point we have to agree to disagree. UFA signings don't really affect anyone but the team and the player.

Surely you don't think that achieving this objective is worth shutting is worth a lockout.

Quote:
With regards to the Canucks, I hear Burke talking about 'changing the core' after last year's playoff disaster... and that freaks the hell out of me... I want a system that makes him think long and hard before doing it...
He was blowing smoke. He was setting up the Morrison and Cloutier contract negotiations. And all he said was that he would have to consider changes to the top ten players. To me that meant he'd move Morrison or Cloutier if he asked for too much money. I didn't believe Burke most of the time. He made great decisions but kept us mostly in the dark about what he was doing. He denied rebuilding until he was finished.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 01:50 PM
  #30
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
I disagree on this assessment based upon one assumption, that management stays the same for both teams. Craig Patrick has been done a brutal job since the glory days of the Penguins. He's done a horrible job evaluating young talent in both drafting and trading.

The Red Wings have Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Fischer to build around. The Penguins don't have any established young players that can match that trio. Sure they've got lots of great looking prospects but until Pittsburgh demonstrates they can develop prospects, I'd take my chances on a Red Wing rebuild over a Penguins rebuild.
A poor implementation of a good strategy still yields much better results than a good implementation of a poor strategy... This has been proven time and again throughout history...

Here is, IMO, an excellent book that explains this: The Strategy-Focused Organization by Robert Kaplan and David Norton...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

I highly recommend this book to anyone who finds this argument interesting...

And here is, IMO, an excellent book that explains why people (and companies) don't follow the good strategy... even though they know that it is the good strategy:

The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action
by Jeffrey Pfeffer, Robert I. Sutton

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...518567-3353707

This book also has, IMO, excellent strategies to help eliminate the 'knowing-doing' gab... and explains why it is necessary to do so... I highly recommend this book to anyone who finds this stuff interesting...

The ideas in this book have led me to believe that the teams will not follow the 'good strategy' on their own (the teams need strong direction)... and by the teams (as a whole) NOT following the 'good strategy', it is only a matter of time before things get in very serious trouble- all the teams belong under the umbrella of the NHL... If they were all independent, I'd say 'let the stupid teams screw up and die'... But because they are all under the same entity (the NHL), for the strength and survival of that entity, the teams (as a whole) MUST follow the 'good strategy'... It's not an option...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 01:59 PM
  #31
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
teams (as a whole) MUST follow the 'good strategy'... It's not an option...
without some teams cutting corners, getting into trouble and making mistakes, their wont be opportunities for the other teams to take advantage of those mistakes.

example 1.

If NYI didnt take Yashin off of OTT, OTT would not have the benefit of Chara and Spezza. Instead they would be stuck with a piece of crap like Yashin.

example 2.
If FLA didnt take Pavel Bure from VAN, VAN would not have Jovo.

Sure you will say, but it hurt NYI and FLA. So what ? They made their decision, this is BUSINESS, not the PLAYGROUND. Stop living in utopia.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 02:36 PM
  #32
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
without some teams cutting corners, getting into trouble and making mistakes, their wont be opportunities for the other teams to take advantage of those mistakes.
Shortsighted thinking... You can still make mistakes when following the correct strategy... The difference is that the mistakes you make don't blow up the whole damn foundation you've built...

example 1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
If NYI didnt take Yashin off of OTT, OTT would not have the benefit of Chara and Spezza. Instead they would be stuck with a piece of crap like Yashin.
OTT could have still gotten another very good young player or two from a team who should have been in the market for Yashin...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
example 2.
If FLA didnt take Pavel Bure from VAN, VAN would not have Jovo.
VAN could have still gotten another very good young player or two from a team who should have been in the market for Bure...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
Sure you will say, but it hurt NYI and FLA.
Don't assume what I'd say...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
So what ? They made their decision, this is BUSINESS, not the PLAYGROUND. Stop living in utopia.

DR
It hurt more than NYI and FLA... Read the books I recommend above and then we can have a good chat on the subject of 'strategy impact'... Until then, argue and believe whatever you'd like - but no need to be an a******... I don't like discussing things with people who are arrogant and think they have all of the answers - while not considering other points of view...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 03:22 PM
  #33
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
You don't think having to pay Ray Whitney, Derian Hatcher, [John Leclair, Pierre Turgeon] and Robert Lang for the next three years isn't punishment enough?
Perhaps they are saying it is too much punishment, and these teams should be eligible for receiving some revenue sharing to offset their losses.

I think this is why the current system works in theory I in the Eye. We dont need to steer them in that direction any more. A framework is created where that is in their best interest. I dont mind Detroits trying to sign Niedermayer because I dont think its unfair to the overall system. They have just as good a chance in the next 10 years in my opinion by dumping all their expensive players for picks and prospects and developing again. This may work too. But it is no surer a path. And an expensive one. But the framework ensures it isnt an unfair advantage so we shouldnt need to enforce changes to legislate doing the smart thing. As long as we have provided a different but equal way of accomplishing the same thing. That is the more important part to preserve I think

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 03:31 PM
  #34
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFuPenguin
I made some quick graphs for your viewing pleasure. Recent "dynasty teams" payroll development since 1990. Also a bigger graph with three other interesting teams thrown in the mix.

I'd welcome a debate on the causality of payroll vs team success. I find it is probably the major sticking point in the player vs. owner debate.
They are interesting graphs. One thing we note of course is that it was natural for payrolls to be rising. Another thing they seem to show is that the dynasty teams all won their first cup at a time when they were running an average payroll. A point Vancouver, Ottawa, and now Tampa Bay have arrived at.

This also seems to me suggest that the causality is winning increases payroll doesnt it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by smail
I think the biggest dilemna for current owners is: make profit or win the cup.
win the cup and make even bigger profit you mean. The teams in a currently successful NHL market that are losing money seem to be the ones trying to buy it. And finding it not working. All the teams making the finals seem to be making money though.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 03:43 PM
  #35
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
I think this is why the current system works in theory I in the Eye. We dont need to steer them in that direction any more. A framework is created where that is in their best interest. I dont mind Detroits trying to sign Niedermayer because I dont think its unfair to the overall system. They have just as good a chance in the next 10 years in my opinion by dumping all their expensive players for picks and prospects and developing again. This may work too. But it is no surer a path. And an expensive one. But the framework ensures it isnt an unfair advantage so we shouldnt need to enforce changes to legislate doing the smart thing. As long as we have provided a different but equal way of accomplishing the same thing. That is the more important part to preserve I think
I agree that the current system works in theory... I imagine that the NHL and Bettman agrees as well - thus agreeing to the old CBA... But the problem is, it doesn't work in reality... and IMO, that's only because the owners don't make it work... The teams (as a whole) need direction and leadership... Allow teams to implement the strategy however they like... Allow teams to decide for themselves when it's time to hold on with the current team, or when it's time to rebuild... But for god sake, make sure that each team is following the same good strategy framework... If every team followed the 'cycle to success', I'm convinced that the NHL could survive in every current market - and thrive in the vast majority of markets... I'm convinced that the NHL would be looking at expansion and there would be no talk of contraction...

From where I sit, I see the large majority of the teams trying to follow Colorodo or Detroit's strategy now (of spending - and often, of overspending - to get 'cream of the crop' players who are available)... I see the majority of teams seeing Detroit and Colorodo as great teams, and teams in the market for good, established, and perhaps superstar players - and the other teams (most guilty, mediocre teams) feel that to be successful, they must also be in the market for similar players... I see the large majority of teams failing to realize that the fundamental reason Colorodo and Detroit had (and continue to have) success is because of a properly and slowly developed 'core' from a young player age...

When you have the majority of teams spending - and overspending - and trying to spend (but the only reason they don't spend more is because they can't afford it) to acquire player personnel, it is only a matter of time before salaries escalate at a dangerous pace when compared to revenue... (with a demand of 20 to 30 teams, and a supply of 1 individual player - the end price for that player is a lot higher than if it's a demand of 5 teams)... From where I sit, the majority of teams are brainwashed into thinking that DET's and COL's strategy now - of acquiring whenever available, very good to great to superstar veteran, established players - that this is how they will achieve success (like DET or COL)...

From my perspective, the majority of teams are failing to consider the evolution of DET and COL's franchise the past decade - but rather, they are narrow-mindingly considering them now...

IMO, Anaheim being in the market for Fedorov is terrible for the game (in both a hockey and an economic sense)... In an economic sense, it's not allowing the salary market to naturally correct itself (instead of only a few teams being in the market for Fedorov - we have the majority of teams being in the market for Fedorov - and those that aren't in the market, mostly aren't because they can't afford him)... DET and COL worked hard to get to where they are... They worked hard to be in a position to acquire (and retain) a player like Fedorov... Because DET's core grew up together, Fedorov even fits in the team's salary structure (and it would have even better if Carolina didn't drive it up)... What business does ANA have raising the bidding price for Fedorov... What business does ANA have disrupting their team salary structure... If Fedorov makes $8 million... What is Sykora going to ask for next time his contract is up for renewal? What if Sykora played twice as well as Fedorov, and contributed to the team twice as much... Do what teammates get paid not also affect salary? IMO, of course it does... It happens in every industry, every work setting... What others are getting paid in your office helps determine what you will get paid... Your contributions, skills, and outputs are compared to that of your direct peers - and your compensation is determined accordingly... For a comparable job, if you were making less than someone who performed far worse then you, would you ask for more next time your contract was up? I would... Who wouldn't...

And what other comparable workers in other offices are getting paid, helps determine what you will get paid in your office...

If Sykora was able to get millions more in his office, this definitely can impact what Naslund will ask to get paid in our office...

And in order to pay for the expensive Anaheim team, Anaheim now must make the playoffs... They can't afford to allow their team to naturally, slowly, and correctly grow...

Thus, clutch-and-grab trap hockey...

If Anaheim (and the majority of medicore and poor teams) woke up and realized that they are not close to elite - and thus, they shouldn't try to employ the same strategy as the 'aging elite' - then IMO, the league problems would for the most part naturally correct itself...

If there isn't steady improvement from year-to-year for 3 to 4 years, then IMO, that's a good sign that a re-build needs to be done... Perhaps not from scratch - but take things a few steps back (like the Canucks did in Burke's second arrival)... But acquiring a player like Fedorov is not going to fix things... and it is going to cause a whole lot of problems in the process...

my $02

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 03:58 PM
  #36
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
You don't think having to pay Ray Whitney, Derian Hatcher and Robert Lang for the next three years isn't punishment enough? on this point we have to agree to disagree. UFA signings don't really affect anyone but the team and the player.

Surely you don't think that achieving this objective is worth shutting is worth a lockout.



He was blowing smoke. He was setting up the Morrison and Cloutier contract negotiations. And all he said was that he would have to consider changes to the top ten players. To me that meant he'd move Morrison or Cloutier if he asked for too much money. I didn't believe Burke most of the time. He made great decisions but kept us mostly in the dark about what he was doing. He denied rebuilding until he was finished.

Tom
tom is right - thing to note though - if clouts had gone to arbitration nonis was gonna let him walk -
mo wanted to play at home - it was worth 1 - 2 mil for him to do that -

mr gib is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 04:29 PM
  #37
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr gib
tom is right - thing to note though - if clouts had gone to arbitration nonis was gonna let him walk -
mo wanted to play at home - it was worth 1 - 2 mil for him to do that -
I personally think that Burke's comments were made out of frustration (they were made soon after the playoff exit)... I also don't take too lightly that his GM contract was soon expiring... To me, he was communicating just what he said - that he'd consider changing the core. While allowing the core to develop together for years was the correct strategy, at times he also received flak for it from the fans, media, and who knows - perhaps Orca Bay (there were rumblings that they didn't agree with the Bertuzzi signing - who knows)... To me, he was communicating a different direction than his 'plan' - and that was scary to me given the timing...

Frustration + Desperation = the breeding ground for smart men to make poor decisions...

Perhaps he was simply setting things up for the Mo and Cloutier contract negotiations... perhaps not...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 05:24 PM
  #38
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
I agree that the current system works in theory... I imagine that the NHL and Bettman agrees as well - thus agreeing to the old CBA... But the problem is, it doesn't work in reality...
I dont see why not. Especially now that they have highlighted some of the causes. Chiefly the RFA offer sheets. Who would ever do that again. They are not meant as a method for outbidding other teams. And the starting salary for 10% raises was #1.3mil instead of $850k. And rookie bonuses.

RFA salaries should be able to be managed even better with some tweaking, resetting of the comparables, and the experience of the mistakes in the first 10 years.

UFA salaries dont matter.



Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye

From where I sit, I see the large majority of the teams trying to follow Colorodo or Detroit's strategy now (of spending - and often, of overspending - to get 'cream of the crop' players who are available


The only players available are UFA's. This wasnt Detroit and Colorado chief strategy. Not every team will be successful in following the proper strategy. For it to be working properly, half the teams at least trying it have to fail. I see no problem witgh Columbus getting some UFAs to fill out their roster, or Phoenix trying to sign a bunch of UFAs to get momnentum, or Anaheim replacing Kariya with UFAs. I dont think they are great strategies for success, but they there is no reason they shouldnt be able to try it. Mainly since UFA salaries are never comparable. Federov got less than Holik.

I dont think UFA overspending is the main problem.


Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye

If Fedorov makes $8 million... What is Sykora going to ask for next time his contract is up for renewal? What if Sykora played twice as well as Fedorov, and contributed to the team twice as much..

Is Sykora going to be an RFA? Then he will ask for what his comparables can make. Havlat is way better than Smolinski, but he doesnt compare himself to him or ask for as much money. Because they are in two entirely different salary systems that dont compare. IF Sykora gets the numbers that earned Federov his money, he's probably worth that. If he's a UFA he might even get offered it. But its not a comparable. You take the best offer you get. Federov already accepted less than the doom and gloom rate predicted. Certainly less than he asked Detroit for.


Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
And in order to pay for the expensive Anaheim team, Anaheim now must make the playoffs... They can't afford to allow their team to naturally, slowly, and correctly grow...
They cant afford to do the right thing? Careful, you're falling into the trap again. Do we want a system that will allow them to buy a team, just buy it cheaper. Are we sure we want to make it possible to buy a team, even if its cheaper than before?

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 05:26 PM
  #39
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
Just to elaborate my position...

I do think that each team needs to follow the good strategy... because only negative things come out of the 'buy' strategy...

However, I'd personally be willing to accept a solution that is NOT CBA related and addresses my concerns (as long as it's not illegal - I don't have a firm grasp on the legalities of CBA's and hockey business)...

If each GM and team did extensive formal training on the correct strategy... on the 'knowing-doing gap', on 'strategy impact', etc... then IMO, I'd give the teams a benefit of the doubt that they can follow the strategy on their own...

If the majority of teams aren't following the correct strategy come the next CBA, THEN re-visit having formal constraints defined by the CBA...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 06:39 PM
  #40
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye

I agree that the current system works in theory... I imagine that the NHL and Bettman agrees as well - thus agreeing to the old CBA... But the problem is, it doesn't work in reality... and IMO, that's only because the owners don't make it work...
I have much more confidence in the owners. They've learned. The hard way. It both costs the team money and it doesn't help them win. If they do not learn they deserve to lose money and lose on the ice.

Quote:
From where I sit, I see the large majority of the teams trying to follow Colorodo or Detroit's strategy now (of spending - and often, of overspending - to get 'cream of the crop' players who are available)...
That is not the Colorado strategy. They really have not been big players in the free agent market. They are on the New Jersey model. They are very selective about the older players they retain and they go out of their way to open up the ice time for young players. Colorado did it right and they are still doing it right.

Detroit, Dallas and Philadelphia all built the team with young players, but once they got good they almost always chose free agents over young players. That puts them on a treadmill. Every year they get older and more expensive without getting better. It can't last.

Lots of teams have tried to spend their way from mediocre to elite (including the Canucks) and none have succeeded.

Quote:
IMO, Anaheim being in the market for Fedorov is terrible for the game (in both a hockey and an economic sense)... In an economic sense, it's not allowing the salary market to naturally correct itself (instead of only a few teams being in the market for Fedorov - we have the majority of teams being in the market for Fedorov - and those that aren't in the market, mostly aren't because they can't afford him)...
No way the majority of teams were chasing Fedorov. He ended up getting less from Anaheim that Detroit once offered him. The Ducks were in because they had freed up $20 million (over two yuears) by cutting Kariya loose. The Fedorov deal was structured with a lot of money up front. From this point on, he takes pay cuts through the end of his contract.

This means Anaheim kept their flexibility. The Stars can't give Guerin away now they want to change direction, but the Ducks can always deal Fedorov because his money gets more and more reasonable through the life of the deal. It was not a bad move by Anaheim. I thought signing Prospal was their big mistake.

Quote:
What is Sykora going to ask for next time his contract is up for renewal? What if Sykora played twice as well as Fedorov, and contributed to the team twice as much... Do what teammates get paid not also affect salary?
It doesn't matter. Sykora is not a UFA. I don't see why you keep doing this. UFA salaries cannot be used by anyone to lever more money. And Naslund is a better player than Sykora, so Naslund won't be using him no matter how much he makes. Naslund's contract affects Petr, but not the other way around.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 06:54 PM
  #41
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
I prepared a long reply, but the website went down for me... Here's my cole's notes version...


Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
I dont see why not.
To this point, the CBA has not worked for the NHL (i.e. it has not worked in reality)... Do you agree?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Especially now that they have highlighted some of the causes. Chiefly the RFA offer sheets. Who would ever do that again. They are not meant as a method for outbidding other teams. And the starting salary for 10% raises was #1.3mil instead of $850k. And rookie bonuses.

RFA salaries should be able to be managed even better with some tweaking, resetting of the comparables, and the experience of the mistakes in the first 10 years.
I agree that changes to the RFA are necessary... And if no one would ever do that again - may as well have it formally spelled it out in the CBA - just in case...

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
UFA salaries dont matter.
So you don't agree that if a team signs an UFA, that player acquisition has the potential to impact the team's salary structure (if his earning is far more when compared to his teammates)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
The only players available are UFA's.
And via trades... i.e. Bure for Jovo...

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Not every team will be successful in following the proper strategy.
Right, but they have the potential to be elite... which should be the goal of every franchise... and when they fail, they do so without huge financial loses - and without having to start from scratch every time...

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
For it to be working properly, half the teams at least trying it have to fail.
I agree... Fail or not reach elite status...

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
I see no problem witgh Columbus getting some UFAs to fill out their roster, or Phoenix trying to sign a bunch of UFAs to get momnentum, or Anaheim replacing Kariya with UFAs.
I don't see a huge problem if they acquire players that fit in their current team salary structure... I see a problem if they acquire players who disrupt their salary structure...

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
I dont think they are great strategies for success, but they there is no reason they shouldnt be able to try it. Mainly since UFA salaries are never comparable. Federov got less than Holik.
Until next time things leap frog again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
I dont think UFA overspending is the main problem.
Again, you don't think that acquiring players (regardless of how they were acquired) that do not fit in your team's current salary structure is a problem?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Is Sykora going to be an RFA? Then he will ask for what his comparables can make. Havlat is way better than Smolinski, but he doesnt compare himself to him or ask for as much money.
You don't think that Smolinski's contract (and the rest of the Ottawa players salaries) plays a role into what Havlat's expectation of worth will be? I agree that the biggest consideration is what comparable RFA earn... But you don't think teammate contracts play a role in setting the expectation of team upper and lower limits?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Because they are in two entirely different salary systems that dont compare. IF Sykora gets the numbers that earned Federov his money, he's probably worth that. If he's a UFA he might even get offered it. But its not a comparable. You take the best offer you get. Federov already accepted less than the doom and gloom rate predicted. Certainly less than he asked Detroit for.
Maybe this is where my ignorance to the old CBA comes into play... RFA and UFA get paid by the same means, don't they (i.e. they are offered contracts, and they accept)? If an accounting firm hired a competitor's accountant (and thus, had to pay more for his services to 'outbid' his current employer and the other competitors who were bidding on his services) the current employees don't say 'well, he's in a different salary system because he was acquired from another company - he wasn't recruited from University... therefore he should make a lot more than me' - his situation is not comparable to mine...

IMO, the existing employees care about how much $ others in the office are making - not via the means they came to work at the company... Equal contribution, equal results, equal talent, equal years of service, equal pay... If anything, the existing employees should be earning more for being with the company longer...

Why is it different with hockey?


Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
They cant afford to do the right thing? Careful, you're falling into the trap again. Do we want a system that will allow them to buy a team, just buy it cheaper. Are we sure we want to make it possible to buy a team, even if its cheaper than before?
They're not doing the right thing... In order to hold on to Fedorov and other 'mix and match' core - they sacrafice potential long term success for short term gain...

IMO, stick with and play Chistov, etc... Drop Fedorov, Rob Niedermeyer, and other aging 'mix and match' core members... Sure, chances are you won't make the playoffs this year, or perhaps the next three (but a good consolation prize is that you end up with very good draft picks for the potential to draft even more quality core pieces - and provided you keep, grow, and play your young core, you've got a much better chance to make it in year 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc...

While keeping payroll in check for the short term, while earning big profits in the long term...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 07:20 PM
  #42
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
That is not the Colorado strategy. They really have not been big players in the free agent market. They are on the New Jersey model. They are very selective about the older players they retain and they go out of their way to open up the ice time for young players. Colorado did it right and they are still doing it right.
Not in the free agent market - but in the expensive player market... which they should be... They can and should be able to acquire a Rob Blake via a trade... Colorodo has done everything right, IMO... And they can afford a big tax if need be...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Detroit, Dallas and Philadelphia all built the team with young players, but once they got good they almost always chose free agents over young players. That puts them on a treadmill. Every year they get older and more expensive without getting better. It can't last.
Agreed...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Lots of teams have tried to spend their way from mediocre to elite (including the Canucks) and none have succeeded.
Agreed... rather silly that lots of teams still try...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
No way the majority of teams were chasing Fedorov. He ended up getting less from Anaheim that Detroit once offered him. The Ducks were in because they had freed up $20 million (over two yuears) by cutting Kariya loose. The Fedorov deal was structured with a lot of money up front. From this point on, he takes pay cuts through the end of his contract.
I'm trying to illustrate my points and communicate more clearly by using examples (that I admit that I don't have the specifics to)... It's a lot easier for me to say my thoughts than to write them out... (I'm a much better talker than writer)...

Regardless, by cutting Kariya loose, IMO, the Ducks should have gotten cheaper and went with playing younger players who have potential (I assume throughout my arguments that the goal of a franchise is to try and become 'elite')... IMO, the Ducks had no business being in the market for Fedorov - even if they could afford him by cutting Kariya loose...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
This means Anaheim kept their flexibility. The Stars can't give Guerin away now they want to change direction, but the Ducks can always deal Fedorov because his money gets more and more reasonable through the life of the deal. It was not a bad move by Anaheim. I thought signing Prospal was their big mistake.
That was a good move (regarding Fedorov's contract)... They should deal him asap, IMO...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
It doesn't matter. Sykora is not a UFA. I don't see why you keep doing this. UFA salaries cannot be used by anyone to lever more money. And Naslund is a better player than Sykora, so Naslund won't be using him no matter how much he makes. Naslund's contract affects Petr, but not the other way around.

Tom
I keep doing this, because I think that maintaining team salary structure is very important... (In general, I think that maintaining your companies salary structure is very important - regardless of the industry)... I think that you and Thinkwild are both very intelligent guys - so I'm trying to see your point-of-view (and see why UFA do not impact the salaries of others on the same team), but in any work environment, in any industry, what your peers are earning affects what you will earn - regardless of how your peers were acquired (i.e. University, acquisition from another company, etc.)... Equal contribution, equal roles, equal talents, equal tasks, equal pay... IMO, it should be this way regardless of how the employee was acquired...

I don't see (or understand) why it is different in hockey... If the Canucks sign Klatt as an UFA (for $1.5 million, for example), why can't Cooke use this as a lever for more money (when his contract is up)?

What am I missing???


Last edited by I in the Eye: 10-04-2004 at 07:29 PM.
I in the Eye is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 07:43 PM
  #43
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
I don't see (or understand) why it is different in hockey... If the Canucks sign Klatt as an UFA (for $1.5 million, for example), why can't Cooke use this as a lever for more money (when his contract is up)?

What am I missing???
Contract negotiations are all about leverage. The CBA sets a framework that gives the teams almost all the leverage when the player is young. As the player acquires seniority he acquires the leverage of arbitration. When he gets to Trent Klatt's age, he has all the leverage. Under the existing CBA the leverage shifts from one side to the other over 13 years.

Cooke can't use Trent Klatt as a lever because Nonis will respond to his agent, "Trent Klatt has other options. He can sign with another team if he does not like our offer. Matt Cooke does not have that leverage. All he can do if he does not like our offer is file for arbitration. The CBA specifically forbids him to use Trent Klatt as a comparison in arbitration. What kind of an player agent are you? Have you even read the CBA? Are you a professional?"

Matt Cooke will get about the same money as other 27 year old third liners next year. These players get about $1 million a year. Cooke is much better than Klatt but gets $750,000 less right now. He would close that gap next year - if the CBA was not changed - because he will get a raise and Klatt probably has to take a cut. Peter Schaefer is a Cooke comparable.

Every player and every player agent understands the way it works.

I've worked with player agents and I've worked on court cases involving hockey players and damage claims. Everybody in the business - except the hockey media - understands the way it works.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 07:57 PM
  #44
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Contract negotiations are all about leverage. The CBA sets a framework that gives the teams almost all the leverage when the player is young. As the player acquires seniority he acquires the leverage of arbitration. When he gets to Trent Klatt's age, he has all the leverage. Under the existing CBA the leverage shifts from one side to the other over 13 years.

Cooke can't use Trent Klatt as a lever because Nonis will respond to his agent, "Trent Klatt has other options. He can sign with another team if he does not like our offer. Matt Cooke does not have that leverage. All he can do if he does not like our offer is file for arbitration. The CBA specifically forbids him to use Trent Klatt as a comparison in arbitration. What kind of an player agent are you? Have you even read the CBA? Are you a professional?"

Matt Cooke will get about the same money as other 27 year old third liners next year. These players get about $1 million a year. Cooke is much better than Klatt but gets $750,000 less right now. He would close that gap next year - if the CBA was not changed - because he will get a raise and Klatt probably has to take a cut. Peter Schaefer is a Cooke comparable.

Every player and every player agent understands the way it works.

I've worked with player agents and I've worked on court cases involving hockey players and damage claims. Everybody in the business - except the hockey media - understands the way it works.

Tom
Thanks, Tom... The info in this post is something I failed to acknowledge in my argument...

I'm going to go digest the info... Reformulate my thoughts... And think about my stance with regards to 'using the CBA to force the proper building strategy'...

I may be back in a few days

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 09:21 PM
  #45
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,311
vCash: 500
You dont have to force the proper building strategy. You want to provide a system that allows it to flourish. You can lead a horse to water. Even though its a wise strategy, its a guideline. Over the course of the life of your team, you will be in different situations and have different opportunities present themselves.

Its not that this is the only way, its that is just as good as any other way. If you use this strategy, you wont be affected much by teams buying their way, and they have no better opportunity. You dont need to prevent it. You need to prevent it from being an unfair in the long run strategy. The two style can co-exist. Like Ottawa and Toronto. Detroit and Nashville. Colorado and Vancouver. Dallas or Calgary.


I know what you mean about the salary tructure of a team. But Havlat doesnt worry about Smolinskis salary. Hossa's maybe. When Daigle was making more than Yashin, and they were both comparable RFAs, obviously 23 yr old Yashin gets upset. But he's not going to care if we hire some 35 yr old for more because they are in different worlds.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 09:26 PM
  #46
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,354
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
UFA signings don't really affect anyone but the team and the player.
Tom
They do.

1. they restrict the player pool driving up prices.
2. they drive up other UFAs prices.
3. they drive up RFA prices.

You might try and debate the last one but its fact. If the highest paid player in the league is getting $4m/y (UFA or RFA) does Jagr/Forsberg/Pronger get offered $10m/y or $11m/y. The answer is a big fat no. But start overpaying a bunch of UFAs and suddenly Forsberg says "I'm better than all of them. Pay me more." and he gets it. Then every KT type says "Forsberg gets XYZ, he's an RFA and I'm in his league. I'm not settling for $3-4m I want $9m." And he gets it. And so on and so on down the line. UFA salaries clearly do affect RFA salaries via a flow on effect.

me2 is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 10:09 PM
  #47
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
1. they restrict the player pool driving up prices.
Huh? They have zero effect on the player pool.

Quote:
2. they drive up other UFAs prices.
Huh? They do not. The player does not make demands. He fields offers. An auction drives up the price.

Quote:
3. they drive up RFA prices.
This is not a fact. What is a fact is that both the NHL and the NHLPA went out of their way to ensure that UFA prices did not affect RFAs. They specifically included a clause in the CBA to ensure it. Why do you think UFAs can't be used in arbitration? Why was that clause negotiated?

The highest player in the league has never been an unrestricted free agent, but that is temporary - given long enough with this CBA and they would be the highest paid players. Players who were not governed by the rookie level salary - all the names you mentioned - were the highest paid players in the NHL when they were Iginla's age. They were making staggering amounts at age 23, 24 and 25 because their salaries when they were young were not controlled by the CBA.

Have you even read the CBA? Your ignorance of the NHL salary structure and the way the old CBA worked is staggering. Garbage in, garbage out. The NHL poured their garbage into you, and you spew garbage out. If there was not a chump born every minute, nobody would believe the NHL case.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 11:36 PM
  #48
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,354
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Huh? They have zero effect on the player pool.
Supply and demand. You said it yourself in the below point. Its an auction. What happens when supply runs short: it drives up prices. You yourself said it below. When the rich teams start sucking up all of the available UFA talent it creates vacuums.


Quote:
Huh? They do not. The player does not make demands.
Of course they do.

Quote:
He fields offers. An auction drives up the price.
By that logic if the highest paid player in the league made $4.5m Holik would still have made $9m. Personally I don't see it that way. One player salary will be compared to others. If the market is out of control stupid salaries get offered based on other stupid salaries. Salaries do affect other salaries.


Quote:
This is not a fact. What is a fact is that both the NHL and the NHLPA went out of their way to ensure that UFA prices did not affect RFAs.
On the surface at least.....


You yourself said Contract negotiations are all about leverage. The CBA sets a framework that gives the teams almost all the leverage when the player is young. As the player acquires seniority he acquires the leverage of arbitration. When he gets to Trent Klatt's age, he has all the leverage. Under the existing CBA the leverage shifts from one side to the other over 13 years. then followed it up with The highest player in the league has never been an unrestricted free agent.

Spot what is wrong with that picture? Wonderful theory, not exactly working in real life is it.



Quote:
Have you even read the CBA? Your ignorance of the NHL salary structure and the way the old CBA worked is staggering.
If you can't grasp the inherent failings in the old CBA don't blame me. Go study it and actually think about it some more until you can . The core of the old CBA has fatal flaws under its shiny surface. I don't suppose you made it passed the shiny surface.

Quote:
Garbage in, garbage out. The NHL poured their garbage into you, and you spew garbage out. If there was not a chump born every minute, nobody would believe the NHL case.
Tom
Yeah sure Tom. If you refuse to acknowledge the flaws in the system that your problem not mine. Just because I refuse to see things your way doesn't make me any less right than you.

me2 is offline  
Old
10-05-2004, 12:07 AM
  #49
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
They do.

1. they restrict the player pool driving up prices.
2. they drive up other UFAs prices.
3. they drive up RFA prices.

You might try and debate the last one but its fact. If the highest paid player in the league is getting $4m/y (UFA or RFA) does Jagr/Forsberg/Pronger get offered $10m/y or $11m/y. The answer is a big fat no. But start overpaying a bunch of UFAs and suddenly Forsberg says "I'm better than all of them. Pay me more." and he gets it. Then every KT type says "Forsberg gets XYZ, he's an RFA and I'm in his league. I'm not settling for $3-4m I want $9m." And he gets it. And so on and so on down the line. UFA salaries clearly do affect RFA salaries via a flow on effect.
I see your point (it's been one of the basis for my arguments)... And I think I'm starting to see Tom's and Thinkwild's... I haven't thought through and decided for myself yet which answer really works for me...

IMO, this is one of the most important questions... Do UFA prices affect RFAs prices? The answer is not a simple yes or no, I think...

If the dude who started this thread (or someone else who knows stats) could come up with some data to help come to an answer... that would be very insightful, IMO...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
10-05-2004, 12:13 AM
  #50
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
IMO, this is one of the most important questions... Do UFA prices affect RFAs prices? The answer is not a simple yes or no, I think...
It is pretty simple. UFA salaries do affect the league ALS, but that concern can be rejected simply because there are too few players who are close enough to the ALS to make it matter to the NHL bottom line.

Aside from that the owners and players agreed to explicitly exclude UFAs from the arbitration process which is supposed to be the court of last resort for the player. .

Why did they decide to do that?

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 06:43 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.