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, expansion and relocation, and NHL revenues.

Can someone explain this to me please?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-21-2004, 09:31 PM
  #26
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,908
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Actually Naslund has made it very clear, he plays in Vancouver or he goes home to Sweden. Our team has a good history of negotiating deals that are team freindly. Our players also have a good history recently of wanting to stay where they are because of the treatment they recieve from management, also many of our players have been here so long that they have gone from being single to married to having kids. Many of them talk about not wanting to displace there kids.

Living proof that players will play for less if they want to. Proof that at least some players will stay with at below market contracts under a cap.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 09:34 PM
  #27
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,908
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Even with a 24% roll back, our team will still be over the cap by 5 million, to bleed off that payroll we would have to get rid of Markus Naslund and Ed Jovanovski, or we could trade let see Todd Bertuzzi and the twins. That is what I call an inferior product. I pay to see exciting hockey, not clutch and grab trapping hockey. I get that exciting hockey with my current team, I am not willing to pay about 20K a year between tickets, parking and meals, to watch crap hockey.
Given Bettman and co were talking about $38m how is Van $5m over cap after a 24% rollback? Our payroll is no where near $57m at present?

me2 is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 02:21 AM
  #28
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Even with a 24% roll back, our team will still be over the cap by 5 million, to bleed off that payroll we would have to get rid of Markus Naslund and Ed Jovanovski, or we could trade let see Todd Bertuzzi and the twins.
Oh gee, what a surprise, vanlady is throwing complete garbage around again.

Vancouver has $43.4 million under contract for the 04/05 season. A 24% rollback takes us to $32.9 million, well *under* the proposed cap, and in fact, likely under the minimum forcing us to add salary.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 03:00 AM
  #29
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
The only problem was, Klatt wanted more money than what Burke was prepared to pay... and Klatt (nor Burke) would budge... So in EDM (and small market team) fashion, Klatt was let go...

Is this good management or a flaw in the CBA?

Matter of opinion, really...

If Vancouver was able to win a few more rounds in the playoffs, maybe we would have been able to spend a bit more money to keep Klatt at the price Trent wanted (or negotiate somewhere in the middle)... But since we weren't able to have much playoff success (other than a round or two), maybe we didn't deserve the luxury of being able to retain every player that we wanted to...
why pay Klatt 1.3m (or whatever he signed for) when you can pay King or Ruutu half that ? besides, they signed Magnus Arvedsson for what they wanted to pay Klatt. Who cares ?

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
12-22-2004, 03:02 AM
  #30
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Oh gee, what a surprise, vanlady is throwing complete garbage around again.

Vancouver has $43.4 million under contract for the 04/05 season. A 24% rollback takes us to $32.9 million, well *under* the proposed cap, and in fact, likely under the minimum forcing us to add salary.
actually, im fairly certain the cap range numbers Bettman was throwing around wasnt player salary, but player costs. this would include non salary factors like benefits and other player expenses.

id like to be corrected though, the thought that the cap of 34-38m isnt even just salary shows how much worse their cap offer really is.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
12-22-2004, 03:05 AM
  #31
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
A 24% rollback
why do we count this as a fact ? the players offered it as part of their concessions. it was rejected (lets not debate the merits). fact is, its off the table, since it was rejected.

if the players finally agree to a cap, i dont see them agreeing to much if none of a roll back.

why should they and why shouldnt the owners be expected to fulfill the contracts they signed, just as we would expect a player to.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
12-22-2004, 05:04 AM
  #32
misterjaggers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Duke City
Country: United States
Posts: 14,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
Logically, if possible.


Why is it in the best interest of fans everywhere to go from a system that punishes bad management to a system that punishes good management? This idiotic belief among pro-owners still does not make sense to me.

The old system (94-04) basically rewarded well managed teams and punished poorly managed ones. The way that the poorly managed teams (or poor teams because of lots of young players) improved was by improving their coaching, players, maangement drafting and the like.

Under a hard cap system the NHL seems to think it will get, its plan is to punish the teams that excel in these domains and reward the poorly managed ones with subsidized players coming from the cities that produce them...
Why don't you begin by logically explaining why you reached the conclusion that poor management would be rewarded under a salary cap?

misterjaggers is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 07:40 AM
  #33
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
actually, im fairly certain the cap range numbers Bettman was throwing around wasnt player salary, but player costs. this would include non salary factors like benefits and other player expenses.
You're right, benefits are included. Which adds 2.2 million to any payroll calculations. Which still leaves the Canucks well under the proposed NHL cap, despite the histrionics to the contrary by vanlady.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
why do we count this as a fact ? the players offered it as part of their concessions. it was rejected (lets not debate the merits). fact is, its off the table, since it was rejected.
I'm not counting it as fact, vanlady posed a hypothetical. But, with both the NHLPA and the NHL having 24% on average rollbacks in their offers, this seems to be one of the few points they actually agree on, and is likely to be in the final deal.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 11:39 AM
  #34
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
I'm not counting it as fact, vanlady posed a hypothetical. But, with both the NHLPA and the NHL having 24% on average rollbacks in their offers, this seems to be one of the few points they actually agree on, and is likely to be in the final deal.
i wouldnt count on it. the players offered it in exchange for the owners dropping their cap position.

i think the players will tell the owners to screw themselves before agreeing to a 24% roll back AND the ugly hard cap #'s Bettman thinks is "fair".

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
12-22-2004, 11:50 AM
  #35
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterjaggers
Why don't you begin by logically explaining why you reached the conclusion that poor management would be rewarded under a salary cap?
I think it would be becuase of increased (and younger) unrestricted free agency. Teams won't have to rely on the draft as much, because there will always be a plethora of free agents in their prime available each year. Teams will let other teams do the drafting and developing, then pick good players off when those well drafted teams can't fit everyone under the cap.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 11:57 AM
  #36
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 33,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
I think it would be becuase of increased (and younger) unrestricted free agency. Teams won't have to rely on the draft as much, because there will always be a plethora of free agents in their prime available each year. Teams will let other teams do the drafting and developing, then pick good players off when those well drafted teams can't fit everyone under the cap.
A few words for you:
Cincinnati Bengals, Arizona Cardinals

A few words more:
Pittsburgh Steelers, New England Patriots

Given an even playing field, a true Cap REWARDS good management and can not save poor management at all. It becomes a true sport where you can not buy your way out of mistakes (see the Yankees, et al, where they make bad deals that would kill mid-level and below spending teams and just throw more money out and shrug) and championships mean something, winning year in year out means even more.

Jaded-Fan is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 12:00 PM
  #37
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan
A few words for you:
Cincinnati Bengals, Arizona Cardinals

A few words more:
Pittsburgh Steelers, New England Patriots

Given an even playing field, a true Cap REWARDS good management and can not save poor management at all. It becomes a true sport where you can not buy your way out of mistakes (see the Yankees, et al, where they make bad deals that would kill mid-level and below spending teams and just throw more money out and shrug) and championships mean something, winning year in year out means even more.
Which teams have bought themselves out of mistakes in the NHL?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 12:02 PM
  #38
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 33,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
i wouldnt count on it. the players offered it in exchange for the owners dropping their cap position.

i think the players will tell the owners to screw themselves before agreeing to a 24% roll back AND the ugly hard cap #'s Bettman thinks is "fair".

dr

as has been pointed out, most contracts were designed to sunset this year, only a relatively small percentage extend more than a year beyond whenever this season begins again. Why would Bettman or the owners care about a roll back that would effect far less than half the players in the league one year out? It was a nice public relations ploy but hardly would be meaningful in effecting the owners decision regarding a Cap.

Jaded-Fan is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 12:08 PM
  #39
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 33,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Which teams have bought themselves out of mistakes in the NHL?

Though a red herring question, the Rangers come to mind . . . over and over and over and over and over again. Has not helped them overly much, but they are hardly handicapped by their stupidity year in year out, they could spend like crazy next year too if they wished. Eventually even a room full of monkeys throwing money around will get lucky.

I am sure that some could point out some less than wise signings that teams with money have taken on that they just ate as well and have continued having success.

But as I said, a red herring. The point that I addressed was the one brought up in the post that I referenced. Basically, it was claimed that a Cap would reward bad management. I pointed out that where there is a Cap, NFL, that is not the case, in fact the opposite happens. Address that why don't you?

Jaded-Fan is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 12:15 PM
  #40
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Which teams have bought themselves out of mistakes in the NHL?
Toronto Maple Leafs.
Drafting and player development was brutal for most of the CBA and yet they were a perenial contender.

Detroit Red Wings.
Overpaid star players and hung on to them for too long, but were able to stay on top due to wallets.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 12:17 PM
  #41
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan
Though a red herring question, the Rangers come to mind . . . over and over and over and over and over again. Has not helped them overly much, but they are hardly handicapped by their stupidity year in year out, they could spend like crazy next year too if they wished. Eventually even a room full of monkeys throwing money around will get lucky.

I am sure that some could point out some less than wise signings that teams with money have taken on that they just ate as well and have continued having success.

But as I said, a red herring. The point that I addressed was the one brought up in the post that I referenced. Basically, it was claimed that a Cap would reward bad management. I pointed out that where there is a Cap, NFL, that is not the case, in fact the opposite happens. Address that why don't you?

You'd be hard pressed to find someone who thinks the Rangers have bought themselves anything but problems.

I'll just simply say again, if there is a cap, there has to be more free agency. There will be less of an emphasis on the draft. Drafting in the NHL is much more of a crapshoot than in the NFL, and the good players come in already developed. If you're well managed, you can replace someone who is a cap victim easier than you could in hockey, and in far less time.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 12:18 PM
  #42
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan
But as I said, a red herring. The point that I addressed was the one brought up in the post that I referenced. Basically, it was claimed that a Cap would reward bad management. I pointed out that where there is a Cap, NFL, that is not the case, in fact the opposite happens. Address that why don't you?
Teams that attempt to feast on other team's player development will be killed under a cap, unlike the previous CBA.

The best managed teams will succeed under a cap, that is obvious to even the casual observer, but ignored as a scare tactic by the NHLPA apologists.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 02:18 PM
  #43
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
Logically, if possible.


Why is it in the best interest of fans everywhere to go from a system that punishes bad management to a system that punishes good management? This idiotic belief among pro-owners still does not make sense to me.

The old system (94-04) basically rewarded well managed teams and punished poorly managed ones. The way that the poorly managed teams (or poor teams because of lots of young players) improved was by improving their coaching, players, maangement drafting and the like.

Under a hard cap system the NHL seems to think it will get, its plan is to punish the teams that excel in these domains and reward the poorly managed ones with subsidized players coming from the cities that produce them.

Some one explain to me:

a) Why this is logical
b) Why as a fan would I ever want this
c) Why is this necessary


Thanks and have a good night.
I think you are confusing "well managed" with "margin for error". you point out 94-04. only one team in that stretch won the stanley cup in a market/ownership that could not afford to put a top 5 payroll figure on the ice. the general lack of any consistant championships for teams below a certain payroll ranking only confirms that point.

why as a philly fan would would you ever want this? i cant think of a reason. but as a fan of 12 to 18 other nhl teams i could think of several.

txpd is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 05:09 PM
  #44
hockeyfan33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Armenia
Posts: 282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterjaggers
Why don't you begin by logically explaining why you reached the conclusion that poor management would be rewarded under a salary cap?

because it bridges the cap between poorly managed teams and contenders, a management team can build and do good for 7-8 years, but a poorly managed team could creep up from behind and win the cup because of the new "level playing field where every team has the chance to win the cup every year"


Every team isn't suppose to be a damn contender every year, that's the whole point of dynasties and building from teh draft so you can be a contender for many years. Parity completely takes away the rewards of having many years of strong drafts (I mean who cares how you draft right, any team can win any year, with a cap players will be waived and signed more than we've ever seen, younger UFA age meaning players will spend less time with one team, etc...)


Parity just isn't good for the support. There needs to be other ways of controlling costs while letting dynasty franchises still exist and giving good drafting a developement the maximum rewards.

I'm the Kings, I've been drafting great for the last 4+ years, I'm hoping in 1-2 years when most of these guys are close to their prime, it's my first year of maybe 5-6-7 years of contention.....ohhh but wait, with the cap and PARITY, I could win the cup next year and then miss teh playoffs the year after, what a reward for drafting so great huh? Thanks parity, thanks salary cap, thanks Gary Bettman and Bob Goodenow (neither of whom has the best interest of THE GAME in their minds)

hockeyfan33 is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 05:11 PM
  #45
hockeyfan33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Armenia
Posts: 282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Toronto Maple Leafs.
Drafting and player development was brutal for most of the CBA and yet they were a perenial contender.

Detroit Red Wings.
Overpaid star players and hung on to them for too long, but were able to stay on top due to wallets.

but how did Detroit get to the top?

hockeyfan33 is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 06:32 PM
  #46
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 28,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
What a load of crap.
Niiiice respect for a viewpoint that opposes your's. Classy response too!

Merry Christmas, PUNK! :lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by quat
Yeah... I agree. It doesn't sound any smarter through repitition either.
And you commenting on what is "smarter" is laughable.

Trottier is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 06:45 PM
  #47
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Niiiice respect for a viewpoint that opposes your's. Classy response too!

Merry Christmas, PUNK! :lol
I think you're misrepresenting his statement. It happens alot. Best if you add him to your ignore list to avoid it in the future.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 06:48 PM
  #48
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 28,591
vCash: 500
Good advice, and I will. Better that than to respond.

Though I must ask, how does one misinterpret the ultra-intelligent: "what a load of crap"?

Trottier is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 06:50 PM
  #49
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Good advice, and I will. Better that than to respond.

Though I must ask, how does one misinterpret "what a load of crap"?

Not to worry, not worthy of any further engagement.
Whenever you disagree with him you're misinterpreting his statement, however wrong, baffling or devoid of evidence it is.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 07:04 PM
  #50
quat
winsome, loathsome
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 9,519
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Niiiice respect for a viewpoint that opposes your's. Classy response too!

Merry Christmas, PUNK! :lol



And you commenting on what is "smarter" is laughable.
You know, just repeating your condecending remarks about intramural hockey is hardly anywhere near the usual effort you put into your posts. If someone calls you out for lazy, silly comments, perhaps you shouldn't be so shocked.

And for what it's worth, the other guy was refering to your post being crap, not you. Your reference to me seems to be the kind of thing that they ask people not to post... but maybe you have special rules eh?


Last edited by quat: 12-22-2004 at 07:11 PM.
quat 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 08:32 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.