HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Notices

All CBA talk goes here (NHL offers 50/50 deal - 82 game deadline passed)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-07-2012, 09:55 AM
  #376
BuiltTagonTough
Stand still laddy!
 
BuiltTagonTough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 10,492
vCash: 500
Just un ****in believable.

Man up and fix this. Two other leagues did it over the last year or so. Get. Your. ****. Together.

BuiltTagonTough is offline  
Old
09-07-2012, 09:57 AM
  #377
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,078
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
Unreal. 1st you tell me you understand its a competitive market, but then you go on to tell me that my thinking is moronic.

How do you control contracts in a competitive market, you cant. The salary cap does not control amount and length you can give 1 player.
Your presumption that there's absolutely no free will involved in the process is absolutely astounding. Teams don't have to keep bidding on those players. But they do, because they're either bad businesses or are run by their owners in such a way that they don't care about taking a loss (Pegula's Sabres, for instance).

You're now bemoaning the length of contracts. Perhaps you should be advocating a maximum length of a deal--like the NBA has--rather than your draconian suggesting of contracting 1/3 of the league on the premise that the owners just can't help themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
How do you suggest the owners prevent rising contracts? There is nothing they can do without a limit on contract length IMO. If you limit the length, then the cap can do its job controlling the market IMO.
Precisely, but you weren't arguing for a maximum length of deal; you were advocating for a contraction of 1/3 of the league. There's another way to control the length of deals, as well: free will. Don't offer 13 year/$100m deals. Not a difficult concept.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
Not every team is like Pheonix, many teams have good attendance and still lose money. The Sabres are one of them.
Stop using the Sabres as an example. The Sabres could break even or earn a little bit of money if they so chose--remember, that was Golisano's #1 objective--but Pegula doesn't care about. That's Pegula's choice. See that concept of free will again.
_______

In any event, I see you slowly backing away from your argument and attempting to move your argument to different subjects.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
09-07-2012, 10:01 AM
  #378
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,078
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSchoolMaster View Post
Just un ****in believable.

Man up and fix this. Two other leagues did it over the last year or so. Get. Your. ****. Together.
...after a lockout.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
09-07-2012, 10:08 AM
  #379
ZZamboni
Puttin' on the Foil
 
ZZamboni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,194
vCash: 500
The Sabres not making money could easily change. There are thousands of people on the waiting list for season tickets. If Pegula increased the cost of seasons by 30%, there would be a few thousand cancelling, but most on the waiting list would gladly pay for it.

Problem solved.

The Pegula and crew could easily soak the fans with price increases with a lot of different things. And the fans would pay. Less of them overall would or could pay, but the demand for the product is so great, there will be no shortage of fans who will pay.

ZZamboni is offline  
Old
09-07-2012, 10:26 AM
  #380
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZZamboni View Post
The Sabres not making money could easily change. There are thousands of people on the waiting list for season tickets. If Pegula increased the cost of seasons by 30%, there would be a few thousand cancelling, but most on the waiting list would gladly pay for it.

Problem solved.

The Pegula and crew could easily soak the fans with price increases with a lot of different things. And the fans would pay. Less of them overall would or could pay, but the demand for the product is so great, there will be no shortage of fans who will pay.
They're barely losing money now. I know that it's reported they're losing between $5M and $8M a year, but you can bet about 40% of that is standard (and legal) accounting tricks that 'invent' losses.

You can also bet that part of the reason Pegula wanted in on the Webster Block would be the extra income. Making a couple million across the street is a nice way to subsidize possible losses.

SackTastic is offline  
Old
09-07-2012, 10:27 AM
  #381
ZZamboni
Puttin' on the Foil
 
ZZamboni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
They're barely losing money now. I know that it's reported they're losing between $5M and $8M a year, but you can bet about 40% of that is standard (and legal) accounting tricks that 'invent' losses.

You can also bet that part of the reason Pegula wanted in on the Webster Block would be the extra income. Making a couple million across the street is a nice way to subsidize possible losses.
Yea, I agree with those thoughts. Plus I think Pegula truly wants to help make the Arena and waterfront a destination. And every little bit will help. And Pegula, so far, has done more than "a little".

ZZamboni is offline  
Old
09-07-2012, 10:43 AM
  #382
BuiltTagonTough
Stand still laddy!
 
BuiltTagonTough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 10,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
...after a lockout.
It's the idea of losing another entire season that's got me. At least the NFL is getting all of its games, and the NBA didn't lose a huge chunk of them.

BuiltTagonTough is offline  
Old
09-07-2012, 10:48 AM
  #383
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSchoolMaster View Post
It's the idea of losing another entire season that's got me. At least the NFL is getting all of its games, and the NBA didn't lose a huge chunk of them.
The NBA lost 20% of their season.....

SackTastic is offline  
Old
09-07-2012, 10:55 AM
  #384
BuiltTagonTough
Stand still laddy!
 
BuiltTagonTough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 10,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
The NBA lost 20% of their season.....
But you'd think with so much recent history they could learn from the other bigger leagues and come to some sort of agreement in a timely manner, as opposed to breaking off talks and acting like children.

BuiltTagonTough is offline  
Old
09-07-2012, 11:03 AM
  #385
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
You would think, but it's more complex than that.

Once people start losing paychecks, things will get real. Same thing that happened in the NBA.

SackTastic is offline  
Old
09-07-2012, 11:38 AM
  #386
ohheyimmark
Registered User
 
ohheyimmark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 3,078
vCash: 500
Apparently today's meeting is still going strong after two hours. Either things are moving forward, or a wildwest shootout erupted and no one is left.

ohheyimmark is offline  
Old
09-07-2012, 11:39 AM
  #387
Duddy
Everyday is
 
Duddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Austria
Posts: 10,380
vCash: 500
move every team out of Canada
have them pay large fees to get them back
profit

Duddy is offline  
Old
09-07-2012, 11:40 AM
  #388
Layne Staley
The Future
 
Layne Staley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
...after a lockout.
The NFL didn't lose any games.... The NHL will most definitely will. And the NBA last had a lockout before this one in 98-99.... The NHL will be screwed if they lose games this season, they are already not a big 4 sport anymore, and who'd blame the fans for that anyway? 3 lockouts in 18 seasons is a ****ing joke.

Layne Staley is offline  
Old
09-07-2012, 11:49 AM
  #389
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
Gary Bettman : "PLAYERS MAKE TOO MUCH MONEY!!! ZOMG!!!"

Jeremy Jacobs : "Sure, we can give Brad Marchand a $4.5M per contract!"

SackTastic is offline  
Old
09-07-2012, 12:28 PM
  #390
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,078
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Layne Staley View Post
The NFL didn't lose any games.... The NHL will most definitely will. And the NBA last had a lockout before this one in 98-99.... The NHL will be screwed if they lose games this season, they are already not a big 4 sport anymore, and who'd blame the fans for that anyway? 3 lockouts in 18 seasons is a ****ing joke.
First off, how does any of that affect my response to TSM that it took a lockout to get the parties to reach a collective-bargaining agreement? It doesn't. Second, the NHL won't be "screwed" because they have a niche fanbase that is going to come back, regardless. That's Bettman's bet, anyways, and his rationale is based on what happened after the last lockout--and, frankly, I think he's correct in that belief.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
09-07-2012, 03:50 PM
  #391
Rebuild
Registered User
 
Rebuild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 1,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZZamboni View Post
The Sabres not making money could easily change. There are thousands of people on the waiting list for season tickets. If Pegula increased the cost of seasons by 30%, there would be a few thousand cancelling, but most on the waiting list would gladly pay for it.

Problem solved.

The Pegula and crew could easily soak the fans with price increases with a lot of different things. And the fans would pay. Less of them overall would or could pay, but the demand for the product is so great, there will be no shortage of fans who will pay.


I'm on the list and I'd jump in at 30% more. The markets there. Just look at the prices above face value people regularly pay on ebay and stubhub. I'm sure there's a business expense for it. But, they may loose money season to season. But, the team keeps appreciating by more than they are putting into it. So, losses are really only short term. If and when they sell they get it all back and then some.

Rebuild is offline  
Old
09-07-2012, 04:30 PM
  #392
SabresAreScaryGood
McDavid 2015!!!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
Your presumption that there's absolutely no free will involved in the process is absolutely astounding. Teams don't have to keep bidding on those players. But they do, because they're either bad businesses or are run by their owners in such a way that they don't care about taking a loss (Pegula's Sabres, for instance).

You're now bemoaning the length of contracts. Perhaps you should be advocating a maximum length of a deal--like the NBA has--rather than your draconian suggesting of contracting 1/3 of the league on the premise that the owners just can't help themselves.



Precisely, but you weren't arguing for a maximum length of deal; you were advocating for a contraction of 1/3 of the league. There's another way to control the length of deals, as well: free will. Don't offer 13 year/$100m deals. Not a difficult concept.



Stop using the Sabres as an example. The Sabres could break even or earn a little bit of money if they so chose--remember, that was Golisano's #1 objective--but Pegula doesn't care about. That's Pegula's choice. See that concept of free will again.
_______

In any event, I see you slowly backing away from your argument and attempting to move your argument to different subjects.
Your whole view on owners is ridiculous. So the owner should stop trying to sign a player at what point? When exactly is it too much for the owner to spend? Its just a ridiculous argument, and your not the only one that says it. The agents and players are going to tell the owner to stop offering more money? The free will argument is just unbelievable, I don't even know how you can say something like that.

There is nothing anyone can do to stop rising contracts if there is no limit on term. Its the only way the cap can work, or do what the NFL does and allow players to be cut mid contract with minimal cap penalty.

And I thought I was pretty clear in saying the NHL cant survive with 30 teams at this rate, and must have lower contracts or contraction.

Limited term would lower contracts, you couldnt hand out as many big contracts with the cap hits being so high.

The Sabres had a hard time breaking even with Golisano when they missed the playoffs. I remember reading they lost money almost every year he was owner.


Last edited by SabresAreScaryGood: 09-07-2012 at 04:35 PM.
SabresAreScaryGood is offline  
Old
09-08-2012, 10:08 AM
  #393
hizzoner
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 665
vCash: 500
It seems that fans in some nhl cities do not want to buy as many tickets as in other cities. Further they do not want to pay the prices charged in other cities. And in some cities the fans are pushing their local and state governments to wring money out of non fan taxpayers to build and finance arenas for the local team. In most of those places the team owner is NOT making a return on investment equal even to a second line player on his team. The NHLPA solution is to let the teams that are well run and have highly motivated fans to pay more so they can see those teams come in. Value pricing anyone? The Canadian teams are paying more than their fair share for revenue sharing and their fans are paying huge ticket prices. How about all tickets must be the same price in all rinks? Leaf, Ranger fans etc. will see their costs go down or else Florida, Columbus, Phoenix see theirs go up. If Crosby gets the same money playing a game in Phoenix then surely the ticket price should be the same? Or the players get paid according to ticket prices--if the average paid ticket in New York is x and in Phoenix is 1/2 x then Ranger players get half their game salary when they play there? This is fun!In any event there will be fair play for the fans-a good thing right? If the team revenues go down it will lower player salaries but will help parity and help fans which is what both sides say they want. That is what they want is it not?

hizzoner is offline  
Old
09-08-2012, 10:40 AM
  #394
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,078
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
Your whole view on owners is ridiculous. So the owner should stop trying to sign a player at what point? When exactly is it too much for the owner to spend? Its just a ridiculous argument, and your not the only one that says it. The agents and players are going to tell the owner to stop offering more money? The free will argument is just unbelievable, I don't even know how you can say something like that.
Are you being purposely dense? My view that owners can stop the death spiral of huge contracts by ceasing to offer them is "ridiculous" and "unbelievable?" Give me a break. Your argument that this situation is somehow the fault of players and agents because they accept these stupid deals that are being offered by the teams and owners is the only thing that's ridiculous and unbelievable in this discussion. That you reject the concept of free will is all anyone needs to know about your beliefs--according to you, all the owners and teams are at the mercy of players and agents. Get the **** out of here with that garbage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
There is nothing anyone can do to stop rising contracts if there is no limit on term. Its the only way the cap can work, or do what the NFL does and allow players to be cut mid contract with minimal cap penalty.

.
Yes there is! Make the conscious decision to stop offering 13yr/$100m contracts. Stop offering middling players like Ville Leino $27m over six years. There are plenty of things owners can do to end the madness. They just choose not to, and now they want the players to take it on the chin for the owners dumb decisions.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
09-08-2012, 10:45 AM
  #395
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
Are you being purposely dense? My view that owners can stop the death spiral of huge contracts by ceasing to offer them is "ridiculous" and "unbelievable?" Give me a break. Your argument that this situation is somehow the fault of players and agents because they accept these stupid deals that are being offered by the teams and owners is the only thing that's ridiculous and unbelievable in this discussion. That you reject the concept of free will is all anyone needs to know about your beliefs--according to you, all the owners and teams are at the mercy of players and agents. Get the **** out of here with that garbage.
Sounds like there's a lot of missing the point going on. In any free market, you don't go and wag your finger at all of the individual participants and say, why, you shouldn't pay so much! They're individual participants, and if the player is worth the money to them and they don't offer it, someone else will. So no, if you believe in how free markets work, owners can't stop the death spiral without instituting a set of rules that bind each other. It's the same principles that lie behind any regulation on any market. Of course any of the individual participants could theoretically decide to do what's best for the league instead of what's best for themselves, but no one will, because there's no assurance anyone else will follow their example.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
09-08-2012, 10:55 AM
  #396
SabresAreScaryGood
McDavid 2015!!!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
Are you being purposely dense? My view that owners can stop the death spiral of huge contracts by ceasing to offer them is "ridiculous" and "unbelievable?" Give me a break. Your argument that this situation is somehow the fault of players and agents because they accept these stupid deals that are being offered by the teams and owners is the only thing that's ridiculous and unbelievable in this discussion. That you reject the concept of free will is all anyone needs to know about your beliefs--according to you, all the owners and teams are at the mercy of players and agents. Get the **** out of here with that garbage.



Yes there is! Make the conscious decision to stop offering 13yr/$100m contracts. Stop offering middling players like Ville Leino $27m over six years. There are plenty of things owners can do to end the madness. They just choose not to, and now they want the players to take it on the chin for the owners dumb decisions.
I really dont think your even thinking this through. How do owners decide who gets to sign certain players? I mean if free will was the only thing controlling contract then who decides who can make the highest offer and who decides what the highest offer should be?

The owners cant police contracts without limits in place, its impossible. Basically your asking for something similar to collusion. Which is funny.

SabresAreScaryGood is offline  
Old
09-08-2012, 11:03 AM
  #397
HockeyH3aven
#Flynnsanity
 
HockeyH3aven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Buffalo NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
I really dont think your even thinking this through. How do owners decide who gets to sign certain players? I mean if free will was the only thing controlling contract then who decides who can make the highest offer and who decides what the highest offer should be?

The owners cant police contracts without limits in place, its impossible. Basically your asking for something similar to collusion. Which is funny.
Thank you. This is exactly what I've been saying.

People are expecting all 30 owners to collectively decide on their own that they simply won't compete for top level free agents. That's just completely naive and impossible. If you want those guys, you've gotta pay the most.

HockeyH3aven is offline  
Old
09-08-2012, 11:44 AM
  #398
Der Jaeger
Registered User
 
Der Jaeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyH3aven View Post
Thank you. This is exactly what I've been saying.

People are expecting all 30 owners to collectively decide on their own that they simply won't compete for top level free agents. That's just completely naive and impossible. If you want those guys, you've gotta pay the most.
Agree. 30 owners are trying to win. Some are trying harder than others. People, owners including, are generally doing what they want, especially in America and Canada. The only way to restrict contracts and the issue of rising costs is to put rules in place. Otherwise, guys like Pegula are going to do whatever they can get away with in their quest to win.

Der Jaeger is offline  
Old
09-08-2012, 12:03 PM
  #399
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,078
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
I really dont think your even thinking this through. How do owners decide who gets to sign certain players? I mean if free will was the only thing controlling contract then who decides who can make the highest offer and who decides what the highest offer should be?

The owners cant police contracts without limits in place, its impossible. Basically your asking for something similar to collusion. Which is funny.
Strawman alert. I've never suggested any conspiratorial practice to keep prices down. By the way you have completely changed your argument from "the league needs to contract 1/3rd of its teams because contracts are out of control" to "there need to be some restrictions in place on contract length." The former set off this ****storm and given how embarrassingly stupid the argument was, it's wholly unsurprising that you're retreating from it.

Anyways, I'm a pragmatist and I recognize that owners would continue to make poor, inefficient decisions in the player market, and, thus, they'll likely have to borrow the NBA's concept of max deals. But you were not arguing that from the beginning. There's a significant difference between max contracts and taking the unprecedented step of contracting 1/3rd of a pro league.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
09-08-2012, 12:27 PM
  #400
sabresandcanucks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,786
vCash: 500
I am very sympathetic to Zip's argument in principle...but falling back on Free Will alone is not the best argument here...if that is the argument...I've only read the last page.

GM's and owners do not operate in a vacuum...nor do human beings in general. Our level of freedom is limited and shaped by the environment we find ourselves in. GM's have to think about keeping their jobs, owners about putting fans in seats, selling merchandise, corporate sponsorship's...etc.

With that said, they could theoretically hold back and not offer the outlandish deals they have been doing...but that could mean losing their jobs (GM's) or lost revenue (owners).

But to Zip's point, if there is a "villain" here it is not the players. To spend outrageous amounts of money on players and then cry poor is very hypocritical.

The NHL financially is a two tier league. The problem is twofold. How long is the league willing to stomach having franchises in markets that seem unwilling to embrace the game enough that they can be financially competitive...and two, in order to prop those franchises up who should have to foot their bill? In my opinion it should be the owners...install a luxury tax, let the Buffalo's, Vancouver's, Toronto's, New York's...etc. of the world spend as much as they like and use that money to help out the poorer teams. If the "tax" is heavy enough so that big market teams can only spend 10 - 15 million over the CAP without incurring massive revenue sharing costs, the league could still stay somewhat competitive.

Maybe they could install something like any "buried" (any contract over 1.5 million per season that is not an entry level deal) contract in the AHL has to be matched dollar for dollar in escrow payments.

sabresandcanucks is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:21 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.