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.

NHL plans to disperse talent

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-23-2005, 07:43 AM
  #76
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
The only folks I've seen talking about a dispersal is THN, citing a "Linden was supposedly told" source. I'll need a hell of a lot better source than that before I believe this rumour. Sounds like typical fear tactics by the union.
The NHL, with its PR machine, is quick to issue statements whenever something comes out of the mouths of the NHLPA that they don't agree with. Someone tried to float the idea that salary cap = no guaranteed contracts, the league shot that down quick.

If this thing about the dispersal draft wasn't actually mentioned by the league lawyers, the NHL would have said so by now. They are horribly frightened that their PR gravy train might stop or worse, turn against them. And this tactic (whether true or fear mongering) is starting to turn once-blind Bettman supporting fans against the league.

CGG is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 09:44 AM
  #77
Volcanologist
Spark up a Dubas
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kessel Apocalypse
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,586
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Yes, I'm sure. Read the part right above what you highlighted in your first post:

"Daly sees a different outcome, saying under the old collective bargaining agreement even rebuilding teams lost players before they were ready to compete because they could no longer afford them."
The problem is, if that's the case, then why would Daly be seeing a "different outcome"? It wouldn't make any sense in the context of the conversation.

He's clearly responding to Linden, who is talking about the big market teams losing players under the proposed arrangement.

Daly then shrugs his shoulders and says, Well, there were teams broken up under the old system too, so what?

That's what I read.


Last edited by Volcanologist: 01-23-2005 at 10:07 AM.
Volcanologist is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 12:42 PM
  #78
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Bettman is on record as saying there would be no grandfathering of contracts when a cap came in. Numerous teams took him on his word, and took steps to prepare for the upcoming season. Others continued business as usual.

Once again, any team who is negatively affected by this will be because of bad management, not because of the cap.
Bingo!

The teams that screwed up the previous system with their wallets will lose some overpriced players. Boo Hoo.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 12:56 PM
  #79
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Bingo!

The teams that screwed up the previous system with their wallets will lose some overpriced players. Boo Hoo.
Indeed. Colorado drafts Joe Sakic, develops him into a future Hall of Famer...and has the nerve to pay him accordingly? Time to punish Colorado for that "screw up" and disperse their talent to lousier plebian teams.

Trottier is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 01:06 PM
  #80
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Indeed. Colorado drafts Joe Sakic, develops him into a future Hall of Famer...and has the nerve to pay him accordingly? Time to punish Colorado for that "screw up" and disperse their talent to lousier plebian teams.
I guess adding Blake's huge contract had nothing to do with their current bloated payroll, right?

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 01:09 PM
  #81
kerrly
Registered User
 
kerrly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Regina
Country: Canada
Posts: 800
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to kerrly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Indeed. Colorado drafts Joe Sakic, develops him into a future Hall of Famer...and has the nerve to pay him accordingly? Time to punish Colorado for that "screw up" and disperse their talent to lousier plebian teams.
Now they will know how other teams feel having to let go of their developed talent.

kerrly is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 03:00 PM
  #82
Hockeyfan02
Registered User
 
Hockeyfan02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pistivity
Country: United States
Posts: 13,864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerrly
Now they will know how other teams feel having to let go of their developed talent.
But isnt the cap system everyone wants supposed to keep guys like Sakic on their respective teams. Keep talent you've developed on your team. I thought that was the whole point of the cap?

Hockeyfan02 is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 03:51 PM
  #83
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeyfan02
But isnt the cap system everyone wants supposed to keep guys like Sakic on their respective teams. Keep talent you've developed on your team. I thought that was the whole point of the cap?
That's why the league should institute a NBA-style system, with some modifications (i.e. no sign-and-trades).

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 03:53 PM
  #84
Chayos
Registered User
 
Chayos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon
Posts: 2,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Must say that I am astounded that some folks here actually endorse the concept of teams having to give up their talent to lesser ones, for the benefit of "parity" (read: "my" team having a better chance of winning a hollow Cup.).

Maybe we could have this system go into effect annually? Top five teams in the regular season have to divest themselves of 10-15 players...all of whom go to the bottom feeders. Would that meet your definition of "parity"?

You are entitled to your opinion...But where is the sense of integrity? This is a professional league, not a friggin' fantasy league player swap.
No I would say it is more of a case of teams having to bring their costs in line, the fact that they are players is irrelevant. The players that will be dispersed will be older expensive vets. The lower payroll teams will each grabg one guy and the high payroll teasm will be forced to buy out other players to get under the cap. Players like turek, Leclaire maybe even yashin may be UFa's teams can sign cheaper.

My feeling is the league will use the remains of the warchest to buy out overpaid players to get under the cap.

Chayos is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 03:57 PM
  #85
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chayos1
My feeling is the league will use the remains of the warchest to buy out overpaid players to get under the cap.
Exactly, teams will have to either buy out or renegotiate contracts of the more expensive players.

Steve L* is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 03:59 PM
  #86
Chayos
Registered User
 
Chayos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon
Posts: 2,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
I guess adding Blake's huge contract had nothing to do with their current bloated payroll, right?
Colorado will have some hard choices to make but with Foersberg a ufa and signed to stay in Sweden this season, it will be easier than it could have been.


teams that I wonder about are Dallas, NYR and philly.

man philly is going to have to buy out 2 of Recchi, Roenick and Leclair.

Chayos is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 04:37 PM
  #87
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chayos1

man philly is going to have to buy out 2 of Recchi, Roenick and Leclair.
Recchi already signed with Pittsburgh and Bob Clarke has made it abundantly clear he intends to buy out LeClair and possibly Amonte. That's about $20 million in savings right off the bat.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 04:42 PM
  #88
Coffey77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chayos1
Colorado will have some hard choices to make but with Foersberg a ufa and signed to stay in Sweden this season, it will be easier than it could have been.


teams that I wonder about are Dallas, NYR and philly.

man philly is going to have to buy out 2 of Recchi, Roenick and Leclair.
Recchi signed with the Pens. So I guess it's either Roenick or Leclair.

Detroit's payroll with the rollback is about $43 million. And that's without Chelios or Datsyuk there. If they buy out Cujo and Hatcher, they may be able to squeeze by. Maybe.

dispersal draft? That's stupid. Some fans here don't seem to understand that making every team the same isn't good for hockey. Competitive balance is one thing. Having a fair shot at the Stanley Cup is one thing. Having an economic system that's fair is one thing. But it seems some fans here want the Stanley Cup passed around to EVERY team every year. Ok, Tampa won their cup so let's gut their entire team. If Calgary does it the year after, let's dismantle their team and give another team a chance to win it.

I don't mind linkage for players to revenues and I think it could work. But 51% to 57%? If you want to make every team the same, there it is. This is competitive sports people, not intramurals. Heck, even when I played intramurals there was usually a disparity in talent among teams.

Coffey77 is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 05:04 PM
  #89
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Indeed. Colorado drafts Joe Sakic, develops him into a future Hall of Famer...and has the nerve to pay him accordingly? Time to punish Colorado for that "screw up" and disperse their talent to lousier plebian teams.
The rangers had alot to do with Sakic's salary.

Hasbro is online now  
Old
01-23-2005, 05:09 PM
  #90
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coffey77
Some fans here don't seem to understand that making every team the same isn't good for hockey. Competitive balance is one thing. Having a fair shot at the Stanley Cup is one thing. Having an economic system that's fair is one thing. But it seems some fans here want the Stanley Cup passed around to EVERY team every year. Ok, Tampa won their cup so let's gut their entire team. If Calgary does it the year after, let's dismantle their team and give another team a chance to win it.
Some fans erroneously believe that this would be the result of a cap. That's simply not true. There are several examples in the NFL of teams that have put together long strings of winning seasons without having to gut their core. See: New England, Philly, Indy, Green Bay, Denver (to name a few).

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 05:19 PM
  #91
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeyfan02
But isnt the cap system everyone wants supposed to keep guys like Sakic on their respective teams. Keep talent you've developed on your team. I thought that was the whole point of the cap?
The longer these circular threads go on 02, the more apparent the real motivation of some fans becomes.

Economic parity? Hardly.

Punishing well-run teams by dispersing their talent to the weak sisters? You bet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
That's why the league should institute a NBA-style system, with some modifications (i.e. no sign-and-trades).
Have you ever stated this preference previously? If you did, wish I had read it, for it would have avoided a lot of head-butting. A system similar to the NBA's is highly attractive, IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chayos1
No I would say it is more of a case of teams having to bring their costs in line, the fact that they are players is irrelevant.

Which is exactly why your's truly suggests that some take a fantasy league approach to moving players around, willy, nilly. Apparently, we do not share the same sense of the need for roster cohesion/continuity and the positive fan affiliation it breeds among franchises.

The players that will be dispersed will be older expensive vets. The lower payroll teams will each grab one guy and the high payroll teasm will be forced to buy out other players to get under the cap. Players like turek, Leclaire maybe even yashin may be UFa's teams can sign cheaper.

"Older expensive vets"? As in the type of player who helps a team win Cups?

Spreading the wealth to the benefit of lousier run teams is an approach that some like, others, like myself, don't. (And I'm not a fan of a "wealthy" team.) It's simply a matter of taste.

You are likely right that this arrangement could work. The same could be achieved if ownership accepted a massive payroll decrease offered by the NHLPA and then - horrors - exhibited fiscal restraint and shrewd player personnel decisionmaking. Heck, they could do it starting today, without a rollback.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
The rangers had alot to do with Sakic's salary.
Yes, they had "the nerve" to offer a restricted free agent a glorious contract in return for his services, back in the summer of 1997. He, had "the nerve" to accept it, and Colorado had "the nerve" to determine that it was worth matching.

And some imply that such a scenario is "wrong"?

Lenin would be proud of that sentiment.






Last edited by Trottier: 01-23-2005 at 09:23 PM.
Trottier is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 06:24 PM
  #92
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepNCheese
The problem is, if that's the case, then why would Daly be seeing a "different outcome"? It wouldn't make any sense in the context of the conversation.
Of course it makes sense. Daly sees a "different outcome", which is teams *not* being broken up.

Trevor says teams will be broken up, Daly sees a different outcome, citing how teams have already been broken up, and the cap will change that.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 06:38 PM
  #93
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,967
vCash: 500
Trots it's wrong in the sense that the Rag$ did nothing except jack up league salaries.

Hasbro is online now  
Old
01-23-2005, 07:02 PM
  #94
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier

Have you ever stated this preference previously? If you did, wish I had read it, for it would have avoided a lot of head-butting. An system similar to the NBA's is highly attractive, IMO.
Only about 50 times. I'm not sure if you can search posts by the posters name, but if you can I'm sure you'll find I've frequently made the case for an NBA-style system.
This is just my opinion (so please, nobody demand a link), but I suspect the NHL would go along with a modified version of the NBA system if it were put on the table. It's what they wanted 10 years ago and I believe there are enough better-off owners who would jump at the opportunity and do what they could to bring the hardliners along with them.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 07:28 PM
  #95
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
Only about 50 times. I'm not sure if you can search posts by the posters name, but if you can I'm sure you'll find I've frequently made the case for an NBA-style system.
This is just my opinion (so please, nobody demand a link), but I suspect the NHL would go along with a modified version of the NBA system if it were put on the table. It's what they wanted 10 years ago and I believe there are enough better-off owners who would jump at the opportunity and do what they could to bring the hardliners along with them.
Considering the fact that Bettman was one of the chief architects of the NBA cap, I'm sure a modified version could be sold to the NHL.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 08:13 PM
  #96
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
Some fans erroneously believe that this would be the result of a cap. That's simply not true. There are several examples in the NFL of teams that have put together long strings of winning seasons without having to gut their core. See: New England, Philly, Indy, Green Bay, Denver (to name a few).
Well yes but thats because they have enough revenue sharing to allow everyone to meet the cap. A cap without revenue sharing as a partnership that shares the revenues is like a peanut butter sandwich without the bread. They go hand in hand. A cap without revenue sharing is putting the employee on a salary the lowest common denominator can afford. Not a partnership that strives to maximize all revenues.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 08:21 PM
  #97
Volcanologist
Spark up a Dubas
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kessel Apocalypse
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,586
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Of course it makes sense. Daly sees a "different outcome", which is teams *not* being broken up.

Trevor says teams will be broken up, Daly sees a different outcome, citing how teams have already been broken up, and the cap will change that.

Umm...

How are teams over the cap not going to be broken up?

Volcanologist is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 08:23 PM
  #98
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Well yes but thats because they have enough revenue sharing to allow everyone to meet the cap. A cap without revenue sharing as a partnership that shares the revenues is like a peanut butter sandwich without the bread. They go hand in hand. A cap without revenue sharing is putting the employee on a salary the lowest common denominator can afford. Not a partnership that strives to maximize all revenues.

Ahem.

In the NHL's proposal the cap is set with a high minimum and a narrow band to the maximum to ensure the players get their fair share.

If you want to argue that the players deserve a higher % or average salary, knock yourself out, but the NHL's offer ensured that the bar was set well above "the lowest common denominator."

And what better incentive could the league devise for teams to grow their revenue to meet the salary floor than survival?

It's amazing how the PA supporters continue to ignore this fact.


Last edited by SENSible1*: 01-23-2005 at 08:28 PM.
SENSible1* is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 08:48 PM
  #99
Quantas
Registered User
 
Quantas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 843
vCash: 500
Am I the only one who thinks this all a ploy by the NHL? I just can't imagine that they're serious about having a dispersal draft. What happens if no-one wants to take Leclair's contract, or Holik's or Jagr's (I realize that not all these players would be left "unprotected", but you get the point).

The high salary teams would definitely object to this idea. Sure, they'd love to hardwire profit into the system, but at the cost of their on-ice success? I don't think so. Plus, I'm sure some of the lower salaried teams would be happy to pick up a few players here and there, but I don't see them redoing their roster, especially if they have a good young cheap core.

I think this is just another bargaining tactic and that the league, in the name of compromise, will move off this idea once true negotiations start.

Quantas is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 09:03 PM
  #100
Commander Enigma
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Considering the fact that Bettman was one of the chief architects of the NBA cap, I'm sure a modified version could be sold to the NHL.
Why the hell isn't anyone proposing this then? I'm refusing to take sides in this, I think both sides are stubborn and greedy, both sides have some valid points, but no one official has actually proposed an NBA style soft cap yet. It's been hard cap - no cap - hard cap - no cap back and forth non stop from both sides. A soft cap is the obvious compromise, but both sides refuse to compromise enough to get a deal done. I'll take sides once one of the sides proposes this. Until then I see both sides and both Bettman and Goodenow as dirt.

Commander Enigma 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 02:45 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.