HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Now lets get it straight

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-15-2012, 10:51 AM
  #1
OLD51JOHN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 645
vCash: 500
Now lets get it straight

The Jacobs are the cheapest owners in all sports....OR These guys are crazy for spending all that dough to keep their team intact...Which is it ????

OLD51JOHN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 11:42 AM
  #2
Taz#24
Registered User
 
Taz#24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Washington DC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,756
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Taz#24
Good call John...

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD51JOHN View Post
The Jacobs are the cheapest owners in all sports....OR These guys are crazy for spending all that dough to keep their team intact...Which is it ????
.

That said, I really like what PC has done here, he has been patient with players and coaching staff, never really having knee jerk reactions. His way of doing business has really stabilized this franchise since taking over. I know some have concerns about the future cap situation but I think he has a plan. If I had to guess, SEGUIN will eventually make KREJCI expendable, BERGERON will be re-uped between now and his pending UFA status in 14 and be the long term #2 guy (6.5ish per) and guys like SPOONER/KNIGHT etc will slide into the line-up. HORTON will either take a "bromance" discount (4.5-5.0 ish) so he can hang with LUCIC or he'll be allowed to test the UFA market. THOMAS' money will go toward re-uping RASK and SAVARD's money will be utilized as buffer.

By 13-14 opener we may see something like...

LUCIC-SEGUIN-HORTON
MARCHAND-BERGERON-KNIGHT
KELLY-SPOONER-PEVERLEY
PAILLE-CAMPBELL-THORNTON
CARON?

CHARA-BOYCHUK
SEIDENBERG-HAMILTON
FERENCE-MCQUAID
CROSS

RASK
SUBBAN

Taz#24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 11:47 AM
  #3
Mancini0518
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,870
vCash: 500
I think he is giving the OK on these deals because he knows there will be a substantial salary rollback in the new CBA

Mancini0518 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 01:03 PM
  #4
Dellstrom
The new age
 
Dellstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 17,442
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taz#24 View Post
.

That said, I really like what PC has done here, he has been patient with players and coaching staff, never really having knee jerk reactions. His way of doing business has really stabilized this franchise since taking over. I know some have concerns about the future cap situation but I think he has a plan. If I had to guess, SEGUIN will eventually make KREJCI expendable, BERGERON will be re-uped between now and his pending UFA status in 14 and be the long term #2 guy (6.5ish per) and guys like SPOONER/KNIGHT etc will slide into the line-up. HORTON will either take a "bromance" discount (4.5-5.0 ish) so he can hang with LUCIC or he'll be allowed to test the UFA market. THOMAS' money will go toward re-uping RASK and SAVARD's money will be utilized as buffer.

By 13-14 opener we may see something like...

LUCIC-SEGUIN-HORTON
MARCHAND-BERGERON-KNIGHT
KELLY-SPOONER-PEVERLEY
PAILLE-CAMPBELL-THORNTON
CARON?

CHARA-BOYCHUK
SEIDENBERG-HAMILTON
FERENCE-MCQUAID
CROSS

RASK
SUBBAN
If Krejci is traded, you might be able to add in a 1st line RW or 1st pairing D, (a player like Ryan/Yandle, not saying them, but someone of their caliber).

Dellstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 01:22 PM
  #5
Ladyfan
Miss you Savvy !
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: next to the bench
Country: Scotland
Posts: 25,913
vCash: 50
Always nice too see you post here John !

I believe the B's can no longer be called cheap. I like Cam being involved.

__________________
It's going to be a long Summer.
Ladyfan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 03:19 PM
  #6
shawnb199
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 58
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mancini0518 View Post
I think he is giving the OK on these deals because he knows there will be a substantial salary rollback in the new CBA
I think it's irrelevant. I would expect any rollback to be proportional to a reduction in the salary cap. If they're at 98% or so of the salary cap today, they'd probably still be in the same ballpark after a rollback.

He's giving the okay on these deals because there's still room to give Horty and Tuukka $5M each next year, and Ference $2M or so. That buys two more seasons before we need to either move Krejci or have Savard retire in order to free up room for Bergy's next contract. Assuming Thornton is done after this contract, bringing Knight or Spooner up to take his roster spot saves a few hundred grand beginning in 2014 as well.

shawnb199 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 03:24 PM
  #7
Dr Quincy
Registered User
 
Dr Quincy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 15,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD51JOHN View Post
The Jacobs are the cheapest owners in all sports....OR These guys are crazy for spending all that dough to keep their team intact...Which is it ????
Because people, organizations, situations never change and are frozen in time forever?

The Jacobs were cheap. They aren't any more.

It's not as hard as you are making it.

Dr Quincy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 05:54 PM
  #8
Mancini0518
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnb199 View Post
I think it's irrelevant. I would expect any rollback to be proportional to a reduction in the salary cap. If they're at 98% or so of the salary cap today, they'd probably still be in the same ballpark after a rollback.

He's giving the okay on these deals because there's still room to give Horty and Tuukka $5M each next year, and Ference $2M or so. That buys two more seasons before we need to either move Krejci or have Savard retire in order to free up room for Bergy's next contract. Assuming Thornton is done after this contract, bringing Knight or Spooner up to take his roster spot saves a few hundred grand beginning in 2014 as well.
My comment wasn't pertaining to the cap at all. Instead the point i was making is that he shelled out 70+ million this week, while crying at the board of Governors that the league wasn't making money, because he knows they will be repealed later.

Jacobs has essentially spoke out of both sides of his mouth this last few weeks. The owners (led by Jacobs) have stated that the contracts have gotten out of hand and they want to cap things such as the term. This is while he has shelled out 70 million on three players. This is what John is speaking to I think.

Mancini0518 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 06:22 PM
  #9
missingchicklet
Registered User
 
missingchicklet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,052
vCash: 500
I don't understand how people can say that the owners around the league are hypocritical for the signings over the past few months. They have a job to do in strengthening their teams and have to play by the rules in place. No owner worth his salt is going to stop trying to get the best players possible, regardless of the CBA currently being debated.

missingchicklet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 06:25 PM
  #10
Mancini0518
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by missingchicklet View Post
I don't understand how people can say that the owners around the league are hypocritical for the signings over the past few months. They have a job to do in strengthening their teams and have to play by the rules in place. No owner worth his salt is going to stop trying to get the best players possible, regardless of the CBA currently being debated.

You don't see an owner complaining about the length and size of contracts while giving out 70 million that very week as hypocritical?

Mancini0518 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 06:30 PM
  #11
missingchicklet
Registered User
 
missingchicklet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mancini0518 View Post
You don't see an owner complaining about the length and size of contracts while giving out 70 million that very week as hypocritical?
Not at all. They have to operate under the current rules. You don't quit strengthening your team simply because of arguments being posed for a future agreement.

missingchicklet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 07:45 PM
  #12
Mancini0518
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by missingchicklet View Post
Not at all. They have to operate under the current rules. You don't quit strengthening your team simply because of arguments being posed for a future agreement.
Jeremy Jacobs is complaining about the way contracts have been given out.

jeremy Jacobs gave out 70 million dollars this week.

Still don't see it?

Mancini0518 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 02:49 AM
  #13
DJENTLEMAN
Lost My Avatar Bet
 
DJENTLEMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 2,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mancini0518 View Post
Jeremy Jacobs is complaining about the way contracts have been given out.

jeremy Jacobs gave out 70 million dollars this week.

Still don't see it?
Let me finish that statement for you: to players who were entering the last season of their current contracts (typically this is when contract discussions start to open up - especially under the PC regime) and who were also due for raises.

Jacobs didn't doll out $70 million this week alone, he signed off on contracts that overtime will amount to $70 million.

What he didn't sign off on were retirement contracts that were structured to circumvent the cap.

What he is arguing right now is simply "why should the money that my team generates be constricted to a lower percentage point than it already is, only for the additional revenue to be given to other teams who have struggled due to failing business models?"

DJENTLEMAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 07:13 AM
  #14
ODAAT
Registered User
 
ODAAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mancini0518 View Post
You don't see an owner complaining about the length and size of contracts while giving out 70 million that very week as hypocritical?
Nope, the sticking point of these arguements in my very untrained opinion isn`t really contract length and dollars, it`s putting a defined description of what Hockey Related Revenue is.

Owners/GM`s still need to conduct themselves as though the games were to have been going ahead, if not, everyone sits idle, doing nothing, then, when the lockout does end then what???? Scramble around trying to sign players?

It`s pretty clear that we do know this, if they are/will introduce a new maximum length of contract, it will at least be 6 years

ODAAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 08:01 AM
  #15
bosbruin
Registered User
 
bosbruin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD51JOHN View Post
The Jacobs are the cheapest owners in all sports....OR These guys are crazy for spending all that dough to keep their team intact...Which is it ????
JJ IS the cheapest owner in sports history. That being said, why did he shower all this money to 3 players in one week? The news articles are reporting him as being the spearhead of the lockout and I've read in several places that the owners are insisting on some type of salary rollback. That must be what is driving these big contracts, he knows they will be rolled back.

bosbruin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 08:12 AM
  #16
badbrewin
Registered User
 
badbrewin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mancini0518 View Post
I think he is giving the OK on these deals because he knows there will be a substantial salary rollback in the new CBA
This, plus the fans hit the Jacobs in the wallet pretty good in the decade subsequent to the mid 90s. He was able to get away with being cheap throughout the 80s and mid 90s, but when the product they iced became atrocious, the fans had had enough and you saw it in the attendance and overall perception.

If spending close to the ceiling keeps you consistently competitive and ensures the building is full, then he'll keep spending, but wisely.

badbrewin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 11:40 AM
  #17
Rookie Chargers
Registered User
 
Rookie Chargers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Quebec
Country: Azores
Posts: 7,751
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Rookie Chargers
Quote:
Originally Posted by ODAAT View Post
Nope, the sticking point of these arguements in my very untrained opinion isn`t really contract length and dollars, it`s putting a defined description of what Hockey Related Revenue is.

Owners/GM`s still need to conduct themselves as though the games were to have been going ahead, if not, everyone sits idle, doing nothing, then, when the lockout does end then what???? Scramble around trying to sign players?

It`s pretty clear that we do know this, if they are/will introduce a new maximum length of contract, it will at least be 6 years
All I see is that someone is lying and that if I am willing (which I am not) to go watch a game it is going to cost me more for the same product.

The players will accept any thing the owners give/tell them in the end and expect us to lay the blame on the owners.

The owners are the source of their problems if there are any.

Rookie Chargers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 11:43 AM
  #18
Rookie Chargers
Registered User
 
Rookie Chargers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Quebec
Country: Azores
Posts: 7,751
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Rookie Chargers
Quote:
Originally Posted by badbrewin View Post
This, plus the fans hit the Jacobs in the wallet pretty good in the decade subsequent to the mid 90s. He was able to get away with being cheap throughout the 80s and mid 90s, but when the product they iced became atrocious, the fans had had enough and you saw it in the attendance and overall perception.

If spending close to the ceiling keeps you consistently competitive and ensures the building is full, then he'll keep spending, but wisely.
The do not draw that well or do they?

Rookie Chargers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 08:17 AM
  #19
don
Registered User
 
don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Nashua, NH
Country: United States
Posts: 2,430
vCash: 500
I used to think, and say, that JJ was cheap but I'm now starting to think it was HS that was the cheapskate.

don is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 09:00 AM
  #20
Ratty
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Rive Gauche
Posts: 5,842
vCash: 500
For several years before the salary cap era, the Bruins were among the top third in the league in spending.

Jacobs and Sinden got a bad rap for trying to keep salaries from skyrocketing. Look what has happened, just as they foresaw; double digit year contracts and salaries that hamstring some clubs. New Jersey is an example.

I applaud Jacobs and Sinden for their efforts at financial responsibility. The league failed to take notice. Now, another work stoppage for owners to try to rein in salaries and expenses.

Ratty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 09:14 AM
  #21
hoss75
Registered User
 
hoss75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cambridge, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,630
vCash: 500
I'd read somewhere that JJ's dad owned a team coached by Eddie Shore. The team had just won a game, so in typical Shore style Eddie had torn his players a new one. After ripping into the team Papa Jacobs strolls into the room to congratulate the players and tell them how happy he is to have that group of guys and how proud he was to be associated with them.
After leaving the locker room, Eddie confronted Papa Jacobs and ripped into him. Shore felt that the team was his business and tickets and concessions were that of Jacobs and if he was telling Jacobs how to sell popcorn then Jacobs shouldn't be talking to the players. Jacobs took that to heart and taught JJ those lessons.... basically owners shouldn't be messing around in hockey operations.
Wasn't till the grandson came along being far enough removed from Eddie Shore's rants and having a more level playing field in the NHL that the ownership had a positive influence on the business of hockey.

hoss75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 09:19 AM
  #22
Scotto74
First in line...
 
Scotto74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kingston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,441
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by don View Post
I used to think, and say, that JJ was cheap but I'm now starting to think it was HS that was the cheapskate.
I feel the same way Don. Why was it once HS and OC were out the wallet all of a sudden opens up.

Spend to the cap. Bury some $$ in the AHL when needed. Pay for a coach that is no longer with you while paying for a new one.

pretty drastic change for a cheepskate to make in such a short time.

__________________
Love the city, hate the Hab™


BOSTON STRONG!!!
Scotto74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 09:28 AM
  #23
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 24,674
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotto74 View Post
I feel the same way Don. Why was it once HS and OC were out the wallet all of a sudden opens up.

Spend to the cap. Bury some $$ in the AHL when needed. Pay for a coach that is no longer with you while paying for a new one.

pretty drastic change for a cheepskate to make in such a short time.
I don't think it's really that. HS was certainly fiscally responsible, but I'm sure it's because he had incentives to do so. What changed was the lockout and insertion of a salary cap. If Jacobs fought hard and long to get a cap in place, then didn't at least spend to it, it would have looked hypocritical. I think you saw some moves even after the cap that showed JJ's involvement, and the type of responsibilities he expects from his FO. Little things like counting Lewis' money against the cap as a penalty to Chia for making the wrong hire, and cutting Peter Shcaeffer after allowing PC to bury his contract in Providence the year before, even though it impacted them negatively in terms of cap space. So while he may not be "cheap", he still certainly holds his FO to be fiscally responsible. I don't think it was ever so much about being cheap, but more so about turning a profit. Either way, that wasn't about winning, which is why so many fans had a bad taste in their mouths. You pay one of the highest prices for tickets, and your owner wasn't really about winning?

LSCII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 09:59 AM
  #24
Salem13
Registered User
 
Salem13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Salem,Mass
Country: United States
Posts: 2,723
vCash: 500
It's hard to point any fingers at owners right now, 57% of revenues?

Take a look at some information at the Bureau of Labor Statistics website at say production jobs ...

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#51-0000

Made up of lots of little positions @ 1-3%, some heavy hitters are pulling 5% but hey, those guys are in the 30-40$ range...

..yea it's apples and oranges, and these are people have devoted their lives to sport...

...most entertainment venues book the "star" @ 30% of the take?



Movie production, yea a star can get 20-30 million for a film... that's expected to gross hundreds of millions.



Lately communities are footing the bills more and more for new venues because the owners cant afford it alone, why is that?


Is it that a new stadium is so expensive, or is it the product?


Salem13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 10:13 AM
  #25
jasonbaz77*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 6,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salem13 View Post
It's hard to point any fingers at owners right now, 57% of revenues?

Take a look at some information at the Bureau of Labor Statistics website at say production jobs ...

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#51-0000

Made up of lots of little positions @ 1-3%, some heavy hitters are pulling 5% but hey, those guys are in the 30-40$ range...

..yea it's apples and oranges, and these are people have devoted their lives to sport...

...most entertainment venues book the "star" @ 30% of the take?



Movie production, yea a star can get 20-30 million for a film... that's expected to gross hundreds of millions.



Lately communities are footing the bills more and more for new venues because the owners cant afford it alone, why is that?


Is it that a new stadium is so expensive, or is it the product?

I have come to the point that it is 100% on the players at this point. They are being greedy, end of story. A guy like Looch gets a 50% raise...there is definitely something screwed up with salaries at this point. The players should not be getting 57% of revenue. No. Way.

jasonbaz77* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 05:04 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.