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, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Lockout V: Take the Long Way Home

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-18-2012, 02:59 PM
  #276
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
This just sounds like sour grapes because the team you support fails to market its product and therefore fails to succeed. Don't worry though, the whole league will get as bad as it has to in order to make sure even the crappy franchises get their turn at a Cup. 3 cheers for supporting failure! Hip, hip hooray!!!
Funny, but my team sells out every game at 60+ dollars a ticket. You, on the other hand, sound like your grapes have rotted completely over the fact that your team can't buy a cup. Too bad, so sad.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 03:11 PM
  #277
Actual Thought
Boy was I wrong!
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
That's actually more what it was like before the lock out when teams like the Oilers would have to give up their best players like Weight, Cujo, Guerin, etc. and Calgary was in the same spot with losing Fleury and then almost losing Iginla too.

Teams like Pittsburgh, Washington, Vancouver, Boston, even Chicago have been able to retain most of their core talent nowadays. Calgary has retained their core (for better or worse). You can't keep everyone but you can generally keep the main pieces.
Yes, and replace your bottom 2 lines every 2 years. Chicago lost a lot after they won the Cup. The tams you mention above lost players because the teams failed to generate enough dollars for themselves not because they were forced to lose them in order to help ill advised teams.

Actual Thought is online now  
Old
12-18-2012, 03:12 PM
  #278
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 17,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
I would argue purely based on my opinion that the product isn't as good and we have had 2 lost seasons and are working it toward 2.5 or more. We have teams that cannot and will not sustain themselves and the teams that can are being reduced to mediocre in order to support them. We have quality franchises that draft well losing their players once they develop because they can't keep them under the cap. I don't believe things are better. On the contrary.
Name them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
Yes, and replace your bottom 2 lines every 2 years. Chicago lost a lot after they won the Cup. The tams you mention above lost players because the teams failed to generate enough dollars for themselves not because they were forced to lose them in order to help ill advised teams.
Chicago lost quite a few players because they mismanaged their RFA signings and they went for broke in signing a couple of UFAs.

Had they not won the cup in that one season, I think it would be a good of example of how not to do things.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 03:14 PM
  #279
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Name them.
Touche'

I can only think of one and even then there are other mitigating circumstances.

etherialone is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 03:17 PM
  #280
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Name them.



Chicago lost quite a few players because they mismanaged their RFA signings and they went for broke in signing a couple of UFAs.

Had they not won the cup in that one season, I think it would be a good of example of how not to do things.
That is one. A single franchise and in the example you stated where they themselves made their own mistake(s). That isn't enough of a sample size to support your position nor does it do so entirely anyways.

I agree with your point on this but not entirely.


Last edited by etherialone: 12-18-2012 at 03:35 PM.
etherialone is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 03:25 PM
  #281
Actual Thought
Boy was I wrong!
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
Disagee 100%.

What is so "wrong" with a business owner altering how his business operates so that he can make a profit? Especially if his employees average $2.4m??

Who are hockey fans to say to a business owner: "you should be able to take a loss - no matter how big it is. You shouldn't expect to make money from your hockey team investment"

How many pro-player posters here actually own a business? What would you do if you were losing money? Keep doing business as usual...?

And losses to the players?? They are cutting their own throats by chosing to earn 0 dollars in NHL salary for a season, when an average career is 5 years. Not very smart business planning to say the least.
Just because you invest in a business doesn't mean that you are entitled to succeed. Some owners made really bad decisions in purchasing the franchises that they purchased.

I am self employed and I have to determine my own "cost certainty". I don't get to dictate that others in my industry must lower their level of quality in order to support my failure or my ill advised investment. I either present a great product and market that product effectively or I go under.

Actual Thought is online now  
Old
12-18-2012, 03:27 PM
  #282
Actual Thought
Boy was I wrong!
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Name them.
Detroit.

Actual Thought is online now  
Old
12-18-2012, 03:28 PM
  #283
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 17,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonellisghost View Post
That is one. A single franchise and in the example you stated where they themselves made their own mistake(s). That isn't enough of a sample size to support your position nor does it do so entirely anyways.

I disagree with your point on this but not entirely.
The Chicago situation was definitely an outlier, as the Kings' situation would have been this season in being able to bring every player back from their Stanley Cup Championship team.

Neither of those two things happen very often. There is always some off season turnover, even for cup champs. It's not due to the salary cap though.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 03:29 PM
  #284
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 17,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
Detroit.
Which players did they lose?

They signed all their best players at pretty reasonable prices which allowed them to keep their young guys.

Detroit is just a team that finally got a little long in the tooth.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 03:37 PM
  #285
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
The Chicago situation was definitely an outlier, as the Kings' situation would have been this season in being able to bring every player back from their Stanley Cup Championship team.

Neither of those two things happen very often. There is always some off season turnover, even for cup champs. It's not due to the salary cap though.
Sorry, I fixed it.

I mean to say that I completely agree with what you were saying.

Sorry, you are 100% correct.

etherialone is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 03:37 PM
  #286
Actual Thought
Boy was I wrong!
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Which players did they lose?

They signed all their best players at pretty reasonable prices which allowed them to keep their young guys.

Detroit is just a team that finally got a little long in the tooth.
In Detroit's case they were forced to push veterans into retirement in order to keep young players. These cup winning players chose to retire rather than play in another uniform. However the turnover is about to hit them. Filpula will be gone his next contract and if the cap drops several more will be casualties. Hence the team will be less talented. Possibly still competitive with all the other less talented teams but still not as good as they could and would be. You either have to dump your top players and replace with youth or lose your youth to keep your core. You can no longer do both.

Actual Thought is online now  
Old
12-18-2012, 03:38 PM
  #287
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
Exactly what I have been saying. If this lockout doesn't cause the owners some pain they will just do it again. After all they are unwilling to fix the actual problems of failing markets. They will come back to the players again for more concessions. It will never stop until the players play for free.
The NHL tried to make some small steps in that direction with putting in some exemptions into HRR. The players freaked. They have no interest in allowing the league to fix itself.

__________________
"I changed the whole game, man," Rinaldo said. "Who knows what the game would have been like if I didn't do what I did?" [after illegally running Letang from behind, slamming his head into the glass]
Riptide is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 03:43 PM
  #288
Iggy77
Registered User
 
Iggy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
The NHL tried to make some small steps in that direction with putting in some exemptions into HRR. The players freaked. They have no interest in allowing the league to fix itself.
They do as long as it doesn't cost them anything.

Early on Fehr said something along the lines of "The NHL should grow itself out of its problems"

Iggy77 is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 03:43 PM
  #289
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 17,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
In Detroit's case they were forced to push veterans into retirement in order to keep young players. These cup winning players chose to retire rather than play in another uniform. However the turnover is about to hit them. Filpula will be gone his next contract and if the cap drops several more will be casualties. Hence the team will be less talented. Possibly still competitive with all the other less talented teams but still not as good as they could and would be. You either have to dump your top players and replace with youth or lose your youth to keep your core. You can no longer do both.
Like who?

If you are talking about Lidstrom, he was still a good player, but it is not unusual for a guy his age from Europe to retire and head back home.

Then you switch gears to if the cap drops. Well, if the cap drops every team that was up around $70M is going to have to scramble a little to get under the new cap. I don't see where Detroit is at any more of a disadvantage than any other team.

Sounds to me like you just long for the days that the Red Wings could pick up whatever they needed in the off season or at the trade deadline without any regard to cost. Those days are gone, get used to it.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 03:48 PM
  #290
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Stewie Hockey™
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Salt Mines
Country: Bermuda
Posts: 9,075
vCash: 2500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
Ya' know, I never got the hang of "modern math," but that doesn't look like a list of 10 teams to me...

The attendance percentage is interesting. Tampa Bay ranks 21st in the league, but it should be noted that even after the horror inflicted upon us by Barrie/Koules, last year that 21st place was 96.2% of capacity. Not too shabby for a team in recovery mode. (If you go by average attendance we were 13th.)

If anyone's interested, the teams below Tampa Bay are New Jersey (87.4), Florida (86.6), Anaheim (86.4), Colorado (86.1), Carolina (85.9), Islanders (81.3), Columbus (80.8), Dallas (76.8) and Phoenix (72.5).

ESPN Attendance Stats
I don't understand the "new math" either - but I can tell you that there weren't ten teams because those I listed were the only ones to show up on all three ten team lists.

In any case, my point was relocation isn't the answer. Too many teams "in trouble" in any given year, and not enough money and/or places to relocate them to.

Stewie Griffin is online now  
Old
12-18-2012, 04:06 PM
  #291
99 steps
to the top
 
99 steps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: RV, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Chicago lost quite a few players because they mismanaged their RFA signings and they went for broke in signing a couple of UFAs.

Had they not won the cup in that one season, I think it would be a good of example of how not to do things.
Christ, this is the myth that won't die. The RFA signings fiasco did NOT result in bad deals. If any of the deals were "bad," it would be Barker's and we traded him before next season ended.

99 steps is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 04:12 PM
  #292
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99 steps View Post
Christ, this is the myth that won't die. The RFA signings fiasco did NOT result in bad deals. If any of the deals were "bad," it would be Barker's and we traded him before next season ended.
No they were not entirely bad. However those signings with Campbells crazy ass deal meant that Chicago was in cap hell. They likely could have saved 1.5-2m if it hadn't been for that RFA situation. Not a lot of money, but it would have helped them out a lot at the time.

Riptide is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 04:17 PM
  #293
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Geographical Oddity
Country: United States
Posts: 9,837
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
Just because you invest in a business doesn't mean that you are entitled to succeed.
Of course it doesn't.

But wouldn't you be foolish to not do everything in your power to try to turn a profit? What business owner wouldn't do that?

Butch 19 is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 04:39 PM
  #294
Actual Thought
Boy was I wrong!
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Like who?

If you are talking about Lidstrom, he was still a good player, but it is not unusual for a guy his age from Europe to retire and head back home.

Then you switch gears to if the cap drops. Well, if the cap drops every team that was up around $70M is going to have to scramble a little to get under the new cap. I don't see where Detroit is at any more of a disadvantage than any other team.

Sounds to me like you just long for the days that the Red Wings could pick up whatever they needed in the off season or at the trade deadline without any regard to cost. Those days are gone, get used to it.
I don't think Detroit is at more of a disadvantage than anyone else. They are just the team that I have watched the closest so I am familiar with how the cap has affected them. They get less talented every year. I wasn't referring to Lidstrom. They would have made room for him. Guys like Draper, Maltby, Osgood, and soon Holmstrom. All replaced by players who aren't even as good as they were even as old as they are now. They all expressed interest in playing but were forced out in favor of lesser youngsters. Yes every team that was able to spend to the cap will have their talent reduced with the new lower cap. Not sure how that makes the product better.

Actual Thought is online now  
Old
12-18-2012, 04:44 PM
  #295
Actual Thought
Boy was I wrong!
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
Of course it doesn't.

But wouldn't you be foolish to not do everything in your power to try to turn a profit? What business owner wouldn't do that?
Sure but wouldn't the players try to do everything they can to make the most they can too? Why should they just cave to the demands of owners just because the owners made bad investments?

Actual Thought is online now  
Old
12-18-2012, 04:45 PM
  #296
Do Make Say Think
& Yet & Yet
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 26,856
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
I don't think Detroit is at more of a disadvantage than anyone else. They are just the team that I have watched the closest so I am familiar with how the cap has affected them. They get less talented every year. I wasn't referring to Lidstrom. They would have made room for him. Guys like Draper, Maltby, Osgood, and soon Holmstrom. All replaced by players who aren't even as good as they were even as old as they are now. They all expressed interest in playing but were forced out in favor of lesser youngsters. Yes every team that was able to spend to the cap will have their talent reduced with the new lower cap. Not sure how that makes the product better.
So a team getting worse is necessarily because of the cap? Nothing to do with the fact that they've been drafting pretty high for a very, very long time and those gems like Datsuyk and Zetterberg don't come by very often?

Do Make Say Think is online now  
Old
12-18-2012, 04:46 PM
  #297
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
I don't think Detroit is at more of a disadvantage than anyone else. They are just the team that I have watched the closest so I am familiar with how the cap has affected them. They get less talented every year. I wasn't referring to Lidstrom. They would have made room for him. Guys like Draper, Maltby, Osgood, and soon Holmstrom. All replaced by players who aren't even as good as they were even as old as they are now. They all expressed interest in playing but were forced out in favor of lesser youngsters. Yes every team that was able to spend to the cap will have their talent reduced with the new lower cap. Not sure how that makes the product better.
So will Draper Maltvy Osgood and soon Holmstrom be signed by other teams when the lockout ends? If not then your argument falls apart because all players are eventually replaced and by good teams they are replaced from within by players who are seen as at least competent young players who will hopefully become their actual replacements.

etherialone is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 04:48 PM
  #298
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 17,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
I don't think Detroit is at more of a disadvantage than anyone else. They are just the team that I have watched the closest so I am familiar with how the cap has affected them. They get less talented every year. I wasn't referring to Lidstrom. They would have made room for him. Guys like Draper, Maltby, Osgood, and soon Holmstrom. All replaced by players who aren't even as good as they were even as old as they are now. They all expressed interest in playing but were forced out in favor of lesser youngsters. Yes every team that was able to spend to the cap will have their talent reduced with the new lower cap. Not sure how that makes the product better.
These guys got OLD!! If Maltby, Draper, and Osgood were that good they would have had offers from other teams that they could not have turned down.

Getting old happens, and just because they expressed an interest in playing doesn't mean the team should keep them. At some point you have to bring in fresh blood.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 04:51 PM
  #299
WingedWheel1987
Ken Holland's office
 
WingedWheel1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GPP Michigan
Posts: 9,212
vCash: 500
I seriously doubt the NHL will play less than 48 games. It looks like the season is very close to being completely cancelled. What a bunch of morons.

WingedWheel1987 is online now  
Old
12-18-2012, 04:53 PM
  #300
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
A simple google search of Fehr and his dealings with the MLB union will explain why people didn't like the players choosing Fehr. His presence pretty much gaurenteed a work stoppage and a lengthy one at that. He believes in them and they have worked well for him in the past. Again though the NHL is not the MLB. It doesn't have uncapped salaries and unlimited revenue potential.
That's not for us to decide though. Players think Fehr has given them the best chance to win. right or wrong.

Melrose Munch is online now  
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 02:42 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.