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.

Lockout VI:ve la Revolution!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-03-2013, 03:25 PM
  #851
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Yet most of us informed posters predicted a roll back of some extent. Those were the original claims at least. Even if we kept the previous cap, such a drastic drop cripples a good number of teams for no actual reason. Your scenario of "should have" necessitates they ignore free agency until the CBA was signed. How well do you imagine that going over with the PA?
Sure, there was speculation about rollbacks like in 2005 but you also knew that NHLPA was dead set against rollbacks which is the biggest evil for the players, so there was a good chance of not seeing rollbacks.

For no actual reason?? The only reason some teams are crippled are because they GAMBLED and got burned.

They didn't have to ignore free agency, they simply should have signed deals that won't take them to cap hell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Regardless, you now have sixteen teams who will have to forfeit value because of the NHL's incompetency. What a wonderful way to welcome back the fans.
Again, don't blame the NHL, blame the GMs. NHL didn't make them sign those bloated deals.

You can't blame league for Sather being idiot and giving Gomez that stupid deal and you can't blame the league for Habs making one of the dumbest trades in NHL's history.

The signs were all there, smart GMs saw them, the other GMs didn't.

Blame the GMs.

Pepper is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:26 PM
  #852
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
We don't agree on a lot but I think we will both agree that the GM class is not full of bright students
If there is one thing HF might agree unanimously on. This would be it.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:26 PM
  #853
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
We don't agree on a lot but I think we will both agree that the GM class is not full of bright students
That is so true.

Let the less-than-bright GMs suffer for their stupidity.

Pepper is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:27 PM
  #854
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
If there is one thing HF might agree unanimously on. This would be it.
Yet you blame the league for the actions of stupid GMs? Doesn't make sense.

Pepper is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:30 PM
  #855
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
We don't agree on a lot but I think we will both agree that the GM class is not full of bright students
Don't disagree with that!

Perhaps the best thing to do would be for someone to go back over the signings made in the past by each GM and compare them to the way they conducted signings after a point where any "collusion" could be alleged. That way, if it turns out that 95% of GMs didn't sign deals like this during their tenures, then it's pretty safe to say they didn't collude when they continued that same pattern.

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:37 PM
  #856
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Sure, there was speculation about rollbacks like in 2005 but you also knew that NHLPA was dead set against rollbacks which is the biggest evil for the players, so there was a good chance of not seeing rollbacks.

For no actual reason?? The only reason some teams are crippled are because they GAMBLED and got burned.

They didn't have to ignore free agency, they simply should have signed deals that won't take them to cap hell.
Nor can I blame them for signing a contract that was readily legal until two weeks ago. How did San Jose gamble? No one on their roster is overpaid, Havlet notwithstanding. So they buy him out and can barely afford to remedy an already depleted forward line.

If the league felt this way, they could have cancelled FA and prevented any signing. They did not. So yes, I can blame the NHL for incompetency, especially when sixteen teams will be negatively effected. GMs may make questionable decisions but when the number is so lopsided, it becomes suspect the NHL may not be all that well managed.

Quote:
Again, don't blame the NHL, blame the GMs. NHL didn't make them sign those bloated deals.

You can't blame league for Sather being idiot and giving Gomez that stupid deal and you can't blame the league for Habs making one of the dumbest trades in NHL's history.

The signs were all there, smart GMs saw them, the other GMs didn't.

Blame the GMs.
Because losing McDonagh and Higgins wasn't punishment enough? What's one more kick the crotch for good measure?

Allow me to translation. Smart GMs equate to "I couldn't afford to spend any more." What a coincidence their inability to spend benefits them.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:40 PM
  #857
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Yet you blame the league for the actions of stupid GMs? Doesn't make sense.
The league made the rules, they allowed loopholes to linger in lieu of revising said rules, and allowed teams to spend well beyond their means despite insinuations of a marginal cap decrease.

So yes, I do blame the league. The above is a horrendous business paradigm and for the first time, I can readily support the players in telling them to sod off. $60M is a nightmare for everyone involved. Fortunately, I suspect it is a ploy mirroring a tactic the PA attempted. They will come in around $65-67M but only should the PA back off on something they actually want.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:41 PM
  #858
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
Funny how no one wants to talk about the PA and their escalator option, used when they could...even though the CBA was done....

Still though, it was an insane summer of money deals by GM's and owners that just made no sense, whatsoever...
The CBA wasnt done then, otherwise they wouldnt have had the option to use it. Complaining about the inflator being applied is just the same as complaining about long term contracts, it's a problem with a component of the last CBA that should be fixed in this one. No fault to the players for applying the inflator, they won that right in the last negotiations.

Halibut is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:45 PM
  #859
Flour Child
Unleavened User
 
Flour Child's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Drury Lane
Posts: 22,625
vCash: 319
Good updated from Burnside and Strang.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...erm-break-deal

Man, Strang is camera shy. It's pretty funny to watch

Flour Child is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:47 PM
  #860
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 13,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
By increasing the cap to $70.2M they would be disingenuous to abruptly drop it by ten million. GMs were aware of a potential decrease but when circumstances insinuate the opposite or some sort of marginal compromise, it is hardly justifiable to fault them for spending to the then allotted amount.

And what of teams absent circumventing contracts? San Jose and Calgary have both complied with this supposed "spirit of the cap" yet they will suffer penalties for essentially nothing. Philly went a step further and inked Pronger while accepting the 35+ rule. Now they have an additional penalty that had never previously existed?

Either way, this is a horrendous sale to fans of sixteen teams, and a fantastic way to put them off completely.
Former Maple Leafs CEO Richard Peddie was on Prime Time Sports in December and while admitting he did not envision a lockout to last as long as this one has, he also said that they had budgeted for it several years back.

In a similar way, a General Manager should be able to foresee the coming lockout on the horizon and do the same. He should be able to "hedge one's bets," so to speak, the definition of which is to "to leave a means of retreat open."

The $10 million drop in the cap without a rollback is undoubtedly a strong demand placed upon GMs (arguably, as you've said, stronger than expected), but it is not without its escape hatches. In addition to a one year grace period, the league is reportedly offering two buyouts that would not count against the salary cap. It will still inevitably effect a very select minority of teams, however no where near the 16 that are currently over that threshold. The vast majority of teams have significant cap space being freed up in a years time or players where it would make sense to use an amnesty buyout or both. For the teams that don't, tough luck. Believe me, as a Leaf fan, I know all about GMs not preparing for an inevitable lockout and the results it can have over the course of the following collective agreement.

htpwn is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:48 PM
  #861
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,426
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
In the PA's proposal in which Fehr had said the two sides were close, the variance was set at 25%
Important distinction... the variance year to year was NOT 25%. The PA's proposal said that the lowest year (compared to the highest year) could be 25% of the highest year. That's a variance of 75% - not 25%.

The NHL is proposing that the yearly variation could change a max of 20% per year.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:49 PM
  #862
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,392
vCash: 500
Given unlimited resources and no rules stopping them, there isn't a single GM in the NHL that would show fiscal restraint or responsibility when it comes to signing players.. not one. GMs are like kids trading hockey cards.

The reason the owners want rules and restrictions in place is to protect their assets ( the Team ) from the idiots they hire as GMs. The only way to control the GMs is to have the owner oversee every transaction the team makes ( and what owner wants to do that ) OR put rules in place restricting what the GMs can do.

I'm not blaming the GMs specifically, because there job is to build the best team they can. And if that means finding loop-holes, they will. The blame lies with everyone involved with the NHL as to why we are where we are.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:49 PM
  #863
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Nor can I blame them for signing a contract that was readily legal until two weeks ago. How did San Jose gamble? No one on their roster is overpaid, Havlet notwithstanding. So they buy him out and can barely afford to remedy an already depleted forward line.
They signed Brad Stuart for 3.6M and Burns for 5.76M last summer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
If the league felt this way, they could have cancelled FA and prevented any signing. They did not. So yes, I can blame the NHL for incompetency, especially when sixteen teams will be negatively effected. GMs may make questionable decisions but when the number is so lopsided, it becomes suspect the NHL may not be all that well managed.
League couldn't cancel FA because the old CBA was still in place.

So NHL was incompetent when it didn't prevent incompetent GMs from making stupid moves? Makes no sense.

Let's just say that we agree to disagree there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Because losing McDonagh and Higgins wasn't punishment enough? What's one more kick the crotch for good measure?
When you trade for a contract like Gomez's, you deserve ALL the possible punishment. Besides, Habs can buy out Gomez, what's the problem here? Other than all the other bad contracts Habs have, that is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Allow me to translation. Smart GMs equate to "I couldn't afford to spend any more." What a coincidence their inability to spend benefits them.
So when Burke decided to play it safe, he couldn't afford to spend any more? Sorry, your argument has huge holes.

Pepper is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:52 PM
  #864
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,426
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post

If the league felt this way, they could have cancelled FA and prevented any signing. They did not.
So yes, I can blame the NHL for incompetency, especially when sixteen teams will be negatively effected. GMs may make questionable decisions but when the number is so lopsided, it becomes suspect the NHL may not be all that well managed.
They did not, because they could not. They asked the PA to freeze the cap, and the PA said no.

Riptide is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:54 PM
  #865
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
The league made the rules, they allowed loopholes to linger in lieu of revising said rules, and allowed teams to spend well beyond their means despite insinuations of a marginal cap decrease.
You keep making all those claims without any evidence, it's kinda frustrating trying to having this discussion at reasonable level.

League couldn't prevent GMs from making stupid moves and there were no insinuations of a marginal cap decrease.

I get it that you hate the league, fine, but stop inventing stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
$60M is a nightmare for everyone involved.
If you play with fire, you might end up getting burned. It's a self-inflicted nightmare.

Pepper is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:54 PM
  #866
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,426
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
So when Burke decided to play it safe, he couldn't afford to spend any more? Sorry, your argument has huge holes.
Detroit and Pittsburgh both got lucky in that regard that they missed out on Parise/Suter. Pittsburgh actually shed salary, and Detroit just didn't sign the big FA's they wanted to.

Riptide is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:14 PM
  #867
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,267
vCash: 500
I'm not quite understanding the correlation some of you are making. Just cause a team is close to the cap in salary doesn't mean they made stupid moves, or have contracts that should be bought out.

cheswick is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:23 PM
  #868
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,520
vCash: 500
Quick question for those of you who have been following this more closely recently: why are they arguing about a fixed number on the cap for next season (i.e., $60M v $65M for next year's cap)? I thought they were at least arguing about 50-50 plus $300M "off" the cap in "make whole" money. So unless the NHL has accepted delinkage, why are they talking about a fixed figure at all for next year's salaries? Is 60 v 65 just about a play number that will be adjusted up or down to 50% through escrow? If so, why would they be arguing about it?

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:23 PM
  #869
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,426
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
I'm not quite understanding the correlation some of you are making. Just cause a team is close to the cap in salary doesn't mean they made stupid moves, or have contracts that should be bought out.
Some are saying that they'll have issues to be cap compliant come year 2.


Last edited by Riptide: 01-03-2013 at 04:38 PM.
Riptide is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:26 PM
  #870
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
They signed Brad Stuart for 3.6M and Burns for 5.76M last summer.
So now we have shifted to 2011's summer? San Jose should have gone an entire year under the belief the cap may decrease by an unseen and unknown amount? Does this not seem like an asinine philosophy for the NHL to champion?

Quote:
League couldn't cancel FA because the old CBA was still in place.
They could have given an actual figure not presented a possibility and insinuated it may in fact be marginal.

Quote:
So NHL was incompetent when it didn't prevent incompetent GMs from making stupid moves? Makes no sense.

Let's just say that we agree to disagree there.
GMs are paid to do a job; improve their team to the best of their ability under the paradigm of an existing CBA. Leipold, for instance, knew of the intent to drop the cap by an obscene amount. Why not then inform his GM and not allow him to throw away money? I cannot readily call Fletcher an idiot without putting the blame on Leipold for allowing it.

Quote:
When you trade for a contract like Gomez's, you deserve ALL the possible punishment. Besides, Habs can buy out Gomez, what's the problem here? Other than all the other bad contracts Habs have, that is.
There isn't as much an issue here as they can buy him out. I'm referring to teams that essentially will be forced to sell off players despite having followed the rules.

Quote:
So when Burke decided to play it safe, he couldn't afford to spend any more? Sorry, your argument has huge holes.
Burke attempted to ink Richards to a deal greater than the one you claimed San Jose ought to be punished (Burns). He lost out only due to Richards' preference for New York. Somewhat ironic player's seeming dislike of Toronto may become a benefit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
You keep making all those claims without any evidence, it's kinda frustrating trying to having this discussion at reasonable level.

League couldn't prevent GMs from making stupid moves and there were no insinuations of a marginal cap decrease.

I get it that you hate the league, fine, but stop inventing stuff.



If you play with fire, you might end up getting burned. It's a self-inflicted nightmare.
Once again, owners have to agree to any contract. Leipold could have told Fletcher not to sign those bloated contracts realizing the subsequent consequences that would ensue. He opted not to and now is whining about it.

Incidentally, I do not hate the league. In fact, I have supported the owner's throughout this idiotic process. Therefore, you're making a baseless assumption based on one criticism I have, yet accuse me of lacking evidence. Bit ironic.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:29 PM
  #871
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
I'm not quite understanding the correlation some of you are making. Just cause a team is close to the cap in salary doesn't mean they made stupid moves, or have contracts that should be bought out.
This is where I'm at a loss myself. Burns, for instance, was considered a reasonable by practically everyone on this board. Now we are accusing Doug Wilson of being an idiot for signing it?

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:37 PM
  #872
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
The league made the rules, they allowed loopholes to linger in lieu of revising said rules, and allowed teams to spend well beyond their means despite insinuations of a marginal cap decrease.

So yes, I do blame the league. The above is a horrendous business paradigm and for the first time, I can readily support the players in telling them to sod off. $60M is a nightmare for everyone involved. Fortunately, I suspect it is a ploy mirroring a tactic the PA attempted. They will come in around $65-67M but only should the PA back off on something they actually want.
The league made the rules? Weren't the rules made by collective bargaining with the PA? If so, they agreed to them, but did not unilaterally implement them.

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:40 PM
  #873
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 13,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Burke attempted to ink Richards to a deal greater than the one you claimed San Jose ought to be punished (Burns). He lost out only due to Richards' preference for New York. Somewhat ironic player's seeming dislike of Toronto may become a benefit.
I fail to see how Burke's offer to Richards' can be compared in such a simple way to that offered to Brent Burns by Doug Wilson. Two different players, two different contracts, two different teams with different financial ability and different amounts of available cap space.

Burke, whether you like him or not and notwithstanding his missteps elsewhere, has seemingly set the Leafs up very well for the lockout. Despite having more than the wherewithal and intense fan pressure to offer cap circumventing contracts, he held off, even if it meant losing that number one centre to New York:

Quote:
"We lost out on the Brad Richards sweepstakes for two reasons," said Burke, who is believed to have offered the player a six-year, $42-million deal. "One, we didn't offer as much money as other teams and more importantly we didn't structure the contract like other teams did.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...article615788/

Perhaps more importantly and partly owing to the fact the team is rebuilding, Burke did not presume there would be a rollback. The Leafs have only 13 players signed for next season and a significant chunk of cap space to spend this coming off-season.


Last edited by htpwn: 01-03-2013 at 04:57 PM.
htpwn is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:42 PM
  #874
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,426
vCash: 500
An interesting tidbit from TSN on New Jersey's playoff run (came from the announcement about them refinancing their debt).

"The team's run to the Stanley Cup final -- where it lost to Los Angeles in six games -- generated roughly $32 million in revenues"

Riptide is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:43 PM
  #875
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
No, he didn't:



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...article615788/

Richards' contract with New York ended up being 9/$60 million.
And pepper criticised Burns' contract extension of $5.75M. 6/$42 works out to $7M per year, thus greater than Burns'


Last edited by Bourne Endeavor: 01-03-2013 at 04:44 PM. Reason: Misread
Bourne Endeavor 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 12:58 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.