HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Notices

Way around the no re-signing bought out players

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-12-2005, 08:26 PM
  #76
Mat
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Magnetomountaineer
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,054
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Mat Send a message via MSN to Mat
i hope we dont get Lecavalier

i didnt like him before
but after his dive last playoffs in game 7
i have 0 respect for him and the last thing i want is for him to play on my hometown team


Last edited by Mat: 07-12-2005 at 08:50 PM.
Mat is offline  
Old
07-12-2005, 08:36 PM
  #77
Leaf Army
Registered User
 
Leaf Army's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 8,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
I gets even better in fact

Rick Nash, Kovalchuk , Dany Heatley to become UFAs @ 25 YO

As per TSN hockey panel... Just discussed

Now all it takes is 7 years of NHL experience to become an unrestricted free agent under the new CBA .. never mind the 27 years of age .. Players that join the league as 18 year olds will be free at 25..
If true, this could hurt the small market teams bad. In fact it could offset any competitive advantage they gained from a salary cap.

Leaf Army is offline  
Old
07-12-2005, 08:52 PM
  #78
Mat
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Magnetomountaineer
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,054
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Mat Send a message via MSN to Mat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Army
If true, this could hurt the small market teams bad. In fact it could offset any competitive advantage they gained from a salary cap.
i'm actually against this. i think they should be RFA's at the stage where if another team offers more and the home team cant match it, then sure....maybe

i really dont want my Pens to lose guys like Malkin in the longrun to teams like the Red Wings simply cuz they pay more

Mat is offline  
Old
07-12-2005, 10:46 PM
  #79
timlap
Registered User
 
timlap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario
Posts: 7,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
. . .

Or Vinny Lecavalier after 1 more year of service
According to somebody like B. Mackenzie, the cancelled season will actually count as a year of service.

timlap is offline  
Old
07-12-2005, 11:18 PM
  #80
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by timlap
According to somebody like B. Mackenzie, the cancelled season will actually count as a year of service.
I heard that as well but I thought it was tied to players pension and may not count as played for the purposes of UFA ..

We shall see how this plays out ..

Mess is offline  
Old
07-13-2005, 12:07 AM
  #81
Mat
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Magnetomountaineer
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,054
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Mat Send a message via MSN to Mat
i really hope the union pushes the Yashin case to get last year to count as a contracted year

Mat is offline  
Old
07-13-2005, 12:30 AM
  #82
The Overseer*
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dar
The league is the entity in which Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment Limited(herein referred to as MLSEL) operates. You are correct in assuming the survival of the National Hockey League as an entity directly affects how much the hockey operations of MLSEL accumulates. However, MLSEL being an independant business outside of the NHL which includes operations in the NBA, NLL, ACC, television and soon to be Maple Leaf Square Entertainment Complex. The NHL has squat all to do with those operations (aside from perhaps giving Leafs TV something worth broadcasting). The investors are interested 'only' in how much the bottom line is for their own limited corporation.
So I guess we can assume you'll stop going to hockey games and paint your face blue & white for the MLSE shareholders meetings? I'm sure you could find a good stock market discussion board instead of HF.

We're talking about hockey. Too many fans conflate their team's corporate structure and profits with the on-ice product. I don't care what kind of profits my team's shareholders make, I just want to see good hockey.

You, however, seem distracted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dar
Similarly, McDonalds is a business, and within that business there are franchises, privately owned and operated. Owner X may have several investments and his particular McDonalds a part of it. You really think Owner X's investment perils if Owner Y down the street also owning a McDonalds can no longer sustain itself? Is it fair for Owner X to be asked to subsidize Owner Y so that he may maintain his franchise to the level of barely breaking even? Especially if Owner Y decided to put that McDonalds within boundries of an area configured majorily of non-beef eaters?
-or-
Should Owner X wait for Owner Y to fold shop, making the nearest McDonalds no closer than 10kms away, and attend the bankruptcy sale to buy Owner Y's liquidated assets at a discounted price to improve upon the efficiency of his own restaurant so that he may gaurantee a better product to his paying customers.

Your analogy is amusing. Terribly poor, but amusing.

The problem in your analogy is that Owner X does not rely on healthy competition from Owner Y in order to be successful himself. In hockey, this is essential.

All businesses are not the same.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dar
Similarly if there were fewer bottom feeding teams in the NHL the more talented players would be re-distributed amongst the survivors allowing them to get rid of the fringe minor league players, gauranteeing a better on ice product for their fans. The bar for where teams can standardize would be raised as the welfare teams are eliminated, fewer teams asking for handouts, and those in genuine need of assistance (based on population, not % of interest in population) ie. Calgary, Edmonton etc. would get a greater percentage of the pie to distribute on the ice.
This I mostly agree with, but it has nothing to do with what we're talking about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dar
Correct me on two points here if I'm wrong.
1. Latest we're hearing would see the Top 10 teams distribute a % of their revenue to the bottom 10. Right?
2. The NHL for the most part is Gate Driven league where revenues are concerned. Right?
And a little fact, tickets for Leafs games are in some cases triple what other teams charge.
So, where exactly is this money coming from that's being re-distributed? That's right, the attending Leafs' fans pockets.
You're wrong. The money is coming from MLSE pockets. MLSE collects the money at the gates and DECIDES to redistribute it so that they have a healthy league to play in, thus guaranteeing that they can continue to do business.

If your going to skip the MLSE step, I propose you also skip the fans. In fact, it would be the fans' employers' money, wouldn't it? The Maple Leaf fans' employers are paying for other teams' fans' tickets!!!!!

You stand corrected

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dar
That you are correct. We stand by our team through thick and thin. Marriage vows don't have squat on our loyalty.
Being wilfully blind is hardly something to brag about.

The Overseer* is offline  
Old
07-13-2005, 07:30 AM
  #83
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat
i'm actually against this. i think they should be RFA's at the stage where if another team offers more and the home team cant match it, then sure....maybe

i really dont want my Pens to lose guys like Malkin in the longrun to teams like the Red Wings simply cuz they pay more
You'll have these guys for 7 years, and only because your team was so pathetic and poorly run it got to select him in the first place.

What other job rewards you for being incompetent?

I don't think teams that purposely tank should be rewarded.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
07-13-2005, 07:34 AM
  #84
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nilsson Schmilsson
Being wilfully blind is hardly something to brag about.
Fairweather fans and people are so ordinary.

Nothing worse than being ordinary.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
07-13-2005, 07:45 AM
  #85
Frankie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nilsson Schmilsson
So I guess we can assume you'll stop going to hockey games and paint your face blue & white for the MLSE shareholders meetings? I'm sure you could find a good stock market discussion board instead of HF.

Being wilfully blind is hardly something to brag about.


terrific post!

Frankie is offline  
Old
07-13-2005, 07:50 AM
  #86
Frankie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
I don't think teams that purposely tank should be rewarded.
this word "tank" is being used waaaaaaaay too often lately.

when is the last time an nhl team was accused of purposely tanking? last whisper i heard about that is in 1984 for mario. and that problem has now been eliminated because of the lottery.

it makes for a nice little catch phrase, but "tanking" is not an issue.

Frankie is offline  
Old
07-13-2005, 08:43 AM
  #87
habfan4
Registered User
 
habfan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Deus Amat Pretzel
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Pardon ??
I think you understood my point well enough, I was questioning the sincerity of your post. Absent an inside joke or a level of undetectable sarcasm, your post is wishful thinking or a warning sign that your house is slowly filling with CO2 which is affecting your judgment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
1 ). I am sure you have been around here enough to hear Fergy say he will be focussing on prospect development ... Right ??
Not unlike every other GM. However, to that end, and to his credit, he then hired Paul Maurice to coach the Marlies (a move I commended in another thread).

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
2 ). I am sure you're aware that Revenue Sharing will be a part of the next CBA .. Right??
It has been reported that revenue sharing will make up a part of the new agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
3 ). I'm sure you're aware of the rumour of the dramatic drop in UFA age over this CBA ..Right ??
Ditto my response to point # 2 above

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Well what do you think this all means ??
Oh I don't know, pehaps:

1) That the Leafs appear to be focusing on player development (kudos to JFJ for not simply playing lip service to the press and acting by hiring Maurice);

2) That revenue sharing may be part of the new CBA;

3. That the age requirement (no word on years of service) to become a Group III free agent may drop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Apply all three items above and you will see that Toronto is using these small market teams as their farm system for development purposes as Fergy promises, of which we are funding them for via revenue sharing and once these players have reached the age of 27 and are ready for Prime Time we move them to the big parent team in Toronto via the UFA rule.
Wow that's quite the extrapolation .

Unless Toronto is getting some codified special dispensation in the new CBA, they will have to compete with other clubs (including the clubs that currently employ them) for the services of these coveted free agents. Even the teams that benefit (from the as yet undefined revenue sharing) will be able to make competitive offers for such players services.

Under the new CBA - Will Toronto sign their share of UFAs? Absolutely! Is Toronto a desirable destination for players? Again absolutely (it's not alone on that front). Will the former have nots continue to be "farm" teams for clubs like Toronto? Think again, your personal boogeyman fiscal parity will put the brakes on that trend.


Last edited by habfan4: 07-13-2005 at 08:58 AM.
habfan4 is offline  
Old
07-13-2005, 08:49 AM
  #88
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie
this word "tank" is being used waaaaaaaay too often lately.

when is the last time an nhl team was accused of purposely tanking? last whisper i heard about that is in 1984 for mario. and that problem has now been eliminated because of the lottery.

it makes for a nice little catch phrase, but "tanking" is not an issue.
They aren't so obvious, and it was the Senators who blatantly tanked in the 90's(Where were you? Oh, that's right watching the minors). Now teams like Pittsburgh and Washington just trade all their NHL players and ice their AHL team, or other waiver dumps knowing effort isn't enough.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
07-13-2005, 09:01 AM
  #89
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan4
Under the new CBA - Will Toronto sign their share of UFAs? Absolutely! Is Toronto a desirable destination for players? Again absolutely (it's not alone on that front). Will the former have nots continue to be "farm" teams for clubs like Toronto? Think again, your personal boogeyman fiscal parity will put the brakes on that trend.
Not all teams can afford the cap. Calgary has already come out and said they can't, and they were already making money.

Thankfully, there won't be a Yankees in the NHL, and there really never was, a minor Yankees situation yes, but not an out and out blatant buying of every best free agent on the planet.

How can a team like Pittsburgh afford the cap, when they are still a bankrupt team, that the city doesn't even care about. First order of business has got to be the relocation of the Penguins so they might be able to play in the NHL. Could they afford the cap in Portland, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Toronto maybe, but not in Pittsburgh.

What happens if the Rangers and Flyers start reporting all their hockey related revenue? The cap goes up, but the revenue for the have-not teams doesn't. Do they raise the floor?

Always going to be have-nots, even with the hand-outs, they are going to be encouraged to balance their books to the 54% level. Bettman's going to be watching those teams to ensure they have a solid financial footing, and that won't happen if they are spending 80% of their revenues going to the cap.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
07-13-2005, 09:26 AM
  #90
Frankie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
They aren't so obvious, and it was the Senators who blatantly tanked in the 90's(Where were you? Oh, that's right watching the minors).
yes i was.

i never heard any accusations that the sens blatantly tanked.

its the most over-used word of this lockout. its ridiculous. it doesn't happen. there's now a lottery so its can't happen.

someone used the word "tank", probably you, and everyone else jumped on it like sheep.

Frankie is offline  
Old
07-13-2005, 09:31 AM
  #91
mydnyte
Registered User
 
mydnyte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat
what about Luongo
i know he's italian, but he's also from Montreal
He's italian ...he was just born there, that's not his fault.

mydnyte is offline  
Old
07-13-2005, 09:32 AM
  #92
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan4
Wow that's quite the extrapolation .

Under the new CBA - Will Toronto sign more then their share of these prize franchise UFAs? Absolutely! .
Well it finally looks like we are in agreement here .. That under the CBA we will have just as good a chance to compete as anyone else and better ....

If you factor in Financial stability which includes the ability to spend to any Cap Limit set, the strong tradition and heritage and prestige of playing for this team. The lure of the possibility to return home to ones place of birth and play in front of friends and family. You will have the best equipment and training facilities and other perks as a result of MLSE re-investing in the team. Playing in packed Arena in front of loyal and diehard screaming fans. While providing players the opportunity to play on and compete for the Cup each year..

What is the #1 thing that would assist our Franchise the most ??

Yup liberalized Unrestricted Free agency and the younger the better ..


All this making their first stop once the UFA season begins, to see if there is room to play for Canada's team and the ....



Mess is offline  
Old
07-13-2005, 09:35 AM
  #93
mydnyte
Registered User
 
mydnyte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Milbury
Yashin's contract is irrelevant. We're talking about the Leafs here.

And, the Leafs were not operating within the system. They knew a CBA was coming that would contain a possible salary gap. But, they gambled and decided to make some big signings anyway. If that gamble doesn't work out, you can hardly blame the NHL or the new CBA.
You mean the way the Flyers gambled with Carter and Richards?

mydnyte is offline  
Old
07-13-2005, 09:41 AM
  #94
habfan4
Registered User
 
habfan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Deus Amat Pretzel
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
Not all teams can afford the cap. Calgary has already come out and said they can't, and they were already making money.
Whether Calgary spends to the limit is beside the point, the difference between the payroll for the Flames and the payroll for their competition (let's use the Wings) will no longer be in 30+ million range. The Wings will still have a fiscal advantage, but it will be comparatively minor compared to years past.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
Thankfully, there won't be a Yankees in the NHL, and there really never was, a minor Yankees situation yes, but not an out and out blatant buying of every best free agent on the planet.
See point above - There was a substantial gap in spending power between the top teams and bottom teams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
How can a team like Pittsburgh afford the cap, when they are still a bankrupt team, that the city doesn't even care about. First order of business has got to be the relocation of the Penguins so they might be able to play in the NHL. Could they afford the cap in Portland, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Toronto maybe, but not in Pittsburgh.
First, the Pens are reportedly being purchased by William Del Biaggio and are looking at a casino/slot machine licence to generate revenue for a new stadium, they're not bankrupt. It has been my experience that the fans in Pittsburgh care about hockey. Having visited the city, I found it almost impossible to get people to shut up about hockey once they found out I was a Canadian. In terms of moving the team, why not find out how they compete under the new CBA before moving a franchise that has been part of the league for 36 years (to say nothing of the 2 cups).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
What happens if the Rangers and Flyers start reporting all their hockey related revenue? The cap goes up, but the revenue for the have-not teams doesn't. Do they raise the floor?.
Are you suggesting that the Rags and the Flyers are currently under-reporting revenue? Or that revenue will only climb in certain markets? With Pittsburgh (and others) being better equipped to compete with the Rags and Flyers, Why wouldn't their revenues also rise?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
Always going to be have-nots, even with the hand-outs, they are going to be encouraged to balance their books to the 54% level. Bettman's going to be watching those teams to ensure they have a solid financial footing, and that won't happen if they are spending 80% of their revenues going to the cap.
Given the narrowing of the spending gap, nothing in your point limits the potential competitiveness of the "have not" clubs.

habfan4 is offline  
Old
07-13-2005, 09:41 AM
  #95
mydnyte
Registered User
 
mydnyte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie
this word "tank" is being used waaaaaaaay too often lately.

when is the last time an nhl team was accused of purposely tanking? last whisper i heard about that is in 1984 for mario. and that problem has now been eliminated because of the lottery.

it makes for a nice little catch phrase, but "tanking" is not an issue.
/cough ...Washington /cough ...if that wasnt tanking a season, nothing was.

mydnyte is offline  
Old
07-13-2005, 09:43 AM
  #96
mydnyte
Registered User
 
mydnyte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Pardon ??

1 ). I am sure you have been around here enough to hear Fergy say he will be focussing on prospect development ... Right ??

2 ). I am sure you're aware that Revenue Sharing will be a part of the next CBA .. Right??

3 ). I'm sure you're aware of the rumour of the dramatic drop in UFA age over this CBA ..Right ??

Well what do you think this all means ??

Apply all three items above and you will see that Toronto is using these small market teams as their farm system for development purposes as Fergy promises, of which we are funding them for via revenue sharing and once these players have reached the age of 27 and are ready for Prime Time we move them to the big parent team in Toronto via the UFA rule.

mydnyte is offline  
Old
07-13-2005, 09:44 AM
  #97
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie
yes i was.

i never heard any accusations that the sens blatantly tanked.
I recall they were after Daigle, funny how it turned out.

I'm not even the first to bring it up here.

http://hfboards.com/archive/index.php/t-116902.html

Playing your worst goaltender down the stretch might be development time I suppose.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
07-13-2005, 09:57 AM
  #98
habfan4
Registered User
 
habfan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Deus Amat Pretzel
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Well it finally looks like we are in agreement here .. That under the CBA we will have just as good a chance to compete as anyone else and better
You've gone from suggesting that "Toronto is using these small market teams as their farm system for development purposes" to "agreeing" with me that the Leafs have as good a chance as anyone to compete (a point I've never once argued against in this thread, or for that matter on this board). Ditch the accounting gig, I think you've missed your true calling as a smoke and mirror salesman.

What happened to my smilie? He grew arms and started clapping

habfan4 is offline  
Old
07-13-2005, 10:29 AM
  #99
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan4
Whether Calgary spends to the limit is beside the point, the difference between the payroll for the Flames and the payroll for their competition (let's use the Wings) will no longer be in 30+ million range. The Wings will still have a fiscal advantage, but it will be comparatively minor compared to years past. .
I can't believe how gullible people are in believing that .. First you could take the High and Low in spending Pitts and NYR and look at success on the ice and make your own conclusion ..

Second and more important .. Its the same players they just make less money ..

When Forsberg and Foote rejoin Colorado and Sakic, Blake, and Hejduk, Tanguay all to fit under a cap and Pittsburgh struggles to get above the floor and you see what they have ..

Then that $13 mil extra spending will make it look like its $113 mil on the ice.
Now even if they can attract a few UFA and spend to the floor .. Are they really in the same league as Colorado ??

The only thing you have is lower salaries ..Same players .. Doesn't matter if the difference in spending is 30+ mil or 13 mil if the players remain the same ..

You can keep telling yourself that there is true competitive balance and when the small markets lose their star Franchise players at as early as 25 now and star drafting early and starting all over again ..

How are you going to attract prize UFA in Pittsburgh .. Players will be going to there for max $$$ since playing for a contender is not a possibility .

This all comes down to the players and their motives and how they sell their services .. Forsberg is still Forsberg regardless if you pay him 10 mil or 2.5 mil .. Expect the same on ice performance from him ..


Last edited by Mess: 07-13-2005 at 10:35 AM.
Mess is offline  
Old
07-13-2005, 10:39 AM
  #100
Frankie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
I recall they were after Daigle, funny how it turned out.
i'm sure lots of teams were after daigle. was ottawa not legitimately the worst team in the nhl at the time?

regardless, there's now a lottery which prevents teams from purposely throwing games when they know they have a shot at finishing dead last.

Quote:
Playing your worst goaltender down the stretch might be development time I suppose.
you laugh, but you shouldn't.

as with washington in 03-04.....what's the difference between "tanking" and "re-building"?

Frankie 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 12:47 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.