HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

Bertuzzi extension

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-29-2003, 11:31 AM
  #51
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
This is the way I see it;

With the CBA approaching I think it is fair to assume a 40 mil (most likely soft) salary cap.

Vancouver would be a team that can afford to spend to that cap but probably wouldn't be able to spend over the cap because they wouldn't be in a position to take on any penalties in a luxury tax scenario.

Now as good as Bertuzzi is, I think the Canucks need Naslund more. He is a better player overall and it's been shown that when one of the two players is out of the line up, they struggle more when it's Naslund that's missing.

So by Burke signing Bert long term, doesn't he effectively seal the fate of Naslund leaving? I can't see how Naslund would get less that Bert and at the least would get the same which means Burke ties up 35% (assuming the cap) of the teams payroll in two players.

I don't see how he can ice a contending team when he only has 26 mil to spread over 18 other players including a starting goaltender and Jovo.

Bottom line, Bertuzzi's contract is reasonable in todays money but I am not sure Burke should be given too many props until he proves that he can work that into the post CBA team without the success of the team overall suffering.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
10-29-2003, 11:50 AM
  #52
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
This is the way I see it;

With the CBA approaching I think it is fair to assume a 40 mil (most likely soft) salary cap.
If you listen to the NHLPA, a salary cap of any kind of not safe to be assumed.

Quote:
Vancouver would be a team that can afford to spend to that cap but probably wouldn't be able to spend over the cap because they wouldn't be in a position to take on any penalties in a luxury tax scenario.

Now as good as Bertuzzi is, I think the Canucks need Naslund more. He is a better player overall and it's been shown that when one of the two players is out of the line up, they struggle more when it's Naslund that's missing.

So by Burke signing Bert long term, doesn't he effectively seal the fate of Naslund leaving? I can't see how Naslund would get less that Bert and at the least would get the same which means Burke ties up 35% (assuming the cap) of the teams payroll in two players.
The alternative: Not sign Bertuzzi at all. Would Naslund stay if that happened?

The Sens top players combined right now (core players) are around the same cost as the Canucks, too, when they get to next season (providing they can sign Marian Hossa).

Quote:
I don't see how he can ice a contending team when he only has 26 mil to spread over 18 other players including a starting goaltender and Jovo.

Bottom line, Bertuzzi's contract is reasonable in todays money but I am not sure Burke should be given too many props until he proves that he can work that into the post CBA team without the success of the team overall suffering.
The nice thing is here, is that there are about 30 (rough estimate) other players in this league that make around $6.5+ million. No teams are going to vote for a salary cap if it makes their franchises equally unsubstainable due to a luxery tax.

More than likely, the salary cap figure will either be A) Quite low, but be grandfathered in, so as to give teams some time to lower their contract structures, or B) Quite high, as the NHL attempts to find some level of agreement with the NHLPA to hammer out a deal. I do not think you'll see a $32 million dollar salary cap all of a sudden come out one day, as too many teams are in the high-salary zones.

I should also mention, the Canucks are actually quite average in payroll, and many teams out there have one, two, or even three players with a higher salary than our highest paid player. The NHL owners have to agree amongst themselves, and they won't shoot themselves in the foot so quickly.

Mizral is offline  
Old
10-29-2003, 12:33 PM
  #53
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizral
If you listen to the NHLPA, a salary cap of any kind of not safe to be assumed.
And likewise, if you listen to the commissioner and a lot of the owners, a salary cap is a necessity.

Quote:
The alternative: Not sign Bertuzzi at all. Would Naslund stay if that happened?
So the only alternative to signing him to that deal is not signing him at all? Boy, Burke got really backed into the corner on that one didn't he?

Quote:
The Sens top players combined right now (core players) are around the same cost as the Canucks, too, when they get to next season (providing they can sign Marian Hossa).
Alfreddson - 5.05 mil
Hossa - 2.75
Bonk - 3.5
Redden - 4.5
Chara - 2.4
Lalime/Prusek - 3.2
total: 21.4

Bertuzzi - 6.8
Naslund - 5.22
Morrison - 2.45
Jovo - 4.5 mil
Ohlund - 2.75
Cloutier/Hedberg - 3.7
total: 25.42

Umm... that is $4million dollars there, which is actually a significant amount of money when you factor in the quality players that make $4 million dollars.

Quote:
The nice thing is here, is that there are about 30 (rough estimate) other players in this league that make around $6.5+ million. No teams are going to vote for a salary cap if it makes their franchises equally unsubstainable due to a luxery tax.
That is a pretty big assumption... seeing as most of the guys who make 6.5+ mil per season are all pretty much located on the same group of 10 teams. There are 18 teams in the NHL right now with a payroll below $40 million... and I am sure most, if not all of them would love to see a salary cap in place at around $40 million so that they can keep their teams intact, and possibly add players. They may not need a new CBA to survive, but they may want a new CBA to make more money.

Quote:
More than likely, the salary cap figure will either be A) Quite low, but be grandfathered in, so as to give teams some time to lower their contract structures, or B) Quite high, as the NHL attempts to find some level of agreement with the NHLPA to hammer out a deal. I do not think you'll see a $32 million dollar salary cap all of a sudden come out one day, as too many teams are in the high-salary zones.
Probably not, but even a $45 mil salary cap will cause issues throughout the league, and there is so much uncertainity about what will happen, that I wouldn't be inclined to limit it to those 2 options.

Quote:
I should also mention, the Canucks are actually quite average in payroll, and many teams out there have one, two, or even three players with a higher salary than our highest paid player. The NHL owners have to agree amongst themselves, and they won't shoot themselves in the foot so quickly.
With the amount of discrepancies from top to bottom, I don't think you will see too many teams agree on much. I can bet that teams like Minnesot and Nashville won't give a crap about what Detroit wants (as Detroit is a reason the league is the way it is), and if they can get a couple of the mid-range teams like Phoenix or whoever to join "their side", then you might be suprised at what could happen.

Unfortunately there are 4 sides in this battle... the players, the rich teams, the middle teams and the struggling teams. Neither member of the first 2 wants to see the last group win, and the key will be the middle group... the teams with the $45 mil payroll but are losing money, making money or breaking even... This is why there is so much uncertainty, as you aren't quite sure who they will side with in all of this.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
10-29-2003, 12:34 PM
  #54
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizral
If you listen to the NHLPA, a salary cap of any kind of not safe to be assumed.
We will find out soon enough I guess. BUT the league has made their position quite clear and the general concensus out there is that there WILL be a cap of some sort, it's just a question of how much pain the league has to endure to get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizral
The alternative: Not sign Bertuzzi at all. Would Naslund stay if that happened?
Yes that is exactly the alternative. The way I see it, with this contract they won't be able to keep both so Naslund is most likely gone. The alternative is to wait and try to fit both players into the salary structure once the CBA is decided. What would it of hurt. There isn't going to be a spending spree when the league starts up again, in fact there will be an attempt at salary dumping from most of the big spenders and that means there won't be a $7 mil market for any player out there. Atleast no immediately. Vancouver would still have the upper hand in signing Bert even if he was a free agent because of the new CBA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizral
The Sens top players combined right now (core players) are around the same cost as the Canucks, too, when they get to next season (providing they can sign Marian Hossa).
A couple points here; 1) how many of their contracts extend past the CBA deadline? 2) wether Canuck fans want to believe it or not, Vancouver doesn't have the depth that Ottawa does. The Sens will compete quite nicely even if they lose one of their stars - better than Vancouver will if you lose Naslund.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizral
The nice thing is here, is that there are about 30 (rough estimate) other players in this league that make around $6.5+ million. No teams are going to vote for a salary cap if it makes their franchises equally unsubstainable due to a luxery tax.
Of the 36 players listed on NHLPA that make 6 mil or more, 25 of them are on teams that can afford to pay a luxury tax. Vancouver isn't one of them. Also 6 of those players (min) are likely to retire should the expected lockout happen. Finally, again, how many of those guys are signed beyond the CBA expiry date?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizral
More than likely, the salary cap figure will either be A) Quite low, but be grandfathered in, so as to give teams some time to lower their contract structures, or B) Quite high, as the NHL attempts to find some level of agreement with the NHLPA to hammer out a deal. I do not think you'll see a $32 million dollar salary cap all of a sudden come out one day, as too many teams are in the high-salary zones.
Under A) it doesn't help Vancouver to try and sign Naslund. Even if there is (there most likely will be) a grandfather clause, it will give the teams time to reduce payroll not add, to keep Naslund you will be adding - it still doesn't help. Under B) Like I said, I would expect the cap to be in the 40 mil range. Certainly if the cap is say at 45 mil it will help but it still doesn't give Vancouver much flexibility. I don't think it is likely to be any higher that 42 imo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizral
I should also mention, the Canucks are actually quite average in payroll, and many teams out there have one, two, or even three players with a higher salary than our highest paid player. The NHL owners have to agree amongst themselves, and they won't shoot themselves in the foot so quickly.
Again look at the teams that have those players and honestly ask yourself if Vancouver is in the same position to spend like they do. Brian Burke doesn't think so, atleast not by what he has been saying for the past 5 years.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
10-29-2003, 01:07 PM
  #55
Kerplunk
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizral
At the risk of sounding like a pom-pom waiver, isn't that a little bit simplistic in thinking?

Are you saying that if the Oilers won the President's trophy, made it to the conference finals, Ryan Smyth scored 50 goals and Ales Hemsky won the Art Ross with 120 points, Marty Reasoner won the Selke, Tommy Salo won the Vezina, and the team played like demons in the post-season but lost in the final game 7 of that conference finals in OT..

that the Oilers would be no more successful than they are now?

Sorry, I don't believe that. While that may have been true in a 6-team league, nowadays, point-totals do matter for success of a team. A 2nd round exit is peferable to not making the playoffs at all, and I would say you could look at teams that didn't win the Cup such as the Anaheim Mighty Ducks, the Minnesota Wild, and the Tampa Bay Lightning, and say last year they had *very* successful years for their franchises.

And while there is that one elusive goal, to say that 29 teams are failures every given year, to me, just doesn't wash.
We celebrate Championships in this town...

 
Old
10-29-2003, 01:13 PM
  #56
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,108
vCash: 500
Snipping out parts of your arguement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
So the only alternative to signing him to that deal is not signing him at all? Boy, Burke got really backed into the corner on that one didn't he?
You're changing the theme of your arguement. The arguement was attempting to proove that signing Bertuzzi makes Naslund a tougher signing. That little barb there really doesn't add much. Backed into a corner? Sure, if by 'backed into a corner' you mean 'signing a superstar for less than market value'.

Quote:
Alfreddson - 5.05 mil
Hossa - 2.75
Bonk - 3.5
Redden - 4.5
Chara - 2.4
Lalime/Prusek - 3.2
total: 21.4

Bertuzzi - 6.8
Naslund - 5.22
Morrison - 2.45
Jovo - 4.5 mil
Ohlund - 2.75
Cloutier/Hedberg - 3.7
total: 25.42

Umm... that is $4million dollars there, which is actually a significant amount of money when you factor in the quality players that make $4 million dollars.
Here's where it gets fun. After this year, Hossa is an RFA, Lalime is an RFA, Ohlund & morrison are RFA's, Cloutier an RFA, Hedberg a UFA. I believe Chara may be up for contract, too. The Sens are going to have a MUCH bigger payroll next year. And we aren't talking about post-CBA here, so one would assume the Sens core, even after a CBA, will easily make up that gap. Hossa alone should make at least $5 million post-CBA. Lalime could easily be in the same area, too.

Quote:
That is a pretty big assumption... seeing as most of the guys who make 6.5+ mil per season are all pretty much located on the same group of 10 teams. There are 18 teams in the NHL right now with a payroll below $40 million... and I am sure most, if not all of them would love to see a salary cap in place at around $40 million so that they can keep their teams intact, and possibly add players. They may not need a new CBA to survive, but they may want a new CBA to make more money.
No arguements here, but to say that to assume the cap will be less than $40 million is to assume the NHLPA are giving up without a fight.

Quote:
Probably not, but even a $45 mil salary cap will cause issues throughout the league, and there is so much uncertainity about what will happen, that I wouldn't be inclined to limit it to those 2 options.
I agree, a $45 million dollar salary cap makes a lot of sense, with HUGE luxery taxes. The Canucks could more than likely deal with that, as could most other teams in this league (outside of Philly, Detroit, Toronto, Avs, NYR, and St.Louis, but they can afford paying the tax).

Quote:
With the amount of discrepancies from top to bottom, I don't think you will see too many teams agree on much. I can bet that teams like Minnesot and Nashville won't give a crap about what Detroit wants (as Detroit is a reason the league is the way it is), and if they can get a couple of the mid-range teams like Phoenix or whoever to join "their side", then you might be suprised at what could happen.
No arguements there, though the NHLPA is a much more powerful entity than you are giving them credit for. They have already told their players to expect a 2-year lockout. They are playing hardball, just as much as the league.

Quote:
Unfortunately there are 4 sides in this battle... the players, the rich teams, the middle teams and the struggling teams. Neither member of the first 2 wants to see the last group win, and the key will be the middle group... the teams with the $45 mil payroll but are losing money, making money or breaking even... This is why there is so much uncertainty, as you aren't quite sure who they will side with in all of this.
The rich teams still want an enviroment where they can make more money. They are certainly not on the side on the NHLPA, but they do not necessarily agree on everything the Minnesota's and Nashville's agree on either.

However, all of this plays into the Canucks' hands. They are a middle-of-the-pack team. Idealy, comprimises are made right there.

To say that signing Bertuzzi is going to create problems, to me, is silly, even in a post-CBA enviroment. How many forwards in this league are better than Bertuzzi? Maybe 6 or 7 guys. Heck, if you listen to some, Bertuzzi is a top 5 forward in this league. To compensate him at $7 million is surely not overpaying now, and unless you think the CBA is going to change things so drastically that $6 million will be the highest paid player, it shouldn't hurt the Canucks at all - in fact, it should only help them.

And as I've stated many times: The Canucks always have the option of trading Todd. There are 29 other teams in this league that would love to have them play on their squad, and at least 15 who would pick him up at $7 million per year.

Mizral is offline  
Old
10-29-2003, 01:14 PM
  #57
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerplunk
We celebrate Championships in this town...
I suppose. I can't help it, I've been following a loser franchise for years now.

Mizral is offline  
Old
10-29-2003, 02:56 PM
  #58
Behind Enemy Lines
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,765
vCash: 500
I feel Burke has worked quite well within the CBA agreement. He has rewarded valuable players and their contributions with fair contracts (defined as win - win by management and players). He has also cut loose second tier players who priced themselves out of the Canuck's payroll structure. Scott Lachance and Andrew Cassels are two such examples who come to mind. Good, serviceable pros but easily replaced with younger and cheaper.

Brian Burke is a tough, honest and fair person. He has worked on all sides of the current debate - NHL front office, team management, and I think (???) as a player agent. From my perspective, he has done a good job in the Bertuzzi signing.

Addendum: I just surfed the Canuck website and Burke's bio. Very impressive to say the least. I've answered my own question with the below paste from the Canuck site: Burke returned to Harvard Law School, graduating in 1981. He practiced law for six years in Boston, specializing in the representation of professional hockey players, before joining the Canucks in 1987.

Behind Enemy Lines is offline  
Old
10-29-2003, 03:11 PM
  #59
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Behind Enemy Lines
Brian Burke is a tough, honest and fair person. He has worked on all sides of the current debate - NHL front office, team management, and I think (???) as a player agent. From my perspective, he has done a good job in the Bertuzzi signing.

Addendum: I just surfed the Canuck website and Burke's bio. Very impressive to say the least. I've answered my own question with the below paste from the Canuck site: Burke returned to Harvard Law School, graduating in 1981. He practiced law for six years in Boston, specializing in the representation of professional hockey players, before joining the Canucks in 1987.
Burke was also a player (although not in the NHL. He wasn't very good). He was also a GM of the Whalers, and was the one who drafted Chris Pronger - quite a draft in general for the Whalers, actually. Marek Malik was another Burke pick who is now with the Canucks.. that draft featured 3 or 4 NHL'ers I believe.

Anyways, one thing I forgot to mention: I believe Burke may have made this extension in part because he feels that the UFA age will be moved down a couple of years. This is rumoured to be a big sticking point for the NHLPA in some of the concessions they will be making. This could mean that a good number of expected RFA players next year could suddenly become UFA's. Bertuzzi would have been in that boat.

Mizral is offline  
Old
10-29-2003, 03:53 PM
  #60
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
[QUOTE=Mizral]Snipping out parts of your arguement:


Quote:
You're changing the theme of your arguement. The arguement was attempting to proove that signing Bertuzzi makes Naslund a tougher signing. That little barb there really doesn't add much. Backed into a corner? Sure, if by 'backed into a corner' you mean 'signing a superstar for less than market value'.
No I am not... I was merely playing devils advocate to your comments. I frimly beleive that the deal Burke gave, while certainly fair under the current agreement, goes against everything he has talked about (and for clarification, don't ask, just go back and read), and hurts the owners position in the hunt for a new CBA. And by backed into a corner, I mean signing a superstar for what could possibly be more than market value, depending on what the new CBA is. Todd apparantly is in love with the city, and doesn't want to leave, yet Burke felt the need to risk a 4 year (3 year really) deal that could end up being very limiting in the Canucks future (once again depending on the CBA).

Quote:
Here's where it gets fun. After this year, Hossa is an RFA, Lalime is an RFA, Ohlund & morrison are RFA's, Cloutier an RFA, Hedberg a UFA. I believe Chara may be up for contract, too. The Sens are going to have a MUCH bigger payroll next year. And we aren't talking about post-CBA here, so one would assume the Sens core, even after a CBA, will easily make up that gap. Hossa alone should make at least $5 million post-CBA. Lalime could easily be in the same area, too.
Once again... absolutely huge assumptions on your part. until the CBA is made, you can't make comments like Hossa should make $5 million post CBA... for all we know, there could be a salary cap based purely on age, meaning say a 26 year old could make a max of $3 million... who really knows? As many arguments as you can make about how things will happen in the new CBA, just as many counter-arguments can be made.

Quote:
No arguements here, but to say that to assume the cap will be less than $40 million is to assume the NHLPA are giving up without a fight.
Not necessarily. Don't forget, there are 800 players in the players union. Not all of them make 10 mil per season, in fact a lot make less than a mil... Most of them realize they don't benefit from the current CBA anyways, and would rather make the changes necessary to ensure that there is still a 30 team league after the CBA is signed. Once again, you are assuming a lot, not everything here is a guarantee.

Quote:
I agree, a $45 million dollar salary cap makes a lot of sense, with HUGE luxery taxes. The Canucks could more than likely deal with that, as could most other teams in this league (outside of Philly, Detroit, Toronto, Avs, NYR, and St.Louis, but they can afford paying the tax).
That's fine, but at the end of this season, Vancouvers payroll is going to be very close to the $40 mil mark (around 36-38mil), and like you said, they have a few key free agents coming up, one of them being their number 1 center, their #2 defenceman, and a goaltender... that $45 mil starts to get a lillte closer.

Quote:
No arguements there, though the NHLPA is a much more powerful entity than you are giving them credit for. They have already told their players to expect a 2-year lockout. They are playing hardball, just as much as the league.
That had nothing to do with NHLPA... were in that string that you commented on did I mention the union. I was referring to the battle within the ownership ranks. I'm glad the entire union is prepared for a 2 year lockout... wonderful... guys like Bertuzzi, Forseberg, etc won't miss the paycheque as much as a guy who makes 200k per year. Also, I am not completely sure of this, but does the AHL still operate during the lockout?

Quote:
The rich teams still want an enviroment where they can make more money. They are certainly not on the side on the NHLPA, but they do not necessarily agree on everything the Minnesota's and Nashville's agree on either.
I don't think teams like the Rangers, Red Wings, etc are particularily concerned with getting a new CBA to make money. Sure the extra money wouldn't hurt, but I seriously doubt that they will be voting no on too many offers either.

Quote:
However, all of this plays into the Canucks' hands. They are a middle-of-the-pack team. Idealy, comprimises are made right there.

To say that signing Bertuzzi is going to create problems, to me, is silly, even in a post-CBA enviroment. How many forwards in this league are better than Bertuzzi? Maybe 6 or 7 guys. Heck, if you listen to some, Bertuzzi is a top 5 forward in this league. To compensate him at $7 million is surely not overpaying now, and unless you think the CBA is going to change things so drastically that $6 million will be the highest paid player, it shouldn't hurt the Canucks at all - in fact, it should only help them.

And as I've stated many times: The Canucks always have the option of trading Todd. There are 29 other teams in this league that would love to have them play on their squad, and at least 15 who would pick him up at $7 million per year.
You could very well be right, but you could also be completely wrong. No one knows yet because of how uncertain everything is. Even if $7 mil isn't the highest paid, the CBA can be worked out in such a way that it would be very hard to be able to keep 1 or 2 players who make more than say $5mil. The Canucks may have the option of trading him, but once again, that assumes 2 things... 1 the new CBA leaves any teams capable of trading for Bertuzzi, 2 there are so few teams that it severly limits the return on Todd.

You have been overly optimistic that the CBA will work perfectly for the Canucks, and Burke will turn out to be a genius... I'm being completely pessimistic, and think that it could blow up in Burke's face.

dawgbone 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 07:33 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.