HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Trade immenent?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-07-2004, 08:57 AM
  #76
barto
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
*snip*
Guys like Staois and Oates were essentially cast aways. There was very little interest in these players aside from the Oilers. This will not be the same for Jason Smith.
Hey, this just made me wonder... has there been a Oilers player who's become unrestricted but still (re)signed with the Oilers? We all know of the guys we lost to UFA (Cujo, Richardson, Ulanov come to mind immediately) and other guys who were 'impending' UFAs that we traded (Weight, Guerin et al), but have we had any guys who became UFAs and still signed back with Edmonton?

I don't think so somehow...can anyone think of an example?

Bart

barto is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 09:04 AM
  #77
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 15,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barto
Hey, this just made me wonder... has there been a Oilers player who's become unrestricted but still (re)signed with the Oilers? We all know of the guys we lost to UFA (Cujo, Richardson, Ulanov come to mind immediately) and other guys who were 'impending' UFAs that we traded (Weight, Guerin et al), but have we had any guys who became UFAs and still signed back with Edmonton?

I don't think so somehow...can anyone think of an example?

Bart
Wasn't Cross a UFA after the end of last season, but chose to sign with the Oilers? Perhaps I'm wrong.

Digger12 is online now  
Old
01-07-2004, 09:37 AM
  #78
barto
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
Wasn't Cross a UFA after the end of last season, but chose to sign with the Oilers? Perhaps I'm wrong.
Good point - I think you're right...he didn't sign an extension before the season (or his contract) was over, so you're likely right! Dang - thought this one might last a while... you're too good, Digger!!

OK, so any OTHERS besides Cross???

Bart

barto is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 10:12 AM
  #79
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. van Nostrin
Here in Ottawa, some say this season will be huge for Eugene Melnyk because fans are waiting to see if he will spend some money to better equip the Sens to make the Stanley Cup. For some reason, Ottawa fans are not happy with their team and they want a trade to happen. We'll see if Melnyk will put more money in the team. I think the Sens have a very good team and can compete for the cup. I just Melnyk to put money in the team to keep it together.
This is a long thread and I admit that I haven't read most of it but some of what I have seen is quite interesting to me.

I am basically just using Dr. van Nostrin's quote as a jumping in point.

As suggested above, I think most fans like the idea of having an owner with deep pockets that is willing to spend his own money to boost a team but business wise it's a killer. Frankly I feel that this type of reasoning is why the league is in such poor financial shape.

Many of the US teams with very wealthy owners have tried to "boost" their teams with money that came from outside of the franchise in an attempt to create a winner. However very few of these teams have actually succeeded and the ones that have only briefly succeeded. (case in point is Dallas - Hicks has spent and spent for 8 years and has one cup to show for it but is one championship enough of a return for such a huge investment? Now with the CBA coming they have been trying in vain to trim their payroll) Ultimately all that happens is one or two teams do alright and all the also rans simply just drive up payroll around the league.

Instead of looking at owners to spend out of pocket money to try and get their teams over the hump, they should be held to operating within the cash flow generated by the team only.

As for the Oilers and good teams making more money and therefore spending more and so on...

Edmonton can support and does deserve a team because the day to day fan support is there in ways that most of the other teams don't have.

If you look at a team like Vancouver, who has had some recent success and therefore spent a little more over the last couple years, you can't ignore the fact that prior to them starting their run of success they were only filling 50% of the seats. Of course their better play has increased revenue because they are now filling their building.

Edmonton can't go up in attendance even if they are a more competitive team because they are already filling the seats.

The only other place to increase revenue is through playoff success. If they get to the second or third round then they will generate more money. However like all teams, a good team ultimately runs the gammet and becomes a mediocre team again and needs to be rebuilt. Then the cycle starts over. The playoff revenue is no longer there again so the payroll has to be cut back again.

Basically all I am saying is that Edmonton, like almost every other franchise in the league is deserving of a team. The problems start when owners spend outside of their teams natural means in an effort tochange the natural cycle that sports teams go through.

Just my thoughts.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 11:32 AM
  #80
theoil
Registered User
 
theoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
The problems start when owners spend outside of their teams natural means in an effort tochange the natural cycle that sports teams go through.

Just my thoughts.
And that would solve 90% of the problem right there but would not address the anomalies like the NYR whose ability to generate revenue is about double that of 20 odd other franchises. The solution is really very simple in theory. Have the NHL act as though it is a company with 30 franchises and set the budgets for each of their franchises. Wal-Mart does it, Sears does it, McDonalds does it. In fact every large corporation in the world does it whether they sell franchises or build branches except professional sports leagues.

theoil is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 11:47 AM
  #81
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,279
vCash: 500
I agree with you in parts....

Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
This is a long thread and I admit that I haven't read most of it but some of what I have seen is quite interesting to me.

I am basically just using Dr. van Nostrin's quote as a jumping in point.

As suggested above, I think most fans like the idea of having an owner with deep pockets that is willing to spend his own money to boost a team but business wise it's a killer. Frankly I feel that this type of reasoning is why the league is in such poor financial shape.
I agree, its out of game cash coming into the game that creates disparity in ability to pay costs, but some teams legitimately can afford more than the Oilers based on game revenues alone, No offence but Edmonton isn't the largest or richest place in the world, even if you add up just game revenue (gate reciepts, parking and concessions) Toronto, for example, will completely out do Edmonton, its not all that close. But I do agree in principal, another fact is the arena situation of each team, I'm not sure but do the Oilers own their arena? Not only does owning an arena help in not having to pay rent, but also it allows you to take in revenue from every source, it costs upkeep, but that can be easily equaled and surpased. This is why Calgary isn't on as bad financial footing as it seems, sure the teams loses 5-10 mil a year by all reports, but they own not only the Flames but the Pengrowth (big emphasis) Saddledome and the other major tenant the Hitmen, This increases revenue alot, and its also why I don't listen to the Flame owners complain about money so much

Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
Many of the US teams with very wealthy owners have tried to "boost" their teams with money that came from outside of the franchise in an attempt to create a winner. However very few of these teams have actually succeeded and the ones that have only briefly succeeded. (case in point is Dallas - Hicks has spent and spent for 8 years and has one cup to show for it but is one championship enough of a return for such a huge investment? Now with the CBA coming they have been trying in vain to trim their payroll) Ultimately all that happens is one or two teams do alright and all the also rans simply just drive up payroll around the league.

Instead of looking at owners to spend out of pocket money to try and get their teams over the hump, they should be held to operating within the cash flow generated by the team only.
Thats true in part. IMO while the stanley cup is definetaly the ultimate goal, success on the business side of the strategy can't be judged by that. What I mean is that Dallas was only cup champs once, but for how many years were they a team that was in deep competition for the cup? The earlier paragraph discuss spending over revenue, but the fact remains, what is success? There are 30 teams in the NHL and only 1 can win, are all 29 others failures? On the ice yes, but in the board room?

Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
As for the Oilers and good teams making more money and therefore spending more and so on...

Edmonton can support and does deserve a team because the day to day fan support is there in ways that most of the other teams don't have.

If you look at a team like Vancouver, who has had some recent success and therefore spent a little more over the last couple years, you can't ignore the fact that prior to them starting their run of success they were only filling 50% of the seats. Of course their better play has increased revenue because they are now filling their building.

Edmonton can't go up in attendance even if they are a more competitive team because they are already filling the seats.

The only other place to increase revenue is through playoff success. If they get to the second or third round then they will generate more money. However like all teams, a good team ultimately runs the gammet and becomes a mediocre team again and needs to be rebuilt. Then the cycle starts over. The playoff revenue is no longer there again so the payroll has to be cut back again.

Basically all I am saying is that Edmonton, like almost every other franchise in the league is deserving of a team. The problems start when owners spend outside of their teams natural means in an effort tochange the natural cycle that sports teams go through.

Just my thoughts.
I think Edmonton can support a franchise, but it comes back to the real value of their fan support. I mean Detroit and NYR and Toronto sell-out and can charge massive amounts for tickets and it doesn't matter. This is all due to there market, I mean in a city of 10 million (?) like NYC is it really that hard to pull 18,200? And they can even jack up prices, the market is inelastic (well you know, to an extent, but they still sell out and they still suck, so it seems so, but they have the perfect building in the perfect spot, its just a mecca). In Edmonton however, its not so easy, they are bottom five in ticket prices and my guess is that even though they sell alot of apparal, they probably can't charge as much for it as teams like Detroit can. They definetaly have widespread support, but how valuable?

I'm also not so sure playoff success gaurantees making money, from all reports it makes the average team 4 million a round and only 2 mil of that turns out as revenue. From all reports both cup finalists last year lost money for the year. Perhaps it will increase future revenue, but how much can the market truly bear? As you stated, they can only push gate reciepts to a certain place before it has an adverse affect.

I mostly agree, revenue (percentage wise) will be cyclical. Which is why the NHL needs to break out revenue sharing IMO, but thats a whole other long paragraph I'm out. Thanks for listening.

kruezer is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 01:11 PM
  #82
OYLer
Registered User
 
OYLer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Win Desperate & Mad!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,703
vCash: 500
For the Defense!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. van Nostrin
Class act, OYler. You should relax 'cuz it you seem to be taking this a bit too serious. It's unhealthy.

I did read everything and I never said that I support trading Smith. I think Smith is extremely important to this team and the Oilers would miss him. I do also know he's on the IR so you're not the beacon of information you think you are.

Smith is one of the only players that actually has value on this team. Real Cup contenders would kill to have a player like that going into the playoffs and they may overpay to get him so why wouldn't Lowe make the deal, especially if there is a chance they could lose him for nothing.

Although Smith is valuable to the Oilers, you don't think he's not going to ask for a substantial raise after this year? You're naive if you don't. Even if he was a restricted free agent he's gonna ask for alot of coin. He took the Oilers to arbitration and would do it again if he had to. I'm not ripping him, it's his right to do so. With his next contract, he could very well price himself out of Edmonton. If they manage to resign Smith for an affordable, reasonable amount, great. If they get good value in a trade for him, that's good too.

As far as you ripping my spelling and typos, well, this isn't a essay writing contest and if you need to do that to feel better about yourself, knock yourself out.
Will wonders never cease? I write 10,000 words and nary a response. Feeling not quite in the pink I get a little surly ‘cause I’m bored at the boards. Trapped indoors, still flu infested, wherein personal dignity demanded that quick 20-step dash to John Crapper’s personal invention would remain guaranteed, I posthaste with a little bite to it.

I directed my initial comment to Dr. van Nostrin because his comment seems to separate two distinct positions on Hockey Present vs Hockey Future in E-Town. Nothing personal just we disagree on the way we approach this issue. His return comment is a little flippant and I responded in kind. He upped the anti and I was forced to leave the cyber-field for reasons more urgent. After yet another bathroom episode, need of rest, fluids, and a good book consumed my last 24 hours.

Upon my return to this thread I find my 2 bits worth of opinion has caused a veritable *****-Storm of unload. Some upload, some download and some little piles of load. Some responses considered, others just verbal diarrhea—Oh Lord will I ever escape this upper and lower gastric intestinal dysfunction? I've never been one to run and hide, especially from a reasoned confrontation, so feeling better I return to cross keyboards with all comers.

Although my knowledge of Hockey’s minutiae, the NHL’s current CBA, and what every player in the NHLPA current status is not encyclopedic, I did know, however, that Jason Smith’s current status was technically RFA and thought it was commonly understood that Smith was facing a unique situation which essentially and fundamentally changes his situation.

As Dr. van Nostrin phrased “in the non-fantasy world” where real decisions must be made, Jason drew a slightly shortened CBA straw and in reality this is his last year of RFA. I thank oildrop for raising the issue, and Mr Sakich for explaining my position as was predicated on a lockout being a near certainty. Mizral's comments were particularly perspective and deserve a reread.
Quote:
Two ways Smith could become a UFA:

#1 - There is a work stoppage for one year, the CBA is redone with the UFA age saying the game. At this point (one year and about 5 or 6 months from now), Smith will be past 31, and out of a contract, thus making him a UFA.

#2 - The UFA age is lowered and Smith hasn't signed by the day the CBA drops (most UFA's, if not all, will not be signed before the CBA comes down, mostly due to financial, and in some cases, management, uncertainty.

The only way Smith does not become a UFA if there isn't a work stoppage and the UFA age isn't lowered, or he signs an extension between now and the CBA.

Anyhow, even if Smith is a UFA, it doesn't mean the Oilers couldn't resign him. You guys are acting as if free agents simply dissapear into the night. I know this has happened in Edmonton often, but consider that some guys have actually be SIGNED as a UFA. Oates for instance. Also, wasn't Staios picked up as a UFA?
So much and so much for preamble. Where's the beef you say? Therefore, my two best sentiments also need repeating: "If our Captain(Smith) were smart he'd negotiate a multi-year deal at a reasonable salary now." & "Players will be earning less--don't you get that???"

As this post grows long-ish, I shall end here and post again a little later.

OYLer is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 01:19 PM
  #83
speeds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St.Albert
Posts: 6,823
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue

If you look at a team like Vancouver, who has had some recent success and therefore spent a little more over the last couple years, you can't ignore the fact that prior to them starting their run of success they were only filling 50% of the seats. Of course their better play has increased revenue because they are now filling their building.

Edmonton can't go up in attendance even if they are a more competitive team because they are already filling the seats.

The only other place to increase revenue is through playoff success. If they get to the second or third round then they will generate more money. However like all teams, a good team ultimately runs the gammet and becomes a mediocre team again and needs to be rebuilt. Then the cycle starts over. The playoff revenue is no longer there again so the payroll has to be cut back again.
One argument I would make here is that EDM is filling (or coming close) the building now as a result of a specific pricing strategy.

there are various other avenues to increase revenue, already mentioned in this thread, most of which rely on the team performing better (TV sponsorship, rink-board advertizing, PPV to name a few)

speeds is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 01:33 PM
  #84
momentai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OYLer
"If our Captain(Smith) were smart he'd negotiate a multi-year deal at a reasonable salary now." & "Players will be earning less--don't you get that???"
Very tough to say if every player will be earning less even if a new CBA is formed. It is far from a guarantee that salaries would, in fact, be scaling downwards. If a soft cap/luxury tax were to be instated, that would not hinder a team like New York from overpaying for a quality player.

You'd have to actually believe what Captain Smith wanted was actually within the Oilers' price range to begin with. Would Smith really be that desperate for job security at this point in his career to potentially take much less than he could on the open market/aribitration? Doubtful to me at least.

If the lockout lasts the season, Jason is still going to be pursued by quite a few teams. Why would he not take the option that that competition would drive his salary upward?

IMO, a smart business savvy captain like Jason would opt to leave as an UFA to test the market regardless of the CBA... and if interests aren't as hot, he can still resign in Edmonton. It isn't likely that market drastically changes in one year where salaries drop by more than a million for players of Smith's ilk, and Lowe isn't going to absolutely lowball Gator either. Maybe it's just me but if I'm Jason I take my chances on the open market regardless of the unstable climate because things don't change drastically overnight...

momentai is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 03:25 PM
  #85
OYLer
Registered User
 
OYLer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Win Desperate & Mad!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by momentai
Very tough to say if every player will be earning less even if a new CBA is formed. It is far from a guarantee that salaries would, in fact, be scaling downwards. If a soft cap/luxury tax were to be instated, that would not hinder a team like New York from overpaying for a quality player.

You'd have to actually believe what Captain Smith wanted was actually within the Oilers' price range to begin with. Would Smith really be that desperate for job security at this point in his career to potentially take much less than he could on the open market/aribitration? Doubtful to me at least.

If the lockout lasts the season, Jason is still going to be pursued by quite a few teams. Why would he not take the option that that competition would drive his salary upward?

IMO, a smart business savvy captain like Jason would opt to leave as an UFA to test the market regardless of the CBA... and if interests aren't as hot, he can still resign in Edmonton. It isn't likely that market drastically changes in one year where salaries drop by more than a million for players of Smith's ilk, and Lowe isn't going to absolutely lowball Gator either. Maybe it's just me but if I'm Jason I take my chances on the open market regardless of the unstable climate because things don't change drastically overnight...
Although I disagree with you and your flawed premise, your argument is validly argued. No one owns that crystal ball to the future but a sum total of very wealthy NHL Franchise Owners have drawn a line in the ice. If Smith chooses to test the waters of UFA by not signing soon in Edmonton and Opts to take the Arbitration route, Lowe will trade him. His new team will not need to quailify him as his value will have been satisfied in the playoff run where he improved his negotiatory position or hurt it with his playoff performance. But in either case he will not be signed until a new CBA changes the rules. Thus he is forced into free agency and misses Arbitration which he would have benefitted from.

In any case he won't be lonely as a free agent. Less than half of the current NHLPA players will not be under contract until a new CBA post September 15th, 2004, set out the New Reality which will lower player salaries or the NHL won't stay in Edmonton and then I don't care anymore anyway. Should a work stoppage become protracted or a NHL franchise or four fold, which could happen, Jason's value will plummet, because of the glut of NHL, minor league players, and prospects to be distributed to the remaining teams.

The Owner are demanding an immediate 35% rollback in wages or a lockout proceeds. The NHLPA has offered 5% but want concessions of 2 years less of player restriction before free agency. Does this sound to you like these two sides are close to a deal? There is a subset of Big Market owners who favour contraction of weak sister NHL teams. Edmonton BTW is one of those teams. Vancouver can sell 2200 more seasons tickets than Edmonton I think and commands higher ticket prices and more TV revenue and higher PPV revenues. The 'Nucks current owner's screwed the last owners, and then Luck-Out with the Basketball Franchise Team sale to captilize ownership of the Gargage which they own which is a big money maker. Not the case in Edmonton!

Those are the real and only reasons Vancouver has had a fanancial turn-a-round. First came the money then came the success because the Canucks were able to retain their Superstars through several signing while the team still made money. People should really check their facts. Cities with strong teams, well heeled ownership, and a good solid fan base will survive a transition which will allow them too slowly reduce their playrolls to say 35,000,00.00 U$ over 3 years. You have to ask yourself, with all the Superstars taking pay cuts why would a good solid player get a pay raise?

The writing is on the wall salaries are going down. Goodenow says the players are prepared not to budge until Christmas of 2005 and realistically do you think that this won't result in a raft of NHL retirements of may of the older premier players? You'd say well this would strengthen Smith position but it doesn't because now average salaries have come way down and he's two years older and and has played. Guys in the AHL will be playing and getting better and more experienced. If you were a GM where would you send your money? Plus a couple more drafts will have added a whole bunch more prospects who now will have lower financial expectations. Life just gets worst for players the longer they don't sign.


Last edited by OYLer: 01-07-2004 at 03:45 PM.
OYLer is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 08:18 PM
  #86
momentai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Good rebuttle Oyler. But even you have to admit that getting a cap to around 35 million dollars looks highly unlikely at the moment. That may be around where Gary Bettman would like it to be. (Actually I think the figure was around 32 million I believe) the likelihood is that this is merely the starting point for negotiations and the two parties are far apart in this respect. IMO, the NHL will never reach a true hard cap. And the superstars won't really be the first ones to be negotiated down. Personally, I think the first case to be addressed would be entry level contracts and younger players because they will have the least pull in this particular negotiation.

In regards to Jason Smith, my points are valid if the strike merely lasts a year or a short time period as it did in the last lockout. If it does indeed last longer, then it does pose a definitive problem for Smith's well-being and his future in the NHL.

But just to pose a question. Why would he be only able to sign in Edmonton and not somewhere else in which the market and ownership could and would offer more than a small market team like the Oilers. Why would a contending team vying for his services necessarily let him go the way of the UFA when the Oilers wouldn't?

If Jason is worried... the best way for him to maximize his potential earnings is for him to orchestrate his leave with the Oilers to a contending club that would have the necessary resources to sign him long-term. He might get less than in normal circumstances in the market but given the ownership in a club like Detroit or Colorado, they would (most likely) be able to offer a more lucrative contract for stability purposes.

Sort of a happy medium between our two proposals don't you think? A little convoluted but this way Jason Smith can contend for a cup this year and still ensure his future in the NHL in a couple of years should the lockout last that long. If not... then going the UFA would have been the best route for him to maximize his earnings if not safer.


momentai is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 08:20 PM
  #87
Mr Sakich
Registered User
 
Mr Sakich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Motel 35
Posts: 8,100
vCash: 500
Those are the real and only reasons Vancouver has had a fanancial turn-a-round. First came the money then came the success because the Canucks were able to retain their Superstars through several signing while the team still made money. People should really check their facts.

your arguement was good until this point. Vancouver survived because they were purchased by a multi - billionaire (paul allen) They then proceeded to lose 10-20 mill per year for 3 years. Last year was the first year in 4 they made a little money but they are in a precarious position. They still have a small payroll compared to their success and they are the flavour of the month.

Unfortunately for them, Vancouver is such an amazing city with so many things to do that they will be forgoten as soon as they become a .500 team. I used to live there and the canucks are not an important part of that city in much the same way as the Thrashers do not get much passion by the average Atlanta citizen.

Mr Sakich is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 08:30 PM
  #88
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Sakich
Those are the real and only reasons Vancouver has had a fanancial turn-a-round. First came the money then came the success because the Canucks were able to retain their Superstars through several signing while the team still made money. People should really check their facts.

your arguement was good until this point. Vancouver survived because they were purchased by a multi - billionaire (paul allen) They then proceeded to lose 10-20 mill per year for 3 years. Last year was the first year in 4 they made a little money but they are in a precarious position. They still have a small payroll compared to their success and they are the flavour of the month.

Unfortunately for them, Vancouver is such an amazing city with so many things to do that they will be forgoten as soon as they become a .500 team. I used to live there and the canucks are not an important part of that city in much the same way as the Thrashers do not get much passion by the average Atlanta citizen.
Paul Allen owns the Canucks? I think John McCaw will be surprised to hear that...


Last edited by The Rage: 01-07-2004 at 08:46 PM.
The Rage is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 08:38 PM
  #89
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Sakich
your arguement was good until this point. Vancouver survived because they were purchased by a multi - billionaire (paul allen) They then proceeded to lose 10-20 mill per year for 3 years. Last year was the first year in 4 they made a little money but they are in a precarious position.
They were actually bought by billionaire John McCaw. The reason they lost 10-20 mil per year was from bad business descicions(Mogilny trade, Messier signing, Bure etc, etc.). Quinn and Keenan drove the team into the ground, Burke brought them to where they are.

Quote:
They still have a small payroll compared to their success and they are the flavour of the month.
The payroll is quite low for the success they have had, but that is attributed to Burke's smart business descisions. If you're trying to insinuate that the Canucks won't be able to keep their core together, you're wrong. The team made a reported $12 mil profit last year, and that is just the Canucks. That doesn't include the money McCaw made from concessions sales, parking etc. The owner has shown that he is willing to keep the team togther. They are in fine shape financially, among the best in the league.


Quote:
Unfortunately for them, Vancouver is such an amazing city with so many things to do that they will be forgoten as soon as they become a .500 team. I used to live there and the canucks are not an important part of that city in much the same way as the Thrashers do not get much passion by the average Atlanta citizen.
I agree somewhat. The Canucks recent surge to the top has attracted a lot of "fairweather" fans but there are still loads of diehard hockey lovers. Vancouver is very much a hockey city. But in the time period between '94/'95 to around '97/'98 the team was run extremely poorly and a lot of fans were turned off by the teams' moves. As the Canucks started to get better, the fans started to turn out again. It's not much different then the Oilers of the mid '90's, fans didn't show up much then did they?


Last edited by Peter Griffin: 01-07-2004 at 08:41 PM.
Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 08:48 PM
  #90
punk_o_holic
 
punk_o_holic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: N. Vancouver, B.C.
Country: Japan
Posts: 6,957
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin
They were actually bought by billionaire John McCaw. The reason they lost 10-20 mil per year was from bad business descicions(Mogilny trade, Messier signing, Bure etc, etc.). Quinn and Keenan drove the team into the ground, Burke brought them to where they are.



The payroll is quite low for the success they have had, but that is attributed to Burke's smart business descisions. If you're trying to insinuate that the Canucks won't be able to keep their core together, you're wrong. The team made a reported $12 mil profit last year, and that is just the Canucks. That doesn't include the money McCaw made from concessions sales, parking etc. The owner has shown that he is willing to keep the team togther. They are in fine shape financially, among the best in the league.



I agree somewhat. The Canucks recent surge to the top has attracted a lot of "fairweather" fans but there are still loads of diehard hockey lovers. Vancouver is very much a hockey city. But in the time period between '94/'95 to around '97/'98 the team was run extremely poorly and a lot of fans were turned off by the teams' moves. As the Canucks started to get better, the fans started to turn out again. It's not much different then the Oilers of the mid '90's, fans didn't show up much then did they?
I agree on the above statement on how fans came out when the Nucks started to have success. I disagree on how you said Keenen drove the Nucks to the ground. Not saying it because I like Keenan. Keenen did acquire Bertuzzi for Linden and i'm sure he did other things to that helped out...LAst season, Keenen said he want some of the credit for turning vancouver around and there are some canucks fans who admits that Keenen did help the nucks to where they are at now.

punk_o_holic is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 08:53 PM
  #91
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by punk_o_holic
I agree on the above statement on how fans came out when the Nucks started to have success. I disagree on how you said Keenen drove the Nucks to the ground. Not saying it because I like Keenan. Keenen did acquire Bertuzzi for Linden and i'm sure he did other things to that helped out...LAst season, Keenen said he want some of the credit for turning vancouver around and there are some canucks fans who admits that Keenen did help the nucks to where they are at now.
Keenan made one great trade, but he also ripped apart the core of the team, thus alienating a lot of the fans, which is more what I was getting at when I mentioned Keenan. It's also rumoured that he created a dressing room rift by basically stripping Linden of his captaincy(Linden stepped down, but it's widely speculated that Keenan was going to strip him of the "C") and giving it to Mess. That situation could've been handled far, far better, especially considering how loved Linden is by the city of Vancouver.

Keenan does deserve some credit though, but for the most part, he did more harm than good for the franchise. In a lot of ways, he was responsible for driving away the fans...

Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 09:00 PM
  #92
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin
Keenan made one great trade, but he also ripped apart the core of the team, thus alienating a lot of the fans, which is more what I was getting at when I mentioned Keenan. It's also rumoured that he created a dressing room rift by basically stripping Linden of his captaincy(Linden stepped down, but it's widely speculated that Keenan was going to strip him of the "C") and giving it to Mess. That situation could've been handled far, far better, especially considering how loved Linden is by the city of Vancouver.

Keenan does deserve some credit though, but for the most part, he did more harm than good for the franchise. In a lot of ways, he was responsible for driving away the fans...
Keenan had to rip apart the core of the team. That's what rebuilding is all about. Without that rebuilding phase, the Canucks would not be where they are now. Their core would have gotten older, their trade worth would have decreased, and the team would have gotten worse, but not bad enough to get great draft picks. It would have been the worst case scenario. An old, expensive team, that lacked the ability to win. Keenan's rebuilding allowed veterans to be traded for quality youngsters, and paved the way for a new, younger core to emerge; one that is the backbone of the current team.

The Rage is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 09:09 PM
  #93
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,150
vCash: 500
Couple of notes:

- Staios would have been a UFA this year, but Lowe signed him to an extension.

- I believe Ethan Moreau was a UFA (Group 5). I'm not sure on this at all, I just seem to recall he was. I could easily be wrong.

- OYler, if you expect salaries to, all of a sudden, plummet, you're living in a fantasy world. Like everything else, there is a slow evolution towards the goal. I expect salaries the year after the CBA to not be massivly down, simply somewhat down. A guy like Jason Smith, even post-CBA, should still command a $1.5 - 2.5 million dollar salary (depending on how well he plays this year). I think you'll get a good indication about is Smith will be back next year if Lowe doesn't extend his contract by the trade deadline (or, of course, deals him). If his contract isn't extended, I think Smith is probobly gone.

Mizral is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 09:20 PM
  #94
Oilers Hockey
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Heartland of Hockey
Posts: 1,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
It's not much different then the Oilers of the mid '90's, fans didn't show up much then did they?
Actually, it is different.

This team almost moved to Houston.

We thought this was a lame duck franchise much like the Jets in 1996.

When the city of Vancouver is convinced their team is relocating and you have no hope, then you can comment on our attendance. Then you will understand.

And I don't see what flaunting the recent wealth of the Canucks proves, expect you that you need to inflate your ego by bragging about it to Oilers fans.

Oilers Hockey is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 09:25 PM
  #95
theoil
Registered User
 
theoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin
Keenan made one great trade, but he also ripped apart the core of the team, thus alienating a lot of the fans, which is more what I was getting at when I mentioned Keenan. It's also rumoured that he created a dressing room rift by basically stripping Linden of his captaincy(Linden stepped down, but it's widely speculated that Keenan was going to strip him of the "C") and giving it to Mess. That situation could've been handled far, far better, especially considering how loved Linden is by the city of Vancouver.

Keenan does deserve some credit though, but for the most part, he did more harm than good for the franchise. In a lot of ways, he was responsible for driving away the fans...
I'm sure you know far more than I do about the impact of Keenan's moves on the support for the team by the fans of Vancouver. I was living in BC when this happened and the reaction was amazing to me. But gotta agree with The Rage. If Linden hadn't been gotten rid of Vancouver would still be a .479 team and there would be 11,000 in the stands every night. Single most important trade in Canuck history. They made him captain way too young and he was never going to lead them anywhere but where they were. I often think that if the Oilers really wanted to win they would hire Keenan with quiet money so nobody could know and then start doing what he recommended but with some humanity and class. Now that would be a team. Great hockey mind - apparently not much of a human being.

theoil is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 07:47 AM
  #96
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rage
Keenan had to rip apart the core of the team. That's what rebuilding is all about. Without that rebuilding phase, the Canucks would not be where they are now. Their core would have gotten older, their trade worth would have decreased, and the team would have gotten worse, but not bad enough to get great draft picks. It would have been the worst case scenario. An old, expensive team, that lacked the ability to win. Keenan's rebuilding allowed veterans to be traded for quality youngsters, and paved the way for a new, younger core to emerge; one that is the backbone of the current team.
Keenan traded Kirk McLean and Martin Gelinas for Sean Burke, Geoff Sanderson and Enricco Cicconne. About three weeks later he traded Geoff Sanderson to Buffalo for Brad May. Around the same time he traded Sean Burke to Philadelphia for Garth Snow. These are not trades that helped the re-building process in any shape, way or form. He was a phone call away from trading Markus Naslund to Ottawa for a 4th round pick, but Alex Mogilny got injured and Keenan was forced to keep Naslund. Keenan made one solid move for the organization while he was here, but the rest of the moves were beyond reasoning. Yes the team had to be revamped, but it could've been done much, much better.

Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 07:50 AM
  #97
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hemskyfan
Actually, it is different.

This team almost moved to Houston.

We thought this was a lame duck franchise much like the Jets in 1996.

When the city of Vancouver is convinced their team is relocating and you have no hope, then you can comment on our attendance. Then you will understand.
The Canucks were in a similar situation in the mid to late '90's, except Portland was the would be location for the Canucks.

Quote:
And I don't see what flaunting the recent wealth of the Canucks proves, expect you that you need to inflate your ego by bragging about it to Oilers fans.
A poster above was insinuating that the Canucks' financial situation isn't all that good, I merely disagreed and presented my reasoning. What's wrong with that? Can't handle it? Try reading the entire thread next time.

Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 07:52 AM
  #98
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by theoil
I'm sure you know far more than I do about the impact of Keenan's moves on the support for the team by the fans of Vancouver. I was living in BC when this happened and the reaction was amazing to me. But gotta agree with The Rage. If Linden hadn't been gotten rid of Vancouver would still be a .479 team and there would be 11,000 in the stands every night. Single most important trade in Canuck history. They made him captain way too young and he was never going to lead them anywhere but where they were. I often think that if the Oilers really wanted to win they would hire Keenan with quiet money so nobody could know and then start doing what he recommended but with some humanity and class. Now that would be a team. Great hockey mind - apparently not much of a human being.
I'm not disagreeing with the Linden trade, that had to be done and Keenan got great value for him. I'm disagreeing with the way he handled his other moves and the team. Keenan did more harm then good, one trade doesn't make up for that.

BTW, the Canucks never averaged 11,000 fans per game in that time span, the lowest they went was just under 14,000.

Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 07:52 AM
  #99
OYLer
Registered User
 
OYLer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Win Desperate & Mad!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,703
vCash: 500
Reality Bites!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizral
... - OYler, if you expect salaries to, all of a sudden, plummet, you're living in a fantasy world. Like everything else, there is a slow evolution towards the goal. I expect salaries the year after the CBA to not be massivly down, simply somewhat down. A guy like Jason Smith, even post-CBA, should still command a $1.5 - 2.5 million dollar salary (depending on how well he plays this year). I think you'll get a good indication about is Smith will be back next year if Lowe doesn't extend his contract by the trade deadline (or, of course, deals him). If his contract isn't extended, I think Smith is probobly gone.
Mizral, after I give you a compliment you disappoint me by not reading my post carefully. I wrote: "Should a work stoppage become protracted or a NHL franchise or four fold, which could happen, Jason's value will plummet, because of the glut of NHL, minor league players, and prospects to be distributed to the remaining teams." Does this 'what if scenario' statement sound like I confuse reality with fantasy. I've just stated NHL salaries are going down not up and argued however much Jason Smith's recent play has raised his value will be offset by the overall reduction that is coming as the result of a New CBA Reality.

Jim Matheson (hopefully you know who he is) has already suggested that the Pittsburgh's days are numbered. Maybe there will be a rebirth for the Penguins in Winnipeg, hopefully? If the Preds don't make the playoffs they're history too and might fold anyway with a long lockout. I'm not sure if either Florida franchise has ever made money and one team down there still sells their season tickets 'buy one and get the second one free like pizzas.' How is Carolina doing and do you think the Caps will be folding, staying in Washington to lose more millions or moving to where? Whether fans and/or players, like it or not, the NHL as a league is in dire straights. If a hard Cap is set too much higher than the $31 mil U$ targeted by the Commish and his Cronies, teams like those mentioned above plus Edmonton, Calgary, Anaheim, Columbus etc. will become insolvent. League contraction back to 24 teams with 2 or 3 franchises moving to Cities that will build 20,000 plus seating venues will occur.

You are the second person to suggest I'm "living in a fantasy world." Vancouver's Team payroll for the next NHL year played, when and if it occurs will be well over $40 mil U$ but as I suggested, after the players cave-in to a hard salary cap, said cap will probably be set in the $35 mil U$ range, with a three year grace period to account for salaries like Baby Bert's, the NHL as a collection of viable financial entities will only then become sustainable. But if Markus wins the scoring title, then Van might lose Nazzy. Orca Bay Sports & Entertainment Company will definitely not lose money in the New Post 2004 CBA Reality. Detroit's Pizza Pizza man will always have money in the oven, Wirtz in Chicago will be looking to land a Marquee player and he's carrying a whopping $4 mil U$ into the lockout. The 'Nucks better Kiss Stanley this spring or it'll be '94 and Deja vu all over again 'cause Vans back on the basement floor.


Last edited by OYLer: 01-08-2004 at 08:04 AM.
OYLer is offline  
Old
01-08-2004, 07:59 AM
  #100
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OYLer
Your the second person to suggest I'm "living in a fantasy world." Vancouver's Team payroll for the next NHL year played, when and if it occurs will be well over $40 mil U$ but as I suggested, after the players cave-in to a hard salary cap, probably at the $35 mil U$ range, with a three year grace period to account for salaries like Baby Bert's, the NHL as a collection viable financial entities will become sustainable. But if Markus wins the scoring title, then Van might lose Nazzy. Orca Bay Sports & Entertainment Company will definitely not lose money in the New Post 2004 CBA Reality. Detroit's Pizza Pizza man will always have money in the oven, Wirtz in Chicago will be looking to land a Marquee player and he's carrying a whopping $4 mil U$ into the lockout. The 'Nucks better Kiss Stanley this spring or it'll be '94 and Deja vu all over again 'cause Vans back on the basement floor.
What makes you think that the players will cave in to a $35 mil hard cap? Even then, if the Canucks payroll was over this hard cap of $35 mil, you suggested a 3 year grace period where the Canucks could easily get their team under the cap. Van won't be on the basement floor, sorry.

Peter Griffin 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 09:31 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.