HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Correlation between payroll and regualr season standing 2003/2004

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-30-2004, 11:02 AM
  #76
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by futurcorerock
Thats not entirely true. The Ottawa Senators are minimal spenders. They represent a team that defeats the mold set for it.

I think some of those teams you are making reference to are ones who have had good seasons and made the playoffs only to fall in the early rounds. Much of the time these teams are still building from within. Edmonton come to mind. Give them a few more years and some wise decision-making from their GM, and they might be doing some damage. Eric Brewer really does scare me

Another thing to keep in mind is that there are alot more small-market teams in the NHL than large-market. When you have so many teams with a payroll that may be similar, ofcourse you're going to have overlap into the playoffs. There isnt a distinct cutoff of playoff teams and non-playoff teams. So each year you'll have teams bowing in and out of the playoffs. Montreal's absence last year was just a bad season for them.. A team like Tampa Bay was able to capitalize on their fault and move into a playoff position. The Islanders as well have been consistently in the lower seeds. in '02 the Hurricanes made their great run. I mean its tough to say theres instability. Each year a few teams will have bad seasons and other teams who are up and coming will capitalize. There is by no means an instability in this, just that about 22 teams in the NHL end up being fairly equally matched with eachother and some of the little things can make all the difference. A 'hot' goaltender, a breakout winger or center, defense doing its job, its all in the lure of hockey when a team comes in and has a great year.

Nowadays most teams are on level playing field. This is very good because now the success of the team can begin to revert back to the players playing the game, and not the business deals behind bringing them in. I mean, hockey is all about the players, riiiiiight?

I think the argument would be valid if say, Colorado, Detroit hadnt made the playoffs a year or two in this aforementioned 4-year span. That would scare me

Too bad that no matter what our personnal views are on the current state of hockey, the owners feel that they need to make significant changes to the CBA in order to continue. They feel so strongly about it that they feel that it is in their best interest to not have a hockey season. That speaks volumes since the owners primary goal in life is to make money, winning the cup is a close second since that would certainly increase their profitability, but they are first and foremost businessmen. I don't think the owners really care how much the players make as long as they can make a profit.

If the majority of owners felt that they could make money and be competetive, we wouldn't be talking about this now. The players need the owners just as much as the owners need the players. If the NHLPA realizes this and the two sides can come to a mutually satisfactory agreement, we will all be happy. But right now, with the NHLPA only willing to offer superficial changes and constantly claiming that the owners are lying and insisting that non-hockey revenue is included in the discussions, there will never be a resolution.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
05-30-2004, 11:05 AM
  #77
CanoeRider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 439
vCash: 500
The good thing about stats, is that you can make them say anything you want to.

CanoeRider is offline  
Old
05-30-2004, 11:19 PM
  #78
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 611
vCash: 500
I am back after an abbreviated camping trip. It lasted one day less than expected. Tornado warnings in the county I was camping in lead to a decision to "abort".

Nice to see that this thread is NOT buried.

My point after all this duscussion is that the NHL IS fair. Every team has the opportunity to win. Every team has the opportuntiy to build a very good core and compete for a long time. There is no need to change the CBA to do anything about that.

In a non-expansion season, the correlation between payroll and success is VERY low. A cheap team can win. Just look at the playoffs this year. Its obvious that one will.

Obviously, cheap teams do not stay cheap forever if they suceed. And why should that be something we want in a CBA? Why should we want successful players to be underpaid by their team when they are maximizing their profits through the success of their team? Any team that is a contender for many years in a row will have a talented core that will have proven their worht and received large contracts by the end of the run. This is something that can be done in some rather unlikely markets like Denver, Dallas and East Rutherford. With success on the ice, I think any current NHL market (or at least almost any current market) can follow that model. Thats a great situation for the NHL.

Problem is the owners are convinced (and correct) that they could make more money with a salary cap in place. Of course the owners are correct. A major change like that to the CBA would likely weaken the competive balance in the NHL (it would lead to more player movement and likely lower UFA age), so I am against it.

The owners have convinced many fans that there is a competivie balance problem in the NHL due to differences in payrolls (in general this is false and has been shown in this thread to be false) and many fans buy into it. Some fans are hoping for a salary cap because the owners have convinced them it will help their team win and make the NHL better. The owners as a group do not care about making the NHL better. The owners as a group do not care about making your market win the cup. The owners only care about maximizing profits. That is the sole reason they are pushing for a salary cap. They are so firmly behind it that they are claiming to be willing to lose a season or more of hockey to attain their goals.

Can your team win the cup now without a salary cap? If your team is the Calgary Flames it looks quite likely. Otherwise Tampa Bay wins. They are both low payroll teams that are considered small market at this point. If they have sustained success, they will be able to afford to have some of the largest payrolls in the NHL and it may not be long before fans whine about these big markets that always win. That is assuming the current CBA stays in place. If there is a salary cap, we can rest assured that noether team will be able to keep their current core together that long. When it is time to give raises to the players who won the cup there wont be room. Their players will leave. They will sign in some other market. Ironically, we could have a situation where a salary cap forces big market juggernauts like Calgary to give up players to the weaker small markets like New York or Los Angeles - all in the name of making the NHL fairer for smaller market teams. Which it already is.

CH is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 12:07 AM
  #79
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
My point after all this duscussion is that the NHL IS fair. Every team has the opportunity to win. Every team has the opportuntiy to build a very good core and compete for a long time. There is no need to change the CBA to do anything about that.
How is it fair that the top payrolls have 70% chances of seeing playoffs versus 20% chances of the bottom payrolls? In other words, fans of teams that have a low payroll with very limited chances of ever increasing it should just switch to another sport?

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 12:52 AM
  #80
PeaceNLove
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
In a non-expansion season, the correlation between payroll and success is VERY low. A cheap team can win. Just look at the playoffs this year. Its obvious that one will.
It's funny you mention this, because a few days ago I read an article about that topic (maybe the idea came from this thread, who knows?). I really find this thread interesting. Thank you for starting it. Now here is my take... It's too bad that my poor English might make it more difficult to understand than I wish, but I'll give it a try!

First, I have to say that a correlation is just that: a correlation. It doesn't say anything about the cause. It's not because two variables correlates that one variable explains the other one. It might indeed mean something, but it must not be taken as a fact that explains everything.

I won't repeat every argument, but as Stich pointed out, take out New York, Ottawa and Edmonton and the correlation is already a lot stronger! But how many cups do Ottawa have? Or Edmonton since the salaries went up?

Now, let's say we can call successful a team that reaches the series. But the problem is that even if a team makes it into the playoffs, it doesn't even mean that it will make money that year. Not making any profit if the team doesn't reach the third or fourth round isn't a sign of health IMO (and if you want an example, the Montréal Canadiens are and I believe the Flames are, too). That is why I think there is a difference between financial success and sport success.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
Can your team win the cup now without a salary cap? If your team is the Calgary Flames it looks quite likely. Otherwise Tampa Bay wins. They are both low payroll teams that are considered small market at this point. If they have sustained success, they will be able to afford to have some of the largest payrolls in the NHL and it may not be long before fans whine about these big markets that always win. That is assuming the current CBA stays in place. If there is a salary cap, we can rest assured that noether team will be able to keep their current core together that long. When it is time to give raises to the players who won the cup there wont be room. Their players will leave. They will sign in some other market. Ironically, we could have a situation where a salary cap forces big market juggernauts like Calgary to give up players to the weaker small markets like New York or Los Angeles - all in the name of making the NHL fairer for smaller market teams. Which it already is.
The article I read said that this year will be the first one in the last 10 years that a team who is below the average payroll in the league will win the cup. And how did Tampa Bay made it? By being so horrible for years, they had the opportunity to pick the best young players. It's not like all 30 teams could have that same chance at the same time, so I wouldn't say Tampa Bay should be used as a model. How many years of non-profit shoud a team have to go through before having a chance at the cup?!

For now, those players are still young and don't cost too much, as you said. But will Tampa Bay be able to afford them just because they are suddenly winning, as you are suggesting? As you said, this is not a big market. I don't think that just because they are winning, they will suddenly be able to generate enough profits to keep all of them (unless they don't care about making profits). And should they manage to do it, it won't last forever. Even if Montréal had won the cup this year, they would have made some profits, but never to a point where they would have been able to get/keep many high-paid stars! And if Calgary had to make it this far to make money, I wouldn't use that team either to prove that the NHL doesn't have a problem.

So, to conclude, I'd say that from that perspective, even a strong correlation between the ranks and the standings might not mean much. I mean, Pittsburgh is really low in the standings and have one of the lowest payroll. Yes, they might help increase the correlation between the ranks and the salaries, but they are not helping us understanding how the teams that succeed in both aspects (sport and finance) are doing it. At the very least we would need to look at which teams made profits, whether or not they made the series and when they did, how well they performed. A team could get the first rank, have the lowest payroll in the league and make the correlation between ranks and payroll very low, but so what if the team is out before it reaches the third round and doesn't make any money? Only 4 teams makes it to the third round...

PeaceNLove is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 09:51 AM
  #81
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smail
How is it fair that the top payrolls have 70% chances of seeing playoffs versus 20% chances of the bottom payrolls? In other words, fans of teams that have a low payroll with very limited chances of ever increasing it should just switch to another sport?
The teams with the very lowest payrolls are in general rebuilding teams. They have little expectaiton to make the playoffs until they have finished their rebuild. Why should they? If they do it right they will make the playoffs many times in the upcoming years. Why do you expect that a team in mid-rebuild with no top players should make the playoffs most of the time?

CH is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 09:51 AM
  #82
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
Obviously, cheap teams do not stay cheap forever if they suceed. And why should that be something we want in a CBA? Why should we want successful players to be underpaid by their team when they are maximizing their profits through the success of their team? Any team that is a contender for many years in a row will have a talented core that will have proven their worht and received large contracts by the end of the run. This is something that can be done in some rather unlikely markets like Denver, Dallas and East Rutherford. With success on the ice, I think any current NHL market (or at least almost any current market) can follow that model. Thats a great situation for the NHL.

Problem is the owners are convinced (and correct) that they could make more money with a salary cap in place. Of course the owners are correct. A major change like that to the CBA would likely weaken the competive balance in the NHL (it would lead to more player movement and likely lower UFA age), so I am against it.

The owners have convinced many fans that there is a competivie balance problem in the NHL due to differences in payrolls (in general this is false and has been shown in this thread to be false) and many fans buy into it. Some fans are hoping for a salary cap because the owners have convinced them it will help their team win and make the NHL better. The owners as a group do not care about making the NHL better. The owners as a group do not care about making your market win the cup. The owners only care about maximizing profits. That is the sole reason they are pushing for a salary cap. They are so firmly behind it that they are claiming to be willing to lose a season or more of hockey to attain their goals.

The owners haven't convinced me that there is a competetive balance problem. I can see that with my own eyes at the end of every season when we start talking about who we should trade/cut to reduce the teams payroll so we can be competetive and affordable. And my team, Buffalo, does not have an extremely high budget in the first place, and in the second place the team is made up of mostly young players (we are the youngest team in the league...)

You make it sound so easy. Start with a cheap team and as you become succesfull you will become more profitable, and you can keep up with expenses. Let's look at an example.

The Buffalo Sabres had a team salary of ~$34M at the end of this past season. They had an average attendance of 15290 (82% of capacity, 18690 total seats). This means that from ticket sales alone, the Sabre made $37,613,400. (assuming an average ticket price of $60). That means that player salaries alone are already at 90% of the gate recipts. I have no idea how much the team makes in concessions and merchandise sales, but I'm guessing that that will be ~$10M tops. That would still leave player salaries taking 72% of the available income.

So, out of the above income, the team is left with ~$13613400 to pay the following:

Coaches salaries: ~$2M ?
Travel expenses: Unknown $ (planes, hotels, meals)
Staff Expenses: Unknown $ (GM's, scouts, accountants, anouncers, ushers...)
Insurance: Unknown $
Taxes: Unknown $
Utilities: Unknown $
Rent for training facilities: Unknown $
Debt/payment for arena: Unknown $

I don't think that the teams claims of losing ~$10M are that hard to believe...

So from the above you can see that the fans are coming out to support the team, even though the team didn't make the playoffs the past 3 years. The ticket price is not unreasonable from the teams perspective, but is getting kind of unreasonable for the average family of 4 that would have to pay $240 just for tickets to 1 game!

Let's assume that the Sabres are going to be even better next season. The player salaries are going to go up for most RFA's on the team, so we can assume ~$38M in salaries. If the team sells out every game, the gate recipts would grow to $45,977,400. If we assume higher concessions and merchandise sales, up to $11M, and for the hell of it say we played in 3 playoff games $3,364,200. That will give the team a total income of ~$60,341,600, take out player salaries and the team is left with ~$22341600. That is still not enough to cover the expenses at the previous years rate and the team still hasn't made it to the cup. (I also doubt that they will sellout every game at this point).

If you don't see that there is a problem, I don't know what to tell you. Buffalo is a great hockey city with many fans but the economics of the game are out of whack. You say that the players should not be underpaid because they are maximizing the teams income, well I'd say that right now player salaries have outgrown what they can bring to the team and a correction needs to be made. It doesn't matter if NYR can pay higher salaries than other teams in the league if it is going to hurt the other teams in the league. The only way the league can grow is if EVERY team has the same chance to win and that just isn't the case right now. You may say that it is the owners fault and that the owners shouldn't punish the players, but they are just as much a part of the problem as the owners.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 11:15 AM
  #83
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
You make it sound so easy. Start with a cheap team and as you become succesfull you will become more profitable, and you can keep up with expenses. Let's look at an example.
No way is it easy. If it was easy winning the Stanley Cup would not be worth much. Its hard to win the Stanley Cup, but a model clearly exists for any NHL market to follow

Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579

The Buffalo Sabres had a team salary of ~$34M at the end of this past season. They had an average attendance of 15290 (82% of capacity, 18690 total seats). This means that from ticket sales alone, the Sabre made $37,613,400. (assuming an average ticket price of $60). That means that player salaries alone are already at 90% of the gate recipts. I have no idea how much the team makes in concessions and merchandise sales, but I'm guessing that that will be ~$10M tops. That would still leave player salaries taking 72% of the available income.
I snipped most of your economic analysis because its likely quite flawed. It likely severly underestimates revenues. Are we to believe Buffal has no luxory boxes? No TV revenue? No advertising revenue? No merchandising revenue? No coroporate sponshorship? etc?


Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579

If you don't see that there is a problem, I don't know what to tell you. Buffalo is a great hockey city with many fans but the economics of the game are out of whack. You say that the players should not be underpaid because they are maximizing the teams income, well I'd say that right now player salaries have outgrown what they can bring to the team and a correction needs to be made. It doesn't matter if NYR can pay higher salaries than other teams in the league if it is going to hurt the other teams in the league. The only way the league can grow is if EVERY team has the same chance to win and that just isn't the case right now. You may say that it is the owners fault and that the owners shouldn't punish the players, but they are just as much a part of the problem as the owners.
Buffalo may be a good NHL market. There are lots of them out there. In any given year, only one of the good markets wins the Stanley Cup. On average in a 30 team NHL, any market should win one Stanley Cup every 30 years. And some markets will do better than average - leaving others to do worse than average. Thats life. Wy should Buffalo win the cup now? Especially when you claim they are the youngest team in the NHL. Why should we expect the youngest team in the NHL to win the cup? Now if they picked the correct young players, I expect they will take a serious run in a few years. There is a big "if" there. Its hard to pick the correct young players, but somebody will do it.

Now the question of Buffalo cutting players to reduce payroll is flawed. If I was the Buffalo GM, this summer I would definitely let James Patrick go. I would seriously consider letting Mike Grier, Eric Boulton and even Alexei Zhitnik (depending on what he is offered elsewhere) leave. All of these would open up roster spots for new yound players and would keep the team from having overpaid underproducing veterans stanindg in the way on the new young core. I would seriously consider trading Martin Biron if I go the right offer. With the right offer, Mirsolav Satan would be available. All of this would make the team better in the future. It would also serve to make the team cheaper - but that isn't the idea behind the moves. They would be good hockey moves that happen to reduce team payroll in the process. And fans like you would use Buffalo making good intelligent hockey moves as an example that their team cannot compete financially, when in fact they should have made the same moves without taking finances into account.

The problem with the way you look at the NHL is that most teams cannot be winners. 14/30 teams will miss the playoffs each year. Many of those teams will be rebuilding and miss the playoffs a few years in a row. That is business as usual. Not a financial problem. Now, of those teams that make playoffs, half will lose first round. Half of those that remain will drop in the next round. Only a few teams can have legitimate cup runs in any given year. They are rare.

If we define success as having a Stanley Cup appearance, Buffalo has had a successful season as recently as 1999. Since 1999, at most 10 teams (in fact only 8 did due to repeat appearances - but that is normal) could have had finals appearances (2 per year). That means most teams would have gone longer without playoff success than Buffalo (and yet Buffalo is the team you complain about). In the NHL success is hard. Few teams succeed. Its not payroll that dictates that. It is dictated by the fact that 30 teams exist to win only 1 Stanley Cup.

CH is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 11:42 AM
  #84
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
I snipped most of your economic analysis because its likely quite flawed. It likely severly underestimates revenues. Are we to believe Buffal has no luxory boxes? No TV revenue? No advertising revenue? No merchandising revenue? No coroporate sponshorship? etc?

Well, if you can find some reliable numbers on any of that revenue, I'd love to see it. The fact still remains that most of the income in the NHL comes from the gate. I may have missed some income, but I doubt it as anywhere near as high as you make it out to be, and the team is still losing $10M after that added income is added.


Buffalo may be a good NHL market. There are lots of them out there. In any given year, only one of the good markets wins the Stanley Cup. On average in a 30 team NHL, any market should win one Stanley Cup every 30 years. And some markets will do better than average - leaving others to do worse than average. Thats life. Wy should Buffalo win the cup now? Especially when you claim they are the youngest team in the NHL. Why should we expect the youngest team in the NHL to win the cup? Now if they picked the correct young players, I expect they will take a serious run in a few years. There is a big "if" there. Its hard to pick the correct young players, but somebody will do it.

So, we stay at the bottom of the league and hope we get lucky because we have to let players go to keep payroll down until we get lucky?

Now the question of Buffalo cutting players to reduce payroll is flawed. If I was the Buffalo GM, this summer I would definitely let James Patrick go. I would seriously consider letting Mike Grier, Eric Boulton and even Alexei Zhitnik (depending on what he is offered elsewhere) leave. All of these would open up roster spots for new yound players and would keep the team from having overpaid underproducing veterans stanindg in the way on the new young core. I would seriously consider trading Martin Biron if I go the right offer. With the right offer, Mirsolav Satan would be available. All of this would make the team better in the future. It would also serve to make the team cheaper - but that isn't the idea behind the moves. They would be good hockey moves that happen to reduce team payroll in the process. And fans like you would use Buffalo making good intelligent hockey moves as an example that their team cannot compete financially, when in fact they should have made the same moves without taking finances into account.

Again, we let everyone go for younger cheaper players, with the hopes that they all come together for a good playoff run (maybe have a 3 year window) before we have to tear it all up and start over again.


The problem with the way you look at the NHL is that most teams cannot be winners. 14/30 teams will miss the playoffs each year. Many of those teams will be rebuilding and miss the playoffs a few years in a row. That is business as usual. Not a financial problem. Now, of those teams that make playoffs, half will lose first round. Half of those that remain will drop in the next round. Only a few teams can have legitimate cup runs in any given year. They are rare.

How many seasons have Toronto, Detroit, Colorado, Dallas, Philadelphia missed the playoffs in the last 10 years?

If we define success as having a Stanley Cup appearance, Buffalo has had a successful season as recently as 1999. Since 1999, at most 10 teams (in fact only 8 did due to repeat appearances - but that is normal) could have had finals appearances (2 per year). That means most teams would have gone longer without playoff success than Buffalo (and yet Buffalo is the team you complain about). In the NHL success is hard. Few teams succeed. Its not payroll that dictates that. It is dictated by the fact that 30 teams exist to win only 1 Stanley Cup.

Buffalo had 1 good run that lasted about 3 years before the team had to be dissassembled. While this happened, the teams I mentioned above have had one continueous run. The only reason for that is that those teams are able to buy the best free agents to prolong their success. Your going to use teams that make a run once every 10 years and say that because they can do that there is no problem, while other teams can go on a continueous run over that time. Your living in a big market dream world. And if it's not changed, there will be little hockey for anyone.
EDIT: Your right, my analysis is way off. I over estimated the ticket income. How do these numbers sound?

Ticket revenue: $25.6M
Advertising income: $6M
Local TV revenue: $7M
National TV revenue: $6M
Parking revenue: $1.6M

Total: $46.19M

I also forgot to add the cost of advertising, but that is unknown also. I still have no information on merchandise income, but that is shared between the league and the players and probably isn't over $10M.

Here are some articles that support these numbers. One of them even reports the Sabres losing $15M in 1999 - when they were very successful and still had a low payroll...

http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/s...y2.html?page=1
http://buffalo.bizjournals.com/buffa...y1.html?page=1
http://buffalo.bizjournals.com/buffa...25/story1.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/s...n2.html?page=1


Last edited by djhn579: 05-31-2004 at 01:33 PM.
djhn579 is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 01:50 PM
  #85
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
EDIT: Your right, my analysis is way off. I over estimated the ticket income. How do these numbers sound?

Ticket revenue: $25.6M
Advertising income: $6M
Local TV revenue: $7M
National TV revenue: $6M
Parking revenue: $1.6M

Total: $46.19M

I also forgot to add the cost of advertising, but that is unknown also. I still have no information on merchandise income, but that is shared between the league and the players and probably isn't over $10M.

Here are some articles that support these numbers. One of them even reports the Sabres losing $15M in 1999 - when they were very successful and still had a low payroll...

http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/s...y2.html?page=1
http://buffalo.bizjournals.com/buffa...y1.html?page=1
http://buffalo.bizjournals.com/buffa...25/story1.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/s...n2.html?page=1
Don't waste your time arguing with him, he's sold to Tom Benjamin's theory that when a team has success, their revenues suddenly jump and they can be a big payroll team for years on. This theory has Colorado and other high payroll teams as example of how they can keep the ball rolling. I don't agree with this theory, but the people following those theories will rationalize anything you say to fit it in that theory.

It's like the guy talking about how the old Pens owner should have invested in a rink when he made money. Well... He made so much money that the team couldn't pay Mario Lemieux and went bankrupt, which is why Lemieux became an owner in the hopes of getting the money owned to him.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 02:11 PM
  #86
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smail
Don't waste your time arguing with him, he's sold to Tom Benjamin's theory that when a team has success, their revenues suddenly jump and they can be a big payroll team for years on. This theory has Colorado and other high payroll teams as example of how they can keep the ball rolling. I don't agree with this theory, but the people following those theories will rationalize anything you say to fit it in that theory.

It's like the guy talking about how the old Pens owner should have invested in a rink when he made money. Well... He made so much money that the team couldn't pay Mario Lemieux and went bankrupt, which is why Lemieux became an owner in the hopes of getting the money owned to him.
I know, I've reached that conclusion too. It's just so aggrevating how some people put blinders on and can't see any other view but their own, even when presented other evidence that refutes their view.

In the end, no matter what conclusions we come to here, people that are in the business of making money and have otherwise done a great job of it are losing money and have come to the conclusion that the only way to fix it is to shut down the NHL until they get a better deal under a new CBA. There is no reason for a business person to do that unless they are losing money and see no possibility of that changing. I am making the assumption that these people have a lot more information than we do and a lot more financial saavy...

djhn579 is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 02:11 PM
  #87
oilswell
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wandering the globe
Posts: 1,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Comrie would of done the same thing even if there was a hard cap.
Comrie didn't want to be in Edmonton for whatever reason. A better comparison would be Weight. What was St. Louis' payroll after they were able to add Weight? If nobody could take him on, the Oilers were prepared to sign him for around $4.3.

I did a similar correlational analysis a while ago using the last four regular seasons. I corrected for inflating salaries and used regular season points as the measure instead of simple ranking. You can find it here. The results are quite consistent with the nice analyses here. I also included a scatterplot in which (IMO) you can really see that, apart from the outliers, money = points.

Hope this helps.

oilswell is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 05:39 PM
  #88
DontTouchMyDonskoi
4everFerkland
 
DontTouchMyDonskoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,800
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=SmailIt's like the guy talking about how the old Pens owner should have invested in a rink when he made money. Well... He made so much money that the team couldn't pay Mario Lemieux and went bankrupt, which is why Lemieux became an owner in the hopes of getting the money owned to him.[/QUOTE]

that was me ..

1) if the owner hadnt put all the money in his pocket, he could have afforded the contracts he commited to.

2) if the owner had invested that money into a new arena, the franchise would never have needed to go into bankruptcy protection.

PIT's problems all relate to an owner preferring to pocket his profits. Cant really blame him for that, but also cant use PIT as an exmaple of why the NHL is wrong. Any business that doesnt reinvest in itself wont last.

DontTouchMyDonskoi is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 06:09 PM
  #89
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 7,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
The teams with the very lowest payrolls are in general rebuilding teams. They have little expectaiton to make the playoffs until they have finished their rebuild. Why should they? If they do it right they will make the playoffs many times in the upcoming years. Why do you expect that a team in mid-rebuild with no top players should make the playoffs most of the time?
oh really? How long has Edmonton been in a "rebuilding" phase? 10 years? The point is that every time Edmonton is on the verge of completing the rebuild, they've had to give up solid veterans because THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY THEM. You want examples? Fine. Doug Weight. He left for St. Louis, and until the Oilers picked up Nedved was lacking in a 1st line centre for the past 3 years. We can't afford to find a replacement at that position, so we make do with the Shawn Horcoffs, and the Mike Comries. 5 years ago, we had one of the strongest 3rd lines in the league with Marchant, Grier and Moreau. We could not afford to sign Marchant, Columbus signed him to what, a $3 million deal. Grier was traded to WASH for the same reason. Moreau is still here because he signed for LESS to continue to play in Edmonton after seeing his linemates go.

So we either give up our vets for youth or have them sign elsewhere as UFA's. You know what, some UFA's have certainly earned the right to go where they wish to sign, but Edm can't compete in a free agent market to re-sign these established veterans. heck, we can't even afford to keep our NON ufa vets. You want more examples? Try Roman Hamrlik. Traded to NYI for a then unproven Eric Brewer and Josh Green. Try Janne Niiniimaa, again similarly traded to NYI for unproven Raffi Torres and Brad Isbister. Try Boris Mironov, traded to Chicago for Moreau, Laflamme and Chad Kilger. see a trend?

Maybe you should try seeing from others viewpoints instead of your rocky high ground sometime. Its known as empathy.

Master Lok is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 06:15 PM
  #90
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 7,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality

Weight - EDM isnt worse without Weight and STL isnt better by spending the 8m. I feel more sorry for STL fans in this transaction than I do EDM.

anymore examples where a team truly could not "afford" a star player and how that hurt them ?
Edmonton hasn't missed Weight? Reeeally? How many Edmonton games have you watched in the last 3 years? Question: before Nedved, tell me who the top line centre for the Oilers have been the last 3 years. Maybe you should know a bit more about the Edmonton situation before posting an opinion.

Answer: The top line centre has alternated between Comrie (now gone - a 20 year old kid who was rushed to the front lines of the NHL because we had no one else), Mike York (he's better as a LW), Shawn Horcoff (a 40 pt #1 centreman. you should try one of those), Ryan Smyth (yes, he tried being the #1 centreman this year because our situation was so bad but failed).

Are you honestly telling me that you actually think the Oilers would be WORSE with Doug Weight than Without? (of course we can't pay $8 million for Weight. I'm talking about 4.3 that we offered originally.)

Master Lok is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 06:44 PM
  #91
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Buffalo had 1 good run that lasted about 3 years before the team had to be dissassembled. While this happened, the teams I mentioned above have had one continueous run. The only reason for that is that those teams are able to buy the best free agents to prolong their success. Your going to use teams that make a run once every 10 years and say that because they can do that there is no problem, while other teams can go on a continueous run over that time.
Using Buffalo further as an example, presumably the goal you want for Buffalo is to win the Stanley Cup. Its probably quite obvious that the current team is not likely to win the cup. Their goal is to acquire a competitive young core that might in the future be capable of winning the cup. In order to do they they must draft or trade extremely well. It is hard to win a cup. Right now I suppose the hope should be that among younger players like Daniel Briere, Derek Roy, Ryan Miller, Mika Noronen, Taylor Pyatt, Ales Kotalik, Tomas Vanek, Maxim Afinogenov, Chris Drury, Dan Paille such a core of players will emerge. Will it work? Probably not since it is hard to win the cup, but its more likely then trying to have a run with the current team that missed the playoffs for 3 straight years. Anybody who is not going to be around to be a major part of this team should be recycled into somebody younger who has the potential that they will be. That is why I suggest trading (for a the right return) players like Miroslav Satan. He has a value today and he wont still have that value when it matters to the Sabres.

Buffalo did have a bit of a run that lead to a finals appearance. The team was probably unlikely to win a cup because they only had one player who was a truly exceptional player who might wind up in the hall of fame one day (that player is Dominek Hasek). Cup winners in general are deeper than that. They had a good run because Hasek was outstanding. He was the best player in the world. He played goaltender which is the position that allows him the biggest impact in the game. Unfortunately, he was well into his 30s and had recurring groin problems. When Buffalo realized they were not likely to win a cup they recycled him. This is much like I suggest they look into recycling Satan. Until they get a good young core together, they should continue recycling their older players for potential members of this good young core. When they have a good young core they will have many years to take shots at the Stanley Cup. Getting the core is hard, but its the step that they need to do to succeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Your living in a big market dream world. And if it's not changed, there will be little hockey for anyone.

I'm living in the hockey world that is fair enough to allow "big markets" like Calgary and Tampa Bay to compete in the Stanley Cup finals while "small markets" like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago miss the playoffs. If its not changed, this fairness can continue indefinitely

CH is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 06:52 PM
  #92
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
Using Buffalo further as an example, presumably the goal you want for Buffalo is to win the Stanley Cup. Its probably quite obvious that the current team is not likely to win the cup. Their goal is to acquire a competitive young core that might in the future be capable of winning the cup. In order to do they they must draft or trade extremely well. It is hard to win a cup. Right now I suppose the hope should be that among younger players like Daniel Briere, Derek Roy, Ryan Miller, Mika Noronen, Taylor Pyatt, Ales Kotalik, Tomas Vanek, Maxim Afinogenov, Chris Drury, Dan Paille such a core of players will emerge. Will it work? Probably not since it is hard to win the cup, but its more likely then trying to have a run with the current team that missed the playoffs for 3 straight years. Anybody who is not going to be around to be a major part of this team should be recycled into somebody younger who has the potential that they will be. That is why I suggest trading (for a the right return) players like Miroslav Satan. He has a value today and he wont still have that value when it matters to the Sabres.

Buffalo did have a bit of a run that lead to a finals appearance. The team was probably unlikely to win a cup because they only had one player who was a truly exceptional player who might wind up in the hall of fame one day (that player is Dominek Hasek). Cup winners in general are deeper than that. They had a good run because Hasek was outstanding. He was the best player in the world. He played goaltender which is the position that allows him the biggest impact in the game. Unfortunately, he was well into his 30s and had recurring groin problems. When Buffalo realized they were not likely to win a cup they recycled him. This is much like I suggest they look into recycling Satan. Until they get a good young core together, they should continue recycling their older players for potential members of this good young core. When they have a good young core they will have many years to take shots at the Stanley Cup. Getting the core is hard, but its the step that they need to do to succeed.

You still refuse to open your eyes... Of course it's hard to win the stanley cup. Amazingly the same teams have been winning it over the past 10 years... Open your eyes... The fact that some teams got lucky this year does not change that fact... you keep singing the same song like you think that if you keep repeating it, it will make it true. Life doesn't work that way...

I'm living in the hockey world that is fair enough to allow "big markets" like Calgary and Tampa Bay to compete in the Stanley Cup finals while "small markets" like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago miss the playoffs. If its not changed, this fairness can continue indefinitely

Please, send me some of that stuff your smoking... It's got to be great to make everything look so rosy...

djhn579 is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 07:18 PM
  #93
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Of course it's hard to win the stanley cup. Amazingly the same teams have been winning it over the past 10 years...
Once a team has a core good enough to win the Stanley Cup one year, the will likely still have that core in subsequent years and may very well win another cup. Thats just common sense. If your team had that core they could win a few cups.

CH is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 07:32 PM
  #94
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
Once a team has a core good enough to win the Stanley Cup one year, the will likely still have that core in subsequent years and may very well win another cup. Thats just common sense. If your team had that core they could win a few cups.

Buying a few high priced free agents certainly helps...


(Yawn)...

djhn579 is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 07:35 PM
  #95
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Buying a few high priced free agents certainly helps...

Under certain circumstances it can help. Under others it doesn't.

The problem with trying to buy a team is any good UFA doesn't become available until he is 31 years old or older. And players at that age are on the downside of their careers.

Unless you already have a core in place, buying a bunch of high priced free agents will make you the New York Rangers. It wont win you the cup.

CH is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 07:37 PM
  #96
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
Under certain circumstances it can help. Under others it doesn't.

The problem with trying to buy a team is any good UFA doesn't become available until he is 31 years old or older. And players at that age are on the downside of their careers.

Unless you already have a core in place, buying a bunch of high priced free agents will make you the New York Rangers. It wont win you the cup.
Yes and all those players the small market teams need to trade because they can't afford the salary increases help the big market teams too. Open your eyes...


djhn579 is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 07:45 PM
  #97
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Yes and all those players the small market teams need to trade because they can't afford the salary increases help the big market teams too. Open your eyes...
Here is where you are wrong. If I have a team that is not a contender that should be rebuilding then I should trade any players who are old enough that they are starting to decline.

But if I can convince you that its part of a payroll inequity to get you to support my push to increase profits with a salary cap and get you to forgive a lengthy lockout to accomplish it - then it has served two purposes.

Why do you think the New York Rangers were involved in such salary dumps this year? They sent Petr Nedved (for example) to that large market team in Edmonton

CH is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 08:08 PM
  #98
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
Here is where you are wrong. If I have a team that is not a contender that should be rebuilding then I should trade any players who are old enough that they are starting to decline.

But if I can convince you that its part of a payroll inequity to get you to support my push to increase profits with a salary cap and get you to forgive a lengthy lockout to accomplish it - then it has served two purposes.

Why do you think the New York Rangers were involved in such salary dumps this year? They sent Petr Nedved (for example) to that large market team in Edmonton
The only reason the Rangers dumped salary this year is because of the coming lockout.

What you don't seem to get is that there are a lot of teams that are still developing that are forced to trade players rather than being able to continue the teams development.

I don't even understand your second paragraph, and I've read it twice... When did you support a salary cap?


There is a payroll inequality that is keeping certain teams on top and forcing other teams to constantly rebuild or stay mediocre. I used the Sabres as an example of a team that is rebuilding, but is still losing money. In fact, even when they were contending for the stanley cup, they were losing money. Big market teams are able to jack up player costs and when the small market teams can't pay the new going rate, the big market teams get good experienced players for draft picks. This results in big market teams skipping the rebuilding process and remaining competetive. The team that gets the draft picks ends up rebuilding again. This is a competetive imbalance. The only way to fix it is for all teams to have the same salary...

Right now, twenty owners don't have any profits. The need to make profits or the league is dead. It's as simple as that.

The players are not going to willingly make any meaningful concessions. If there is a lockout, it's not just the owners fault. Change is needed. The system is broken.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 08:13 PM
  #99
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
Why do you think the New York Rangers were involved in such salary dumps this year? They sent Petr Nedved (for example) to that large market team in Edmonton
That was not a salary dump, since Nedved is a UFA this summer and the Rangers paid all his salary this year.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 08:35 PM
  #100
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smail
That was not a salary dump, since Nedved is a UFA this summer and the Rangers paid all his salary this year.
I understand. Its only a salary dump when it helps your argument.

Gotcha

CH 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 01:50 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.