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

Isbister salary now up on NHLPA.COM

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-15-2004, 10:29 PM
  #1
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,906
vCash: 500
Isbister salary now up on NHLPA.COM

1,450,000.00 for year one. Of course we will not know the breakdown of year two until tomorrow.

A little high IMO.

Unless it is still a two way.

hockeyaddict101 is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 10:32 PM
  #2
Hemsky4PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Billeting Ales
Posts: 6,817
vCash: 500
No chance it's a two-way deal. His agent would be fired. The Oilers have overpaid, but they retain his rights and got him to take a 0.5M cut. His salary is also WAY more tradable than it was last season.

Hemsky4PM is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 10:35 PM
  #3
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemsky4PM
No chance it's a two-way deal. His agent would be fired. The Oilers have overpaid, but they retain his rights and got him to take a 0.5M cut. His salary is also WAY more tradable than it was last season.
I don't think so either. This time I think it is an overpay unless it goes down in year two and I have my doubts about that.

I thought Conklins was about right since there was no raise in year two.

But in this case the Oilers really held all the cards and IMO should have paid 1.1 to 1.2.

hockeyaddict101 is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 10:46 PM
  #4
Hemsky4PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Billeting Ales
Posts: 6,817
vCash: 500
On a similar note, the Oilers payroll (not including Rita, Smith, Brewer, Bergeron, Semenov, Dvorak or Nedved) sits at $21.21M US. Assuming a $32M US budget, that leaves 10.79M for 7 players.

Assuming
Nedved: 3.3M
Brewer: 2.5M
Smith: 2.3M
Bergeron: 0.8M
Semenov: 0.8M
Dvorak: 2.0M
Rita: 0.7M
TOTAL: 12.4M

These are reasonable salaries, Smith and Brewer might be in for raises in arbitration (although I doubt it) but the rest to me seem pretty close to what can be expected. Nedved of course is an UFA, but he should still be the top priority. We would be better off with Nedved and one of Smith or Brewer than with no Nedved and the two defenseman, in my opinion. Anyways, this speculation would but the club $1.61M over the $32M mark.

I think that the lack of expansion revenues and the lack of a TV contract alone means that the team will be in very tough to keep this line-up in tact. A big ticket (or two) will be moved. If Nedved cannot be signed they could probably get a guy like Damphousse at half the price, but would we be better off?

Hemsky4PM is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 10:51 PM
  #5
oildrop
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,486
vCash: 500
Well, Izzy took a pay-cut so that's good to see. Maybe he'll learn a lesson and realize that he has to prove himself now. Hopefully he has a strong year. I wouldn't have wanted him around at $2million but at $1.45million I don't have a problem with it. It's $400,000 below the League average so that's good too.

oildrop is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 10:55 PM
  #6
Big T
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: LLoydminster, AB
Posts: 338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oildrop
Well, Izzy took a pay-cut so that's good to see. Maybe he'll learn a lesson and realize that he has to prove himself now. Hopefully he has a strong year. I wouldn't have wanted him around at $2million but at $1.45million I don't have a problem with it. It's $400,000 below the League average so that's good too.

Does this make him a UFA after year two I wonder ala Marchant??? I know it depends on the new CBA of course, but under present rules and assuming his year 2 salary is the same, would he become a UFA?


T

Big T is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 10:57 PM
  #7
Jamie
Registered User
 
Jamie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 2,590
vCash: 500
That salary is fine. Lowe didn't hold all the cards. He didn't want to at any point put him on waivers and expose him to the entire league, and the chances of him ever even considering doing it during the season would be slim to none. The 2 way was just a way of saying, we will if we have too. Chances are Isbister could've taken the qualifying offer and played the entire season for the big club. I thought we'd be looking at around $3 million for 2 years still, and that looks like where he's at. Good deal by Lowe IMO.

Jamie is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 10:59 PM
  #8
Jamie
Registered User
 
Jamie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 2,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big T
Does this make him a UFA after year two I wonder ala Marchant??? I know it depends on the new CBA of course, but under present rules and assuming his year 2 salary is the same, would he become a UFA?


T
I don't think so... as far as I know, you have to have played 10 season's below the league average... not just your last 2. I think anyways...

Jamie is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 11:01 PM
  #9
Allan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: United Nations
Posts: 1,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big T
Does this make him a UFA after year two I wonder ala Marchant??? I know it depends on the new CBA of course, but under present rules and assuming his year 2 salary is the same, would he become a UFA?


T
The rule is 10 years in the NHL and under the average salary. He currenly only has 7, so after the contract expires, he still has 9, and is still RFA. Of course, that could change by then anyway.

Allan is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 11:02 PM
  #10
Digger12
Gold Fever
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Back o' beyond
Posts: 15,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big T
Does this make him a UFA after year two I wonder ala Marchant??? I know it depends on the new CBA of course, but under present rules and assuming his year 2 salary is the same, would he become a UFA?


T
From TSN:

Quote:
Group V - Players who have completed 10 pro seasons or more (NHL or minors, excluding junior hockey), are in the final year of their contracts, have earned less than the NHL average salary ($1.83 million US) and received a qualifying offer. These players have the right to elect Group V unrestricted free agency once in their careers. Should a player not elect to become an unrestricted free agent, he would remain a Group II free agent.
By that definition, and considering that Isbister is coming up to his 8th pro season...I think he would still be one full year away from Group V status at the expiration of his deal.

Of course, the next CBA could blow this all the hell and back...

Digger12 is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 11:03 PM
  #11
Digger12
Gold Fever
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Back o' beyond
Posts: 15,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan
The rule is 10 years in the NHL and under the average salary. He currenly only has 7, so after the contract expires, he still has 9, and is still RFA. Of course, that could change by then anyway.
If this was a spaghetti western, right about now is where my face just hit the dirt.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 11:04 PM
  #12
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie
That salary is fine. Lowe didn't hold all the cards. He didn't want to at any point put him on waivers and expose him to the entire league, and the chances of him ever even considering doing it during the season would be slim to none. The 2 way was just a way of saying, we will if we have too. Chances are Isbister could've taken the qualifying offer and played the entire season for the big club. I thought we'd be looking at around $3 million for 2 years still, and that looks like where he's at. Good deal by Lowe IMO.
True enough and if he is put on waivers and taken we get nothing for him. Still a slight overpay IMO but nothing to get too excited about.

The chances of him playing the whole season in Edmonton was good anyway and in this way we save a cool 450,000.

hockeyaddict101 is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 11:05 PM
  #13
IceDragoon
Registered User
 
IceDragoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: South of Sanity
Posts: 3,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big T
Does this make him a UFA after year two I wonder ala Marchant??? I know it depends on the new CBA of course, but under present rules and assuming his year 2 salary is the same, would he become a UFA?


T
Hmmm...
I'm not sure on this one, as he made more than the league average the last 2 years.
I think
_________

He took a significant pay cut, so I'm ok with it, I guess.
Let's hope he feels he has something to prove.

IceDragoon is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 12:04 AM
  #14
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,647
vCash: 500
Why are we assuming a 32 mil budget? If it's not at least 36-38 there's somethin wrong.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 12:39 AM
  #15
xerburt
Registered User
 
xerburt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: vancouver
Posts: 346
vCash: 500
If the situation with Paul Kariya is any indication, a player only needs to make less than the league average in his 10th year in the league to become unrestricted the next year. I believe Kariya made 1.2 million this year but 10 million the year prior with Anaheim. I don't believe all 10 years or the average of all 10 years is taken into account. Correct me if I'm wrong........

Or was it the fact that Anaheim didn't tender a qualifying offer on the 10 million that made him a free agent?


Last edited by xerburt: 07-16-2004 at 12:44 AM.
xerburt is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 01:19 AM
  #16
Rebek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7
vCash: 500
Kariya's departure from Anaheim was because he wasn't qualified. The fact that he is a free agent now, after playing in Colorado, is attributed to his salary last year being less than the league average. You only need the last year to be under the league average, plus 10 years in the league to be a UFA when you would usually be a RFA.

Rebek is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 01:36 AM
  #17
Ice Cream Man
$1 Oysters
 
Ice Cream Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 5,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Why are we assuming a 32 mil budget? If it's not at least 36-38 there's somethin wrong.
Well, I don't think the Oilers plan on operating at a $36-38 million budget. $36 million is the max payroll that the Flames will go, and somehow I don't see the Oilers being able to operate at that level.

I think $32-33 is about right for them.

Ice Cream Man is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 01:39 AM
  #18
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,906
vCash: 500
Wasn't the Oilers payroll last year

around 34 million once they added Oates and Ulanov?

The dollar and the Heritage Classic gives the Oilers a little bit of breathing room.

hockeyaddict101 is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 01:40 AM
  #19
guymez
The Seldom Seen Kid
 
guymez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,492
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man
Well, I don't think the Oilers plan on operating at a $36-38 million budget. $36 million is the max payroll that the Flames will go, and somehow I don't see the Oilers being able to operate at that level.

I think $32-33 is about right for them.
What are you basing this opinion on?

guymez is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 01:44 AM
  #20
Ice Cream Man
$1 Oysters
 
Ice Cream Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 5,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guymez
What are you basing this opinion on?
Well, an opinion can only ever be based on the thoughts and beliefs of an individual. If you are asking me why I think this is, then here's my answer....

Because it doesn't make sense that the Oilers operate at a higher budget than the Flames, when the Flames have a tighter, wealthier ownership group, while the Oilers are composed as a large group of minority owners.

IMO, let's say it again.... IMO..... the Oilers' budget will likely be around $32-33 mill. I just don't see them going any higher.

Ice Cream Man is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 01:46 AM
  #21
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man
Well, an opinion can only ever be based on the thoughts and beliefs of an individual. If you are asking me why I think this is, then here's my answer....

Because it doesn't make sense that the Oilers operate at a higher budget than the Flames, when the Flames have a tighter, wealthier ownership group, while the Oilers are composed as a large group of minority owners.

IMO, let's say it again.... IMO..... the Oilers' budget will likely be around $32-33 mill. I just don't see them going any higher.
It went higher last year, I believe with the Oates and Ulanov signing it went to around 34 million.

hockeyaddict101 is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 01:52 AM
  #22
Digger12
Gold Fever
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Back o' beyond
Posts: 15,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaz44
It went higher last year, I believe with the Oates and Ulanov signing it went to around 34 million.
To be fair though, we might have to come to grips with the possibility of that being a one-off shot, w/ the Heritage classic and the dollar strengthening adding a temporary influx.

It'll obviously go up a bit (unless they hold a Capitalsesque fire sale), but IMO a 36 to 38M budget ain't happening with this current ownership group.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 01:54 AM
  #23
guymez
The Seldom Seen Kid
 
guymez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,492
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man
Well, an opinion can only ever be based on the thoughts and beliefs of an individual. If you are asking me why I think this is, then here's my answer.....
Wow...thats deep. Although, sometimes opinions can be formed based on facts.

Quote:
Because it doesn't make sense that the Oilers operate at a higher budget than the Flames, when the Flames have a tighter, wealthier ownership group, while the Oilers are composed as a large group of minority owners.

IMO, let's say it again.... IMO..... the Oilers' budget will likely be around $32-33 mill. I just don't see them going any higher.
I think revenue generation plays a small role, don't you? If your implying that the Flames ownership group has deeper pockets, that may well be true. However your thoughts and beliefs don't convince me that they are willing to keep topping up the kitty.

guymez is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 01:56 AM
  #24
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
To be fair though, we might have to come to grips with the possibility of that being a one-off shot, w/ the Heritage classic and the dollar strengthening adding a temporary influx.

It'll obviously go up a bit (unless they hold a Capitalsesque fire sale), but IMO a 36 to 38M budget ain't happening with this current ownership group.
Though the dollar most likely is not going to slip to the 65 cents it was two years ago and has held to the same levels it was for most of last year.

I would think the budget will be about what it was last year, approx 34 million. It was at 32 million before they added Oates as a FA.

What is showed is that the Oilers do have some flexibility in that budget.

hockeyaddict101 is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 01:59 AM
  #25
Digger12
Gold Fever
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Back o' beyond
Posts: 15,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaz44
Though the dollar most likely is not going to slip to the 65 cents it was two years ago and has held to the same levels it was for most of last year.

I would think the budget will be about what it was last year, approx 34 million. It was at 32 million before they added Oates as a FA.
Yeah, 34 would be about the upper end. We'll see how salaries shake down w/ Brewer, Smith, Dvo and potentially Nedved. Thus far Lowe seems to be fairly loose with the purse strings when it comes to the lesser guys. Now let's see how he is with the big guns of the team.

Digger12 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:29 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.