Jackets swing pair of deals with Edmonton

Ohio Jones

Game on...
Feb 28, 2002
8,257
201
Great White North
CD - Columbus, OH

NATIONWIDE ARENA - The Columbus Blue Jackets today announced that in a pair of transactions they have traded top defenceman Pavel Kubina and young blueliner Aaron Rome to Edmonton in return for Marek Zidlicky, Ladislav Smid and cash. Mid-round picks were also exchanged in the transactions.

Zidlicky is expected to take over Kubina's spot on the top pairing, while Smid joins Lukas Krajicek and Brian Boyle in bringing some youth to the Jackets' traditionally grizzled blueline. The new Jackets will likely see their first action with the team in St. Louis against a potent Blues side later this week.

"We wish Pavel and Aaron all the best - they are both class acts, and we have no doubt they'll see much success with a terrific franchise in Edmonton", said Jackets GM Doug Emerson in announcing the trade. "We wish we'd been able to hold onto both players, but moves were needed to shake up a team that has underperformed thus far in the season. We look forward to Marek and Laddy's contributions as we work to become more competitive."

Kubina came to the Jackets at the trading deadline last season from the New York Rangers for Roman Hamrlik, and Columbus promptly signed the pending UFA to a contract extension. As a result, Columbus is now on the hook for a multi-million dollar penalty for trading the re-signed player prior to this season's All-Star break.

Cash coming back in the trades will somewhat offset the penalty, but for a team already in dire financial straits, the decision raised more than a few eyebrows.

"We're well aware of our cash crunch", Emerson said when called to task by reporters for the team's precarious financial position. "Our ownership group approved the transaction, but I can assure you they - and we - are monitoring the team's financial situation closely.

"My job's on the line here", Emerson said frankly. "You know it, they know it, and most importantly I know it. It's going to be close, but we're going to be okay. And if not, well, you guys will have something to write about then, won't you?"

Rumours continue to whirl around the team suggesting that Emerson is not done dealing, with Washington among the teams kicking the tires of several players.

In other words, there may be some more new Jackets to fit before this is all done.
 

Wildman

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,942
35
Toronto
Matt, take $4M off Columbus bank for trading Kubina as he was signed prior to hitting Free agency.
 

Canuck09

Registered User
Jul 4, 2004
2,040
197
Vancouver
Done and Done.. today will also reflect all the endorsement deductions. Credit crisis here we come. :cry:

Perhaps this should have it's own topic, but what's going to happen to teams that go into negative either immidately (or very shortly) after these funds are taken out of the bank? There's quite a few teams with $5-6 Mil in the bank right now, some a little less even, that are going to be in real rough shape.
 

Ohio Jones

Game on...
Feb 28, 2002
8,257
201
Great White North
How in the world was I supposed to know about a fine for trading Halpern? Is there any way we can review that situation?

Quite true - ideally, this would have been raised at the time Josh was negotiating the trade. Since it wasn't, should Josh be on the hook for this?

As for the endorsement dollars, ouch! I thought they'd already been deducted, so yeah, maybe the Jackets *will* be looking for a new GM sooner than later...
 

MatthewFlames

Registered User
Jul 21, 2003
4,678
812
'Murica
Perhaps this should have it's own topic, but what's going to happen to teams that go into negative either immidately (or very shortly) after these funds are taken out of the bank? There's quite a few teams with $5-6 Mil in the bank right now, some a little less even, that are going to be in real rough shape.

As of today no teams are in the negative bank balance after the deductions for endorsements.
 

Canuck09

Registered User
Jul 4, 2004
2,040
197
Vancouver
As of today no teams are in the negative bank balance after the deductions for endorsements.

Maybe not as of today, but $270k left in one teams bank won't last long at all :help:

There's 4 teams currently with less than $5 Mil, and more than that in the $6-7 Mil range, all of which are on pace to be negative by year end. In fact, every single team in the league is projected to lose money on the year. I know that playoffs is where the gravy is supposed to come from, but really, every single team loses money? I know I'm new here, but what has happened in the past? And what's going to happen in the future, say next year when the salary cap goes up to $56 Mil(at least I assume it will as we seem to be a year behind the NHL)? What good is raising the cap if teams with $25 Mil payrolls lose money?
 

ThrashersGM

Registered User
Dec 14, 2006
224
0
lol, here we go again. I've only been here two years and seen this discussion at least 5 times. It usually turns out that not many teams lose money in the end, expecially if you bought some endorsements. Unfortunately my team has nobody to get endorsements because all my top picks are in the NHL and the only endorsement I'm good for is the mountain dew :)
 

Fan.At

Registered User
Sponsor
Mar 2, 2002
2,847
86
HFNHL Preds
lol, here we go again. I've only been here two years and seen this discussion at least 5 times. It usually turns out that not many teams lose money in the end, expecially if you bought some endorsements. Unfortunately my team has nobody to get endorsements because all my top picks are in the NHL and the only endorsement I'm good for is the mountain dew :)

although this time it is pretty severe and later in the season than usual. there are teams that are currently projected more than 13m in the regular season - even a good playoff run would not move that teams into the positives for the season...

in my opinion something has to happen. average revenue per game is down quite a bit compared to last season (checked a few teams and it is more than 100k for a few team) and thats really not something you can expect...

also the affected teams are run by expierienced gms, not newbies by any means...
 

Hossa

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
9,649
274
Abroad
Visit site
although this time it is pretty severe and later in the season than usual. there are teams that are currently projected more than 13m in the regular season - even a good playoff run would not move that teams into the positives for the season...

in my opinion something has to happen. average revenue per game is down quite a bit compared to last season (checked a few teams and it is more than 100k for a few team) and thats really not something you can expect...

also the affected teams are run by expierienced gms, not newbies by any means...

Agreed, particularly on revenues. Our cap and salaries are tied to the NHL's cap and salaries, which is tied to NHL revenues. But HFNHL revenues are a completely independent variable and I think something needs to be done to ensure HFNHL revenues are as stable and predictable as NHL revenues, and equitable as well.

The usual counterpoint is 'HFNHL teams shouldn't spend above their means', but even if we overlook the issue of NHL salaries being used for HFNHL ones, recall that the tied cap was instituted specifically because salary caps act as magnets, and our league can not logically be expected to buck this trend if professional sports franchises can't.

Teams shouldn't be counting on long playoff runs to break even. Last year I made a profit because of a three-round playoff run (and a conference final loss I'm still not over), but this year I would need about the same to even approach breaking even because the cap is up, salaries are up and revenues are down, once again being an independent variable. Considering I'm in better shape than probably 3/4 of the league financially, I can't imagine the frustration of those strong veteran GMs who are facing a much tougher situation.
 

Canuck09

Registered User
Jul 4, 2004
2,040
197
Vancouver
lol, here we go again. I've only been here two years and seen this discussion at least 5 times. It usually turns out that not many teams lose money in the end, expecially if you bought some endorsements. Unfortunately my team has nobody to get endorsements because all my top picks are in the NHL and the only endorsement I'm good for is the mountain dew :)

I definitely am new to the HFNHL, but not new to FHL based leagues. I think a couple of the posts after yours have brought up very good points/arguments that I agree with.

With spending based on the NHL and funds based on what's set in the SIM things just don't seem to match up well enough for everyone to sustain their franchise. I don't think everyone should turn a profit regardless of how good/bad their team is or how good/bad they manage it, but seeing EVERY team on pace to lose money when only half will get a chance to make the playoffs and get some of those losses back doesn't seem to bode well.
 

Ohio Jones

Game on...
Feb 28, 2002
8,257
201
Great White North
For my part, I can honestly say Columbus' dire straights are largely my own doing (a total of $19 million in cash handed out in buyouts penalties and signing bonuses(back when there were such things) on my watch were all my decisions, so I'm prepared to wear the consequences of them). I'm taking active steps to gut the team's salaries and at least limit my further losses.

However, my team notwithstanding, I can recognize when a system is broken, and ours is, so I'm in solidarity with those teams who are at their wits' end about how to be competitive (heck, how to field a minimum OV team, at that) and break even. This year more than any other, it's become clear that the league's financial structure is no longer sustainable.
 

Wildman

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,942
35
Toronto
I have been saying all along that we cannot be competitive in this league without having a payroll above $40M. Well, now we have a problem in our hand and we need to resolve this ASAP.

I think we should scrap the incentive program all together as it only helps the talented and richer teams that can afford in the first place. Instead we should keep our average bank roll to $30M.

Just a suggestion...I think I will make a pitch for Iginla:) any other players on the trading block?
 

Canuck09

Registered User
Jul 4, 2004
2,040
197
Vancouver
I have been saying all along that we cannot be competitive in this league without having a payroll above $40M. Well, now we have a problem in our hand and we need to resolve this ASAP.

I think we should scrap the incentive program all together as it only helps the talented and richer teams that can afford in the first place. Instead we should keep our average bank roll to $30M.

Just a suggestion...I think I will make a pitch for Iginla:) any other players on the trading block?

I actually like the Endorsement program, adds a little fun and strategy to things, but it shouldn't be counted on as the only positive money to come in at the end of the year.
 

Wildman

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,942
35
Toronto
I actually like the Endorsement program, adds a little fun and strategy to things, but it shouldn't be counted on as the only positive money to come in at the end of the year.

So do I but we need to look at it and make acheivable for bottom dwellers as well. Here is what I think we need to do: The total bank for the league is currently at $578,673,385 and we should have been at $900,000,000 at the begining of the season. Why don't we top it up by $10,710,887.17 to every teams bank and bring back to $900M. At the begining of next season, we can look at the total bank again and add or subtract depending on what the bank looks like at that time.

Here is my calculation if somone is interested in looking at it:

1 Blues $67,857,207 $30,000,000 $37,857,207
2 Predators $47,183,978 $30,000,000 $17,183,978
3 Red Wings $45,070,459 $30,000,000 $15,070,459
4 Kings $41,582,951 $30,000,000 $11,582,951
5 Sabres $39,254,362 $30,000,000 $9,254,362
6 Devils $38,623,412 $30,000,000 $8,623,412
7 Canucks $32,463,429 $30,000,000 $2,463,429
8 Canadiens $23,980,000 $30,000,000 ($6,020,000)
9 Penguins $22,018,237 $30,000,000 ($7,981,763)
10 Avalanche $21,351,912 $30,000,000 ($8,648,088)
11 Capitals $20,120,349 $30,000,000 ($9,879,651)
12 Islanders $20,033,921 $30,000,000 ($9,966,079)
13 Edmonton $18,529,344 $30,000,000 ($11,470,656)
14 Bruins $16,329,367 $30,000,000 ($13,670,633)
15 Lightning $15,740,370 $30,000,000 ($14,259,630)
16 Stars $15,393,264 $30,000,000 ($14,606,736)
17 Flyers $14,197,829 $30,000,000 ($15,802,171)
18 Leafs $13,667,686 $30,000,000 ($16,332,314)
19 Coyotes $10,296,909 $30,000,000 ($19,703,091)
20 Senators $7,545,418 $30,000,000 ($22,454,582)
21 Ducks $6,951,913 $30,000,000 ($23,048,087)
22 Rangers $6,679,984 $30,000,000 ($23,320,016)
23 Hurricanes $6,321,878 $30,000,000 ($23,678,122)
24 Sharks $5,794,947 $30,000,000 ($24,205,053)
25 Blackhawks $5,056,817 $30,000,000 ($24,943,183)
26 Jackets $4,987,094 $30,000,000 ($25,012,906)
27 Thrashers $4,470,314 $30,000,000 ($25,529,686)
28 Panthers $3,993,323 $30,000,000 ($26,006,677)
29 Minnesota $2,906,445 $30,000,000 ($27,093,555)
30 Flames $270,266 $30,000,000 ($29,729,734)
$578,673,385 $900,000,000 ($321,326,615)
10,710,887.17
 

Brock

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,196
3,628
The GTA
ohlprospects.blogspot.com
I have been saying all along that we cannot be competitive in this league without having a payroll above $40M. Well, now we have a problem in our hand and we need to resolve this ASAP.

In the end and in a short version Hasnain. I think you have hit the nail on the head.

The FHL Sim, being the dinosaur that it is, is not designed to run teams at a 50 mil salary. And with salaries matching the NHL, it's impossible to have a competitive team without having a salary above 40 mil, which the sim seems most comfortable with.

We have to figure out some way to compensate for this because running the sim with 50 mil payrolls is obviously not working, when you see competitive teams operating a losses of 30 million.
 

Canuck09

Registered User
Jul 4, 2004
2,040
197
Vancouver
In the end and in a short version Hasnain. I think you have hit the nail on the head.

The FHL Sim, being the dinosaur that it is, is not designed to run teams at a 50 mil salary. And with salaries matching the NHL, it's impossible to have a competitive team without having a salary above 40 mil, which the sim seems most comfortable with.

We have to figure out some way to compensate for this because running the sim with 50 mil payrolls is obviously not working, when you see competitive teams operating a losses of 30 million.

Is the finances slider in the sim set to max already? If not I don't see why it can't be capable of running just fine in a league where payrolls will be $50 Mil, and $56 Mil next year.

This thread has already been hijacked once so I won't totally take it in another direction, but there are alternatives to the "dinosaur" FHL Sim program as well. That's not the heart of this revenue issue, but as far as I know and have experienced, there are greater options in this area in the other popular sim, STHS.
 

Brock

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,196
3,628
The GTA
ohlprospects.blogspot.com
Is the finances slider in the sim set to max already? If not I don't see why it can't be capable of running just fine in a league where payrolls will be $50 Mil, and $56 Mil next year.

This thread has already been hijacked once so I won't totally take it in another direction, but there are alternatives to the "dinosaur" FHL Sim program as well. That's not the heart of this revenue issue, but as far as I know and have experienced, there are greater options in this area in the other popular sim, STHS.

I'm not sure where the finances slider is set, but I'd assume it's set pretty high (or difficult, no idea how its rated), since I'm in another league and in that league every team makes a ton of money before the playoffs on just attendance alone (obviously not the right option or realistic either).

As for the STHS, don't you worry Jeff, perhaps we are looking into it;)
 

Brock

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,196
3,628
The GTA
ohlprospects.blogspot.com
I actually like the Endorsement program, adds a little fun and strategy to things, but it shouldn't be counted on as the only positive money to come in at the end of the year.

I agree Jeff. The endorsement program is great. However, in it's current state, it only functions to make the rich, richer. This is because the poor teams can't afford the cost of entering endorsement contracts. What I've suggested is that endorsements serve as strictly a year end goal, similar to what you've said. However, I do like the penalty aspect for not reaching them, so I think there should be a financial penalty for entering a deal that is not met. Also perhaps a penalty that says that team can't enter that endorsement the next season.
 

MatthewFlames

Registered User
Jul 21, 2003
4,678
812
'Murica
I actually like the Endorsement program, adds a little fun and strategy to things, but it shouldn't be counted on as the only positive money to come in at the end of the year.

I agree. But for the poor teams it doesn't work. For one, I can't afford the hit at the start of the season. Last season I didn't do ANY. The season before I did two, and got one, pulled out of the other. This season I did two for a total of two million and my max return is only 6 million (4 because I'll have to pull out of the Backstrom one because of poor performance).

Also - I have a high salary and if I move all the salary I could never hit any of the endorsements anyway (except for Mountain Dew) so even if I manage to stay alive by waiving all my players, I still won't ever be able qualify for the endorsements because they are structured to reward success (and rightly so.) and even with players I have (one of the best G and two top 10 scoring forwards in the NHL (who have made my team the lowest scoring in the entire HF btw)) I still can't get success.
 

Toronto_AGM_Adil

Registered User
Apr 9, 2006
337
9
So do I but we need to look at it and make acheivable for bottom dwellers as well. Here is what I think we need to do: The total bank for the league is currently at $578,673,385 and we should have been at $900,000,000 at the begining of the season. Why don't we top it up by $10,710,887.17 to every teams bank and bring back to $900M. At the begining of next season, we can look at the total bank again and add or subtract depending on what the bank looks like at that time.

Your logic is flawed since you're taking balances at mid year. Our current revenue model is weighted towards year end when endorsements get paid out and playoff revenue is generated. To do the 900M calculation effectively it must be done year end... Matt has had done this number crunching and at the start of the season we were fine with the 900M.

Here's some numbers (I did this a couple of weeks ago for the admin team...)

Average revenue/gp as of the end of 2008 was $693K while our current average revenue is $671K.

The average attendance/gp at the end of 2008 was 14602 while the our current average attendance is 14053.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->