Jackets swing pair of deals with Edmonton

[The old geezer]

As I've been preaching for years (though no one's attending church) is that the solution needed to be expense side not revenue side as we are nearly out of revenue tools. It's somewhat moot as such an approach has to be put in place in advance.

I argued at the time we should not raise the cap and instead look at means to derive an expense side approach in contract negotiations. Heck this could have been done in a manner as simple as applying a discount factor to NHL salarie negotiations such as

Player X has a NHL salary = $5M
At the time NHL salary was signed NHL Cap = $50M
HFNHL cap = $40M (80% of NHL)
Therefore equivalent salary = $4M ($5M *80%)
Start negotiating.

At $40M level our financial structure would support a decent balance between teams that will make money and teams that will lose it so there will still be an expense management aspect to the league.

End of sermon.

While I hear what you're saying, Adil, (and I am obviously working on a solution to my team's situation internally, since I recognize my problems are as much my own making as they are systemic), there are significant factors working against your theory. First, we are a league that requires teams to field competitive rosters (minimum OV rule and restrictions on who you can waive and for how long), so a number of poorer teams have had to spend in ways that are probably unsound from both economic and hockey perspectives just in order to meet their obligations. Second, revenues are strongly tied to peformance in the form of winning streaks, OV80 players, playoffs and endorsements. We ain't the Oakland A's, and this ain't "moneypuck" -- noone's figured out a way to achieve sustainable success on-ice without spending... if not to the cap, certainly above the level of revenues.

So we require teams to be competitive, and only successful teams can make money. That makes it very difficult for teams to pursue your cost-saving strategy, which at best limits losses.

 

[kasper11]

The easy solution is to raise the revenue meter. I believe it was set at minimum.

The problem that we have encountered in the past is that when the revenue meter is raised the good teams (who usually have lots of money from playoffs and endorsements) make way too much money, and the bad teams still don't make anything, so they still go bankrupt.

 

[SPG]

This league has turned into a financial/accounting simulation rather than a hockey simulation. its too bad.

 

[Canuck09]

This league has turned into a financial/accounting simulation rather than a hockey simulation. its too bad.

While I would definitely rather focus on just my roster, the financial side of things is part of hockey, especially when going for a true simulation of it.

 

[The old geezer]

This league has turned into a financial/accounting simulation rather than a hockey simulation. its too bad.

So what you're saying is we're successfully reproducing the NHL experience

Ok so maybe that was apoor attempt at comic relief.

 

[SPG]

While I would definitely rather focus on just my roster, the financial side of things is part of hockey, especially when going for a true simulation of it.

Don't misinterpret my post. I agree wholeheartedly that finances should be a major part of any league like this. I am by no means advocating that it shouldn't be and that GMs shouldn't be responsible for their spending.

I've been in this particular league for 10 years now (and others before that) and it seems that every season, the financial aspect of things seems to be more and more the focus of the league.

The system is broke and it's taken away a lot of the fun in the league. Sad, but true.

 

[MatthewFlames]

So what you're saying is we're successfully reproducing the NHL experience

The thing is that doing your expense solution would take away from the so-called 'realism' of the HFNHL experience (which has been a major argument against it even though of course it makes total sense)...

But then again so many aspects of this league for certain squads like mine have always fought the battle of the HF mentality (you HAVE to just cut costs) versus realism (I am going to try to build a winner while operating under the rules.). I've done the second and find myself in this boat every year because that is the appeal of the HF to me.

I will say for the record that in the infamous summer where I lost Luongo and Kovalchuk I had nine million in the bank. Which is why I lost them, because I couldn't afford to match the signing bonuses. And that at the start of this season I had nine million. So the team hasn't got any more in the hole.

BUT in that time I have turned around this squad. I got Iggy for 4 1st rounders, a profit of a 1st rounder, since I got 5 for Kovalchuk. And I got a superior player. And for not that much more money.

I got myself a top flight goalie, for a back-up goalie, and two 1st rounders (Eminger & the actual first), and so I profited by 3 1st rounders.

All those picks I've turned into a top ten rated group of prospects. I've added depth to the line-up from top to bottom while retaining my stars.

I've been as fiscally responsible as possible. I haven't signed a name UFA for two seasons. I've let RFA's go for offer sheets and draft picks when I thought their contracts were too much.

I've traded expensive assets for less value (Boyle to Van, Hejduk more recently). I've signed core players to great deals (Datsyuk at a million below his already discounted Detroit contract, Langkow at 10% below his).

I turned this team around and took it into the playoffs for the first time in HF history. Twice. I spend an hour or more every day 'working' for FREE to sim this league.

So what else can I do? Nothing but ask for some help and some systemic change.

And yes, every year I do cry that I'm behind the eight ball and the system is against me. Because it is. But if my frustration so offends you, and if my 'crying' about it frustrates you, I am sure I can find better things to do for an hour a day.

 

[Wildman]

I for one would like to see this things resolve and lets all enjoy the league. I don't know what the issue is with giving out some cash to teams. We have a cap in place which will take care of overspending GM.

The issue is not managing the expense but to keep our league close to the the real NHL. Please tell me one team in the NHL that charges an average ticket price of $30.

I also want to point out that many teams including Calgary will never be able to compete with the likes of Blues and Wings because they don't have deep pockets to acquire one or two players for the playoff run or retain their high end talent.

Adil, as for your top up theory...the league added around $4.5M per team but never reset the total to $900M.

 

[HFNHL Commish]

As I've been preaching for years (though no one's attending church) is that the solution needed to be expense side not revenue side as we are nearly out of revenue tools. It's somewhat moot as such an approach has to be put in place in advance.

I argued at the time we should not raise the cap and instead look at means to derive an expense side approach in contract negotiations. Heck this could have been done in a manner as simple as applying a discount factor to NHL salarie negotiations such as

Player X has a NHL salary = $5M
At the time NHL salary was signed NHL Cap = $50M
HFNHL cap = $40M (80% of NHL)
Therefore equivalent salary = $4M ($5M *80%)
Start negotiating.

At $40M level our financial structure would support a decent balance between teams that will make money and teams that will lose it so there will still be an expense management aspect to the league.

End of sermon.

And now it's time for me to preach to the preacher.

Drew - you know me to be one of the fiscal conservatives of this league, even though I do not have a "rich" team. The only reason the Ducks are in the financial crapper is because of the one season I spent trying to keep up with the higher powers of the Western Conference. That spree bought me a Cup run, so I certainly don't regret it, but I've been paying for it ever since. However, never once have I played the "woe is my bank account" card.

I have attended the Church of Niece, and at times have even been a guest pastor. As Jeff Kirk, the new Edmonton GM and my AGM during the offseason, can attest, I set a self-imposed cap for the Ducks for the 2008-09 season that was far below the allowed cap. My current pro payroll is below $37M, which is 7th lowest in the league, yet my team's still reasonably competitive. I only have one semi-crappy contract, Nikolai Khabibulin's, and he seems to finally be turning things around. I even took very proactive steps towards managing my future payroll like trading Kevin Bieksa - something I very much didn't want to do, yet I didn't think I'd be able to afford both him and Niklas Kronwall over the long-term.

Bottom line, I think I've been practicing what we've both been preaching. That said, what has it gotten me? I'm pegged to LOSE $8M more between now and the end of the season, and that's with a competitive team and a payroll under $40M.

Now granted, I planned for this at the outset of the season. I figured that, with endorsements and next offseason's TV revenue, I'd be back to roughly even. While it appears that my calculations may have missed the mark by a million or two, it's pathetic that I can't hope for any better than that. From a simulator perspective, it doesn't matter a damn that my team's competitive...I just don't have/can't afford the 80 OV players that it takes to be able to jack your ticket prices up.

Try looking at it this way - if this season played out exactly the way things stand right now, your Red Wings would gross more than $6M more in revenue than my Ducks, yet I'd be the one in the playoffs. Point is, I've tried to tackle this problem by with a lunch-pail philosophy, and it's not exactly getting me ahead in the league. Sure, I think I can continue to do what I'm doing now every year - throwing a playoff bubble team onto the ice - but I'll break even, at best, in doing it.

Tanking isn't an option because I've preached at that church, too.

 

[The old geezer]

Tanking isn't an option because I've preached at that church, too.

I think we're on the same page with a few differences.
First as you point out you don't have 80 OV players b/c you can't afford them when working witha self imposed cap of $40M against 29 other teams spending $50M (I'm exagerating of course). Under my proposal with a league cap and expense structure based on $40M you would be able to afford them b/c they would be relatively cheaper and you would close the revenue difference. Second I don't believe your estimate on breaking even included playoff revenue where even if you were swept in the first round two games would be anywhere from $1.6 - $2.0M additional.

 

[The old geezer]

The thing is that doing your expense solution would take away from the so-called 'realism' of the HFNHL experience (which has been a major argument against it even though of course it makes total sense)...

I do understand your frustration and the need for change which is why I don't just say too bad so sad and try and offer constructive options. Hopefully ones that work for more than just one season which is all the past solutions have accomplished.

My proposal does not take financial management realism out of the equation it just scales it for the SIM's capability. Salaries would still be negotiated in the same way of using NHL comparisons but again at a % scale. Bad teams will still lose dollars if they spend to the cap but creates a balance where the half of the league that does make the playoffs will make money, some very large amounts. A balance of winners and losers that hopefully league wide balances out.

If it really came to it we could apply the post lockout appraoch and reduce all salaries and the cap to this scale.

 

[SPG]

I do understand your frustration and the need for change which is why I don't just say too bad so sad and try and offer constructive options. Hopefully ones that work for more than just one season which is all the past solutions have accomplished.

My proposal does not take financial management realism out of the equation it just scales it for the SIM's capability. Salaries would still be negotiated in the same way of using NHL comparisons but again at a % scale. Bad teams will still lose dollars if they spend to the cap but creates a balance where the half of the league that does make the playoffs will make money, some very large amounts. A balance of winners and losers that hopefully league wide balances out.

If it really came to it we could apply the post lockout appraoch and reduce all salaries and the cap to this scale.

I really hope that's not a shot at me, Drew.

I've offered plenty of constructive opinions and have put a ton of work into making this league better over the years - probably moreso than only about a handful of GMs in the entire league. I may have been a little quieter than usual over the past 4 months or so - I simply haven't had the time to do much more than manage my team.

Preaching change and offering opinions hasn't made much of a difference in the past, so I'm not going to bother wasting my time and typing out an essay on what changes I think should be made when plenty of other GMs have made some great arguments. I'm not going to rehash the same garble only to have it not matter in the end anyway. Even if I did, I'm sure I'd just be accused of "whining and crying."

So there you go - just another post from the guy that just says "so sad" and doesn't offer constructive opinions.

 

[Toronto_AGM_Adil]

Adil, as for your top up theory...the league added around $4.5M per team but never reset the total to $900M.

Matt did the math at the beginning of the season and we were close to the 900M mark already... I'll let Matt correct me if I'm wrong on that. At the end of this season, when all is said and done you can go and run the same calculation and I bet you'll find league balances down by 150M.... about 5M/team.

We are not talking about a huge number here... The sky is not falling!

Now, alot of teams were already operating on very slim budgets, that 5M in extra spending without a corresponding 5M in incomming revenue is putting teams over the edge ...

If you take the Ducks analogy... the Ducks may break even after endorsements and tv revenue, but they would be 5M in the black after a 900M rebalance with a possible 5-15M more comming back their way with a play-off run... that would safely field a 40M payroll and easily field the average 45M payroll we have today... even with 5-15M in potential playoff revenue saved in the bank...

I agree that the system is broken but yanking up the sim revenue generator will create another set of problems. the rich will get very rich and the poor will get slightly richer... that's the way of the financial sim meter as per the church of Drew. The nice thing about the 900M rebalance is that it acts as finance check-up on the league and provides the means for self-correction.

 

[The old geezer]

I really hope that's not a shot at me, Drew.

I've offered plenty of constructive opinions and have put a ton of work into making this league better over the years - probably moreso than only about a handful of GMs in the entire league. I may have been a little quieter than usual over the past 4 months or so - I simply haven't had the time to do much more than manage my team.

Preaching change and offering opinions hasn't made much of a difference in the past, so I'm not going to bother wasting my time and typing out an essay on what changes I think should be made when plenty of other GMs have made some great arguments. I'm not going to rehash the same garble only to have it not matter in the end anyway. Even if I did, I'm sure I'd just be accused of "whining and crying."

So there you go - just another post from the guy that just says "so sad" and doesn't offer constructive opinions.

Huh? That wasn't a shot at anyone. If anything I'm as frustrated (as obviously you are as well) at rehashing the same arguments. Throwing some cash around and then having the same discussion the next season.

 

[Ohio Jones]

And yes, every year I do cry that I'm behind the eight ball and the system is against me. Because it is. But if my frustration so offends you, and if my 'crying' about it frustrates you, I am sure I can find better things to do for an hour a day.

To be fair, Matt, I don't think Drew was taking a shot at you or anyone else with his comment - it was indeed intended as comic relief, i.e. the NHL is struggling with these kinds of issues of revenue and expense, albeit for different reasons, so it's somehow appropriate that our "max realism" league should be going through the same kinds of pains.

I don't see Drew's proposal (of scaling salaries against a $40 million cap rather than 50 (or 56) million) to be a shot at anyone either.
We all seem to be agreeing there are fundamental issues at play here, the difference is just in how we address them.

So I don't think you have to consider yourself apostate in the Church of Niece.

 

[SPG]

Huh? That wasn't a shot at anyone. If anything I'm as frustrated (as obviously you are as well) at rehashing the same arguments. Throwing some cash around and then having the same discussion the next season.

Forgive me if I jumped to the conclusion that you were calling me out and made assumptions I shouldnt have. Just found it odd that you specifically mentioned:

"which is why I don't just say too bad so sad and try and offer constructive options"

...when I made a couple 1 or 2 sentence posts (with admittedly not much constructive content) today that specifically included the "too bad" and "sad" phrases to describe the league's current dilemma. If that's just some strange coincidence, I apologize.

 

[The old geezer]

Forgive me if I jumped to the conclusion that you were calling me out and made assumptions I shouldnt have. Just found it odd that you specifically mentioned:

"which is why I don't just say too bad so sad and try and offer constructive options"

...when I made a couple 1 or 2 sentence posts (with admittedly not much constructive content) today that specifically included the "too bad" and "sad" phrases to describe the league's current dilemma. If that's just some strange coincidence, I apologize.

Ahh now I see where you were coming from and why the offense was taken. I totally missed that (literally until you pointed it out I hadn't noticed those comments from you).

I guiltily admit that when I get frustrated on this subject after all these years there are some points when my inner voice starts saying things like too bad so sad (I've probably said it out loud too) and I swore this time I wasn't even going to get involved in this debate. In the end I always do get involved, for better or worse, and that is where my comment came from.

 

[Toronto_AGM_Adil]

Okay, here are some more numbers...

Total league revenue based on today's average revenue per game is 824M

Total league payroll (again as of today) is 1,300M

League cap limit would be 1,500M

So operating loss is around 476M in the regular season.

TV top up is 150M, playoffs adds another 150M and endorsement revenue last year was 63M... you're talking about a difference of 100M league wide.

I know the current financial system has too much variation in it. The lowest salary is 20M and the highest revenue is 40M, add in playoff performance and endorsements and it's very heavily weighted towards winning teams.... it's been that way for a long time already... that's something we can change though in the offseason,

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

Bottom line, I think I've been practicing what we've both been preaching. That said, what has it gotten me? I'm pegged to LOSE $8M more between now and the end of the season, and that's with a competitive team and a payroll under $40M.

Actually Matt, if you count the $5 million in TV revenue, endorsements and the potential for playoff revenue, you have a shot to break even despite having only one player 80OV.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

Further to last post on the $100M difference - a little over $3 million loss per team on average - is that the real problem is we have the majority of add-on revenue at the end of the year (post-season and endoresement payout), and compound the issue by demanding teams front for endorsements at the beginning of the year. This creates an unanticipated cash crunch for teams (or forces them skip endorsements altogether, which is a bit of a death spiral in that it makes it harder to catch up on the cash front).

I think the admin team can make some adjustments given the problem is affecting a handful of teams. I don't think this is as major an issue as some are making it out to be.

 

[SPG]

Ahh now I see where you were coming from and why the offense was taken. I totally missed that (literally until you pointed it out I hadn't noticed those comments from you).

I guiltily admit that when I get frustrated on this subject after all these years there are some points when my inner voice starts saying things like too bad so sad (I've probably said it out loud too) and I swore this time I wasn't even going to get involved in this debate. In the end I always do get involved, for better or worse, and that is where my comment came from.

Fair enough, Drew. Apologize if I came off harsh... I'm glad you see how I came to the assumption that I was being singled out. I'm definitely frustrated that we have this debate every year too. It's groundhog day again...

 

[MatthewFlames]

it's very heavily weighted towards winning teams.... it's been that way for a long time already... that's something we can change though in the offseason,

Which is the exact reason I don't want to dismantle... as a cash poor team if I dismantle I will ALWAYS be cash poor in this FHL sim unless I have a rookie crop of 12-15 players that are just unbelievable, which is almost impossible to do. The only shot to make money is too win, to win in this conference you need to spend. It's a vicious circle... and I've presented my case to the admin team for beyond this season with my rookies coming in and dropping my salary to around the 40M mark, in which I keep my core including Iginla, Datsyuk, Langkow etc.

Now I don't want to change the basic premise that success should be rewarded. I am a firm believer in capitalism, so lets not change that basic premise but also lets not make it so that the 'American Dream' of starting with nothing and becoming anything you want, including a winner, can happen.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

Now I don't want to change the basic premise that success should be rewarded. I am a firm believer in capitalism, so lets not change that basic premise but also lets not make it so that the 'American Dream' of starting with nothing and becoming anything you want, including a winner, can happen.

Well, I hate to disagree with you Matt, but my take on capitalism is a little different.

My take on capitalism as it pertains to the HFNHL is I slowly and methodically build up a huge cash surplus, which I use more and more as a giant stick to crush all remaining powerhouses into the ground until they can no longer afford star players, at which time I load up and finally secure a Stanley Cup in a Steinbrenneresque sort of way – despite the cap – and along the way I manage to parlay my first Cup into an even greater cash balance which in turn gives me the opportunity to create a dynasty the likes of which the HFNHL has never seen, and after many years of supremacy, power, many Cups and even more puck bunnies, my coup de grace is when all of the HFNHL GM's and their respective henchmen coming after my head, when I am alone in my giant mansion, with only Reggie at my side, and I go down in a blaze of bloody glory, with machine gun and hockey stick in hand as I die on my giant hockey war room table, which is covered in cash, hockey cards, a Ouija board and empty Johnny Walker bottles.

Hmm, thinking about it, maybe that’s not capitalism but just my dream from last night.

 

[Wildman]

Since when in real capital world a trade is denied. I am still furious on MCCabe trade that you rejected and went on to get McCabe from Tampa.

 

[SPG]

Well, I hate to disagree with you Matt, but my take on capitalism is a little different.

My take on capitalism as it pertains to the HFNHL is I slowly and methodically build up a huge cash surplus, which I use more and more as a giant stick to crush all remaining powerhouses into the ground until they can no longer afford star players, at which time I load up and finally secure a Stanley Cup in a Steinbrenneresque sort of way – despite the cap – and along the way I manage to parlay my first Cup into an even greater cash balance which in turn gives me the opportunity to create a dynasty the likes of which the HFNHL has never seen, and after many years of supremacy, power, many Cups and even more puck bunnies, my coup de grace is when all of the HFNHL GM's and their respective henchmen coming after my head, when I am alone in my giant mansion, with only Reggie at my side, and I go down in a blaze of bloody glory, with machine gun and hockey stick in hand as I die on my giant hockey war room table, which is covered in cash, hockey cards, a Ouija board and empty Johnny Walker bottles.

Hmm, thinking about it, maybe that’s not capitalism but just my dream from last night.

Best sentence ever.