Owners cave again??

[Dr Love]

Didn't sabremetrics invent statistics to determine a player's value?

Based off of pre-existing stats. Ones that are created from comnpletely scratch are A) not entirely reliable or B) not available to the public.

I certainly think at least some sort of "cousin" to sabremetrics could be a possibility in the NHL. But if I ever hear about people talking about a 4th line winger's "win-shares" I might explode.

No, you can't. In baseball, (essentially) everything that happens that is relevant to the play is accounted for in the box score, score sheet, and text play by play. No other major sport is like that. When a RW scores a goal with a C and D assist, it doesn't tell you anything about the LW, other D, or the other team. All of which matters. When a batter flys out to RF and sacrafices a run, what the LFer was doing has zero impact. That's the quick explanation.

 

[CarlRacki]

I caution you on the interpretation of this. There are many times in the business world where "lost money" means "we made a profit, but it was less than expected" or "we made money, but not as much as last year." I am NOT an expert.

No, these were actual losses, not re-stated earnings.
The act the players offered a 24 percent rollback was recognition that the losses were occurring with more than just a few teams.

 

[SuperNintendoChalmrs]

Amen... I'm sick of this thread. If fans think they'll be involved in some kind of panacea league if the large markets can consistently sign all big named free agents, I say fine.

I have pointed out what has happened over the last 10 years in the NHL. I have pointed out the success of the NFL which is thriving by promoting a level playing field for weak market teams. Don't know what else to say.

Ain't that the truth......the Buffalo Bills can fill their roster with a pretty good amount of talent and compete. The Sabres? The 10 dollar seats are fine......for the 10 dollar roster that's on the ice.

:lol

 

[i am dave]

Amen... I'm sick of this thread. If fans think they'll be involved in some kind of panacea league if the large markets can consistently sign all big named free agents, I say fine.

I have pointed out what has happened over the last 10 years in the NHL. I have pointed out the success of the NFL which is thriving by promoting a level playing field for weak market teams. Don't know what else to say.

I don't know what else to tell you other than I think you are worrying too much. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think we both hope I'm right. Personally, I hope we get the chance to find out soon.

 

[Trottier]

The Forbes report - lauded for its integrity by none other than Ted Saskin - states that 17 0f 30 NHL teams lost money last year. It also states that 15 of 30 lost money overall between 1997-98 and 2003-04.
To me, that seems more like a systemic problem than "a few financially challenged franchises."

You deserve to be commended as a superb enemy of capitalism. And a defender of the persecuted. :lol

Amazingly, you STILL don't get it. In your desire to find disagreement where there is none, you misinterpret my post. I am not denying that there are teams in financial peril and will leave it to YOU with your limited catalogue of "facts" to determine how many franchises fit that classification. However, the blatantly self-centered, myopic POV of some fans of those franchises is what is painful to read.

The NHL world does not (nor should) evolve around the best-run/financially secure franchises in the league...Nor the poor sisters/ineptly run teams.

Carry on. Can't wait to see if you can top you recent smug declaration that Andy Murray is "wrong" for having economic beliefs that run counter to your's!

 

[AM]

this has been beat to death

All valid points (except bringing up Green Bay opens up the "but they're owned by the public" can of worms). My question THEN becomes... if the Oilers (and just hear me out as I play devil's advocate) cannot compete with the US dollar, cannot generate the TV/radio revenue that other teams can, cannot charge more for their tickets, and now apparantly (from the sentiment in this thread) cannot reconcile the $12M difference between a $38M cap and a $50M cap (minus one player, granted), why do they then have the right to

a.) remain in Edmonton or
b.) remain in the League.

I think some people are getting the wrong impression of my stance. I am all for Canadian teams. I am much more for them than I am for warm weather teams. I just have a problem with having to service the lowest common denominator instead of meeting in the lower-end of the middle, which is what the rumors are stipulating.

Riddle me this:

If the problem with the NHL is people dont care, what happens if you kill the sport in areas where people do care?

 

[SharkGirl27]

Can someone tell me where the rumor of this deal came from? I just got home from work and was actually too busy to check the boards much today, and definitely do not have time to sift through 180 posts to figure it out...thanks much

 

[CarlRacki]

You deserve to be commended as a superb enemy of capitalism. And a defender of the persecuted. :lol

Amazingly, you STILL don't get it. In your desire to spew your tripe, you misinterpret my post. I am not denying that there are teams in financial peril and will leave it to YOU with your catalogue of one-sided "facts" to determine how many franchises fit that classification. However, the blatantly self-centered, myopic POV of some fans of those franchises is what is painful to read.

The NHL world does not (nor should) evolve around the best-run/financially secure franchises in the league...Nor the poor sisters/ineptly run teams.

Carry on. Can't wait to see if you can top you recent smug declaration that Andy Murray is "wrong" for having economic beleifs that run counter to your's!

Sigh ... sticks and stones.
Funny how you claim my facts are one sided, yet have provided nothing (except neato smilies) to refute them. And, for the record, they're not my facts, they're Forbes' facts.
As for Andy Murray, he was wrong. That's not only my opinion, but that of arguably the most successful commissioner in professional sports history.

 

[Dr Love]

As for Andy Murray, he was wrong. That's not only my opinion, but that of arguably the most successful commissioner in professional sports history.

Pete Rozell couldn't comment on Murray's words because he's dead.

 

[oil slick]

I don't know what else to tell you other than I think you are worrying too much. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think we both hope I'm right. Personally, I hope we get the chance to find out soon.

I think the deal that is rumoured will be OK with a good revenue sharing program. If one is put in place, I think it will be fine.

If however, there is little revenue sharing, I am honestly thinking the Oilers will move/collapse, in which case, I think they should cancel the season, and try to get a better deal. Some would say that I'm being selfish for thinking this, that I should put the good of the league before the good of my team. But to be honest, I could care less about the NHL if the Oilers folded.

 

[i am dave]

Riddle me this:

If the problem with the NHL is people dont care, what happens if you kill the sport in areas where people do care?

Well I actually addressed this in another reply. First of all, I don't believe the Canadian fans will leave the game - it's too much a part of their heritage. Secondly, I don't think American fans care enough to boycott. As I said previously, it's not like when baseball cancelled the World Series and the American fans felt betrayed. And hey, chalk this one up to corporate support, or whatever, but I think you won't see much decline in season tickets. That's all just my opinion and I have no basis of fact whatsoever.

Though, to answer your question more specifically, let me try to speak for Philadelphia. I think it's safe to say that Philadelphia has cared for hockey. What's the #1 sport in Philadelphia? Football. Where is their football team? In the Super Bowl? What sport is on the outs in Philadelphia? Baseball (damn that Ed Wade). What sports will start up next month after the Super Bowl (leaving 6 months before the NFL starts again) assuming the CBA gets done? Baseball and hockey? Given the choice between a team that exudes passion in the city and nearly went to the finals last year and a team that is coming up on 10,000 franchise losses whose biggest free agent signing this off-season has been John Lieber - I would suggest to place your money on fans flocking to the Flyers to take up their NFL off-season time. That will take up this half-season, and thus no backlash will extend into next season.

Now, is there a taker for Boston? NYC?

 

[Lionel Hutz]

I think the deal that is rumoured will be OK with a good revenue sharing program. If one is put in place, I think it will be fine.

If however, there is little revenue sharing, I am honestly thinking the Oilers will move/collapse, in which case, I think they should cancel the season, and try to get a better deal. Some would say that I'm being selfish for thinking this, that I should put the good of the league before the good of my team. But to be honest, I could care less about the NHL if the Oilers folded.

I would rather loose the season than see them accept a deal that will not work.

 

[Trottier]

Sigh ... sticks and stones.
Funny how you claim my facts are one sided, yet have provided nothing (except neato smilies) to refute them. And, for the record, they're not my facts, they're Forbes' facts.
As for Andy Murray, he was wrong. That's not only my opinion, but that of arguably the most successful commissioner in professional sports history.

Reading is fundamental, you know?

Instead of creating differences where none exist, why not stand on your own Braveheart? Do you think that the needs of 0-15 (depending on who's "facts" one wishes to rely on) financially periled franchises should be the sole/major focus of the CBA, from the owner's perspective?

Try taking a stand, instead of playing the role of guttersnipe contrarian to perfection.

I'm flattered that you choose to misconstrue my posts with frequency, but for the sake of the board, the "Ignore" button appears to be in order.

Sadly, some folks are not happy unless they are disagreeable, one guesses.

Oh, one last one for you: today is Thursday, January 27th. Care to debate that one?

 

[Cerebral]

Well I actually addressed this in another reply. First of all, I don't believe the Canadian fans will leave the game - it's too much a part of their heritage.

I certainly wouldn't leave the game if the Oilers left the NHL. However, I would most definitely leave the NHL. I've missed watching Edmonton play for the past few months but I've enjoyed having the chance to watch more Junior hockey and I'd probably end up just devoting my time to that rather than an NHL missing the Oilers.

 

[AM]

sure

Well I actually addressed this in another reply. First of all, I don't believe the Canadian fans will leave the game - it's too much a part of their heritage. Secondly, I don't think American fans care enough to boycott. As I said previously, it's not like when baseball cancelled the World Series and the American fans felt betrayed. And hey, chalk this one up to corporate support, or whatever, but I think you won't see much decline in season tickets. That's all just my opinion and I have no basis of fact whatsoever.

Though, to answer your question more specifically, let me try to speak for Philadelphia. I think it's safe to say that Philadelphia has cared for hockey. What's the #1 sport in Philadelphia? Football. Where is their football team? In the Super Bowl? What sport is on the outs in Philadelphia? Baseball (damn that Ed Wade). What sports will start up next month after the Super Bowl (leaving 6 months before the NFL starts again) assuming the CBA gets done? Baseball and hockey? Given the choice between a team that exudes passion in the city and nearly went to the finals last year and a team that is coming up on 10,000 franchise losses whose biggest free agent signing this off-season has been John Lieber - I would suggest to place your money on fans flocking to the Flyers to take up their NFL off-season time. That will take up this half-season, and thus no backlash will extend into next season.

Now, is there a taker for Boston? NYC?

I guess theres alot of guys in the states willing to pony up 200million dollars on your gut instinct.

 

[Wondercarrot]

Oh, one last one for you: today is Thursday, January 27th. Care to debate that one Einstein?

not in Australia it's not.....

 

[i am dave]

I guess theres alot of guys in the states willing to pony up 200million dollars on your gut instinct.

I just wish they would get around to sending me the cash...

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I think the deal that is rumoured will be OK with a good revenue sharing program. If one is put in place, I think it will be fine.

If however, there is little revenue sharing, I am honestly thinking the Oilers will move/collapse, in which case, I think they should cancel the season, and try to get a better deal. Some would say that I'm being selfish for thinking this, that I should put the good of the league before the good of my team. But to be honest, I could care less about the NHL if the Oilers folded.

actually ... i think this deal is much better for lower revenue teams. the NHL's last offer had a floor that many teams were guaranteed to struggle with.

if teams can still choose to run a 25m payroll, then thats much better for low revenue teams than to be forced to spend 34m.

dr

 

[i am dave]

actually ... i think this deal is much better for lower revenue teams. the NHL's last offer had a floor that many teams were guaranteed to struggle with.

if teams can still choose to run a 25m payroll, then thats much better for low revenue teams than to be forced to spend 34m.

dr

EXCELLENT point. If teams struggle at under $30M, what good does a $34M floor do? And at that point, what difference does the cap level make if you can't even attain the floor?

 

[CarlRacki]

Pete Rozell couldn't comment on Murray's words because he's dead.

That's why I wrote arguably. However, Pete, IMO, is a little overrated. Much of the league's expansion (and current success) was due to the merger with the AFL, something he initially fought against.
Stern could lay claim to the title as well.

 

[kerrly]

Well I actually addressed this in another reply. First of all, I don't believe the Canadian fans will leave the game - it's too much a part of their heritage.

If my Oilers are gone, then so am I. True hockey is part of our heritage, but I can get my fix in many other ways, WHL, and even at the junior A level. I will never ever follow the NHL again. I think its time you listen to what Canadian fans are telling you right here right now. You are not Canadian, and you have to be to fully comprehend our feelings on this.

 

[Trottier]

actually ... i think this deal is much better for lower revenue teams. the NHL's last offer had a floor that many teams were guaranteed to struggle with.

if teams can still choose to run a 25m payroll, then thats much better for low revenue teams than to be forced to spend 34m.

dr

Exactly!

But alas, your reasoning addresses the very real economic concerns of these franchises.

It does not address the real motivation of some fans: denying even moderate economic freedoms moving forward to more affluent franchises.

As is, a softcap + luxury tax will discourage many teams from spending lavishly. Just look at MLB. Three teams(!) have chosen to exceed that league's luxury threshold. Three! The softcap will serve as a de facto hardcap for many teams, I suspect. (a.k.a. a legal excuse not to increase their payrolls).

 

[i am dave]

If my Oilers are gone, then so am I. True hockey is part of our heritage, but I can get my fix in many other ways, WHL, and even at the junior A level. I will never ever follow the NHL again. I think its time you listen to what Canadian fans are telling you right here right now. You are not Canadian, and you have to be to fully comprehend our feelings on this.

Canadians here are telling me that their teams can't afford to be in the league. So if Edmonton moves to a market that can afford them, or if they fold, and you, in Edmonton, stop watching the NHL... which no longer would exist there... how does that hurt me?

For the record, I see nothing magical about 30 teams.

 

[Dr Love]

As is, a softcap will discourage teams from spending lavishly. Just look at MLB. Three teams(!) have chosen to exceed that league's luxury threshold. Three! The softcap will serve as a de facto hardcap for many teams, I suspect. (a.k.a. a legal excuse not to increase their payrolls).

Yeah, but only one other team could have exceeded it, and did not (Boston, who exceeded it midseason). Convcievably a couple of other teams could (Baltimore, NY Mets), but it would be unrealistic for them. However you are right, if the luxury tax was lower, those teams would certainly set their limit at it or allow it to go slightly over in a midseason deal, so it is a defacto hard cap.

 

[I in the Eye]

I would rather loose the season than see them accept a deal that will not work.

I would rather keep the season than see them decline a deal that will work...