Small markets face big trouble

Status
Not open for further replies.

AH

Registered User
Nov 21, 2004
4,881
0
Woodbridge, ON
The Messenger said:
How is this bad for the Leafs ??

They have 2 players under contract next year .. Mats Sundin their franchise player and Tucker .. (not counting the kids ,Stajan, Steen, Colaiacovo) .. That is a little over 8 mil in contracts ..

They also have Belfour. His costly buyout for the option year means they will probably retain him.

But anyways I digress, what the writer fails to realize is that top dollar in the new CBA is no longer limited to the rich six (Tor, Det, Col, Philly, NYR, Dallas), but rather to 18 to 20 teams. And with a salary cap to contend with, there is only so many players EVERYONE can sign.

So in two years, the Leafs sign Thornton to replace Sundin and a younger goalie to replace Belfour. They still need 20 players for the rest of the team under 39 million. How are the Leafs a better team with JT and younger goalie than they are today with Mats and Eddie?

Unless of course you live in a dream world and expect star players to take less money to play in Toronto for no reason other than that little voice in your head tells you they will ...

Where is the chemistry? where is the sense of team? As we alll know, building a team through free agency is the worst way to build anything.

So how do you become an elite team in the new CBA, you have two or three front line players and a bunch of role players to fill out the roster, which means a strong player development system which will enable you to fill out your roster with quality players is of the utmost imoprtance moreso than ever.
 

SPARTAKUS*

Guest
shveik said:
One consequence is that teams like Ottawa(Hossa, Redden, Chara) and Tampa(Lecavalier, St. Louis, Richards(?)), are likely to be stripped of their top talent. They have spent last 5 years building up, but will be cut down now. Under former CBA their peak could have lasted longer since they could strong-arm their RFAs, and get boost from playoff revenues.

So, what's the big deal about landing Crosby? The winning team will only be able to keep him for a couple of his prime years.

You guys make me laugh!!! There'e no way in hell that this deal will

not work. This new cba between the players and the owners will

save the NHL. You can talk about the big market clubs signing all

the UFA until your faces turn blue it ain't gonna happen. Because

whit this new deal there is no more big or small market teams in

the NHL. You tell me what is the difference between Toronto and

Ottawa both team can't spend more than $39M so why do you think

that Ottawa would loose all their UFA to Toronto. No this is a new

era where all 30 teams will be able to ice a competitive team year

in year out and that's a very good thing. This new partnership

between tha players and the owners will be the best thing that ever

happend to the NHL. Now the NHL is a 30 team league not just

big market league. GO SENS GO
 

rwilson99

Registered User
BBBBruin said:
What will suck about the new CBA is that teams won't stay together forever, and you won't be able to compile a ridiculously talented roster, like the 80's Oilers or something - so it will mediocratize the league. In that sense, I agree with you, but the trade off is worth it since only a few teams had the resources to compile a team like that anyways.

I hate to state the obvious, but...

The 80s Oilers didn't exactly stay together forever, and they even won a cup without Gretzky.
 

AH

Registered User
Nov 21, 2004
4,881
0
Woodbridge, ON
grego said:
I think all the people say small market teams are in trouble live in some reality where a whole 6 million dollars more in cap space ( then Edmonton ) means that they can sign another 2 to 4 Super stars then the Oilers can get. I still am trying to figure out how 4 players at 7 million dollars can get squeezed into that tiny 6 million dollars of cap space.

Or else they are going to live with that belief that every player is going to make less money to play for a big market team.

It's called having voices in your head that tell you $7 million X 3 = $6 million.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
AH said:
They also have Belfour. His costly buyout for the option year means they will probably retain him.

But anyways I digress, ..
You should have stopped there ... :D

Do you know how an option year on a contract works ?? If the team does not pick it up they have no buyout cost ..

An older team like Toronto was, can now dip into a considerable younger market and secure a Thornton and Luongo and build a team around them now like all the other teams .. In the past 31+ year old over priced players was the only way to remain competitive ..

The team building part around them puts them at worst position the same as all the other teams and better then some as Toronto will always spend to the Cap. The cap itself is Leafs budget while other teams will still need to spend less and set their budgets to a number below.

If you have a smaller market that sets it budgets at say $30 mil to be able to make a profit ..

Then if you keep your own player and pay him $7 mil ( near the 20% player limit).

Well $7 mil of $30 mil (self imposed budget cap) is a bigger strain on a team composition and balance than a team that spends $7 mil on a $39 mil cap. In this example one team has to fit 22 players into 23 mil left spending while the other has 22 players and 32 mil to spend .. You don't see the advantage ??

Also by keeping their star player, they suddenly are also out of the picture when another player hits the market. Thus doing their part in keeping the prices down in the laws of supply and demand

..
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
PredFred said:
Now take a look at the New England Patriots who consistently field a better TEAM under the same capped conditions. This new "era" will put more emphasis on drafting, player growth, and filling lost holes with quality prospects than "buying" a team.

New England has been very fortunate that a lot of their key players have taken less money to stay there. Yes, it proves it can be done, but they are an extraordinary example.

At the same time, the only real way any NFL team keeps their good players is through the pro-rated signing bonus, which isn't in the NHL's deal. For example, there's no way Indy could've kept Manning, Harrison and James without signing bonuses.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
scaredsensfan said:
Ottawa generated almost 15 million more in revenues than New Jersey last season. So I guess Ottawa is not a small market after all... or that New Jersey is overrated as a market.

With the new CBA the majority of teams are all at the same level. They ALL have the ability to spend to the cap if they so desire. That's the point that is completely lost on you. The vast majority of teams, including all the Canadian teams, are now able to spend to what ever limit they choose to. They are no longer worrying about Toronto stealing them blind because they are on the same footing.

As for Ottawa generating revenues what were their costs as well? Ottawa has been a long time money pit (remember they were on life support and close to bankruptcy there genius) and has had rediculous costs. Only the bailout by the taxpayers in the form of wiping the Senators debt from the slate has made the team viable again. Now, in conjunction with a CBA that limits how much a player can earn and how much a team can spend, the Sentors will actually be financially viable for the future. Now if they can only find a team that can win in the playoffs.
 

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
The Messenger said:
How is this bad for the Leafs ??

They have 2 players under contract next year .. Mats Sundin their franchise player and Tucker .. (not counting the kids ,Stajan, Steen, Colaiacovo) .. That is a little over 8 mil in contracts ..

They have no young core players to lose ... You even admitted it yourself and mocked Kaberle for being on the list, but he is the one and only single player that falls under this UFA rules and should Leafs lose him, they can repalce him with the Redden's or Chara's when they go UFA spending etc

So If Leafs just sign their old vets Roberts, Newy, Domi, Leetch to get through next season they would be heading into next UFA with 30 mil + to spend and cap space..

Isn't that a great position .. Leafs old vet team turning over next year is the perfect position to be in from a UFA point of view ..

Then the point of glut of great young UFA players drives salaries down .. Isn't that great for a team Buying so they can afford even more then before ?

I was referring more to the reverse being true in that it is a good deal for the smaller markets rather than bad for the Leafs.

However, on the Leafs specifically, and it has been mentioned already, your $30+ million in spending has to be spread over 21 players. The Leafs will be in a good financial position, but let's face it, you are looking at one big name signing at best, a couple of mid level signings, and a pile of filler.

This deal, while not necessaraly "bad" for the Leafs does make it more challenging for them, as they have to figure out how to build a winner with a budget much lower than they are used to.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
The Messenger said:
You should have stopped there ... :D

Do you know how an option year on a contract works ?? If the team does not pick it up they have no buyout cost ..

An older team like Toronto was, can now dip into a considerable younger market and secure a Thornton and Luongo and build a team around them now like all the other teams .. In the past 31+ year old over priced players was the only way to remain competitive ..

The team building part around them puts them at worst position the same as all the other teams and better then some as Toronto will always spend to the Cap. The cap itself is Leafs budget while other teams will still need to spend less and set their budgets to a number below.

If you have a smaller market that sets it budgets at say $30 mil to be able to make a profit ..

Then if you keep your own player and pay him $7 mil ( near the 20% player limit).

Well $7 mil of $30 mil (self imposed budget cap) is a bigger strain on a team composition and balance than a team that spends $7 mil on a $39 mil cap. In this example one team has to fit 22 players into 23 mil left spending while the other has 22 players and 32 mil to spend .. You don't see the advantage ??

Also by keeping their star player, they suddenly are also out of the picture when another player hits the market. Thus doing their part in keeping the prices down in the laws of supply and demand

..

You should have stopped period, because you did not even acknowledge the point made by the poster. He was stating that the Leafs have failed to build around a franchise player in Sundin when they have had an endless spending advantage. Now the Leafs have had that spending advantage stripped away and will be even harder pressed to actually build a team that can win. The franchise player and top end goaltender do not win you championships, its the depth and chemistry of the team itself. Toronto has shown that it cannot put together the right components to win when it matters when they were able to outspend the other teams by $30M, so how are the Leafs going to do better under this system? They suck at drafting and developing players and will have to continue to rely on their ability to sign free agents until they get their development system ramped up (years down the road). You can shuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic all you want and plug in all the big name, big ticket players you want, but the bottom line remains the same. Toronto has been incapable of building a winner under a system where they had a massive advantage, and they show zero signs of changing under the new system. Their advantage has been taken away. They're just another team that can spend up to $39 million on salaries, except one that hasn't been to the dance in 38 years.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Resolute said:
I was referring more to the reverse being true in that it is a good deal for the smaller markets rather than bad for the Leafs.

However, on the Leafs specifically, and it has been mentioned already, your $30+ million in spending has to be spread over 21 players. The Leafs will be in a good financial position, but let's face it, you are looking at one big name signing at best, a couple of mid level signings, and a pile of filler.

This deal, while not necessaraly "bad" for the Leafs does make it more challenging for them, as they have to figure out how to build a winner with a budget much lower than they are used to.
Sure team building is the biggest factor in all 30 teams not just Leafs or bigger martets ..

The biggest advantage is the Leafs who have been built around 34-38 year old player can now be built around 27-28 year old franchise players in the future .. The old CBA never allowed them to do that with out paying a kings ransom in prospects and picks if some team was willing to trade them one ..

I agree the budget comes down but so did player prices .. Leafs no longer need to pay a Reichel 3+ mil and now can pay a much better player equal or less under the new CBA and player prices. Perhaps a Paul Kariya comes now with a 3 mil price tag.??

Leafs biggest weakness of old CBA was that an older injury prone team was the best choice they had for a Cup run .. Now they can build a team without having to have very many players over 34+ to do it .. No need to ever go into a full rebuild in the process as players just hitting their primes can be had for free ..

Leafs have Mats under contract for 3 more years .. and near the player max 20% at 6.8 mil price .. So when his contract is over Rick Nash, Dany Heatley and Ilya Kovalchuk hit the market ..So leafs have to have CAP space availabe to offer the max because Mats comes off the books ..

Its the TB's and Ottawa's that going to have the biggest problem keeping cores together. Teams that do not have young cores or lots of young top prospects that require $$ to keep, can freely buy to build teams ..
 

AH

Registered User
Nov 21, 2004
4,881
0
Woodbridge, ON
The Messenger said:
You should have stopped there ... :D

Do you know how an option year on a contract works ?? If the team does not pick it up they have no buyout cost ..

Yes I know how an option years work. Some teams can walk away from an option year without penalty, but other contracts have a penalty clause (as in the case of Belfour). I believe his option year "penalty" for the Leafs is $2 million. Since this would be outside of the one time 2/3 buyout eligible from July 23 2005 to July 28 2005. walking away from Belfour's option year would count against the Leafs cap for 06-07 (the penalty amount).

An older team like Toronto was, can now dip into a considerable younger market and secure a Thornton and Luongo and build a team around them now like all the other teams .. In the past 31+ year old over priced players was the only way to remain competitive ..

So an 04-05 Sundin is better than an 06-07 Thornton AND a 04-05 Belfour is better than an 06-07 Luongo? I dont think so. Other than the gain in age, where is the net gain in performance for Toronto? Go ahead and sign these guys to max deals, and then what, you have capped yourself out of the front line player market (6 to 7 million player) for the rest of the CBA.

The team building part around them puts them at worst position the same as all the other teams and better then some as Toronto will always spend to the Cap. The cap itself is Leafs budget while other teams will still need to spend less and set their budgets to a number below.

If you have a smaller market that sets it budgets at say $30 mil to be able to make a profit ..

Then if you keep your own player and pay him $7 mil ( near the 20% player limit).

Well $7 mil of $30 mil (self imposed budget cap) is a bigger strain on a team composition and balance than a team that spends $7 mil on a $39 mil cap. In this example one team has to fit 22 players into 23 mil left spending while the other has 22 players and 32 mil to spend .. You don't see the advantage ??
Sure it's an advantage, but you are assuming that the zeal of big markets will NOT keep them from maxing out their cap right away in the new CBA and that they will continue to have cap room to play with year in year out. You are giving guys like JFJ and Holland and Armstrong and Sather too much credit. They have shown ZERO creativity since they have become GMs of their respective teams.

As well, as I mentioned earlier, TOP DOLLAR for players is now available in 18 to 20 markets (teams that can spend upto the full cap amount). For sure teams like Florida and Nashville and Carloina will be hurt by defections, but that aspect will now be limited to 8 to 10 teams, not 20 to 24 teams like it was in the old CBA.
Also by keeping their star player, they suddenly are also out of the picture when another player hits the market. Thus doing their part in keeping the prices down in the laws of supply and demand

..

Believe it or not, that applies to the big markets as well.
 

AH

Registered User
Nov 21, 2004
4,881
0
Woodbridge, ON
The Iconoclast said:
You should have stopped period, because you did not even acknowledge the point made by the poster. He was stating that the Leafs have failed to build around a franchise player in Sundin when they have had an endless spending advantage. Now the Leafs have had that spending advantage stripped away and will be even harder pressed to actually build a team that can win. The franchise player and top end goaltender do not win you championships, its the depth and chemistry of the team itself. Toronto has shown that it cannot put together the right components to win when it matters when they were able to outspend the other teams by $30M, so how are the Leafs going to do better under this system? They suck at drafting and developing players and will have to continue to rely on their ability to sign free agents until they get their development system ramped up (years down the road). You can shuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic all you want and plug in all the big name, big ticket players you want, but the bottom line remains the same. Toronto has been incapable of building a winner under a system where they had a massive advantage, and they show zero signs of changing under the new system. Their advantage has been taken away. They're just another team that can spend up to $39 million on salaries, except one that hasn't been to the dance in 38 years.

I still dont understand how Messenger thinks having Luongo and Thornton is any better than having Sundin and Belfour of two years ago as your main players? Sure it allows them to replenish their star player vacancies, but does it guarantee a competitive team, especially when they can't go out and plug a Rechel for $3 million on the 4th line? Hell no.
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
rwilson99 said:
I'd say each of the teams have a 5 year period that is comparable to your Senators over the last 5 years in the glory years of the NHL pre-CBA.

:)

In fact since they each made the final... they did better... :biglaugh:
Yeah. Hell, sacramento was up 3 games to 2 against the lakers on year in the playoffs, id say they were damn close to winning a championship
 

ScottyBowman

Registered User
Mar 10, 2003
2,361
0
Detroit
Visit site
futurcorerock said:
I'm not seeing the pain on the small markets.

So, Calgary loses Jarome Iginla. Where would he go? He wouldn't go to Toronto because they're at the cap. Detroit? same for them.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Jarome Iginla of the CAROLINA HURRICANES

And to make up that cap space, the Calgary Flames have just announced the signing of free agent Martin St. Louis and managed to cough up some spare change to acquire Ilya Kovalchuk and Saku Koivu

Flames for the cup in 06!


Not accurate. Teams plan for free agents. In basketball, teams set it up to have a bunch of contracts expire in a certain year so they'll have a lot of capspace. A big market team will prepare for a big free agent and make cap space available. Also in the NBA, the old team gets to offer a larger contract with more years so if a UFA jumps he'll lose some money. The NHL doesn't offer any of those perks.
 

kingsfan

President of the Todd McLellan fan club by default
Mar 18, 2002
13,384
1,032
Manitoba, Canada
kingsfan said:
C'mon man. I'm not familiar with when the NBA went to a cap system, so I won;t dicuss that part of it, but if you are going to go at it about the 10 different champs in 20 years in the NHL, it's like discussing night and day. If the 1985 Edmonton Oilers were actually playing in 2004, that team would be sent flying to all corners of the NHL map because there is no way that the Oilers could have kept even half that team together. Why not discuss Cup champs since the last CBA, the one that caused all the financial ruin, came in? Since 1995, the cup champs are:

NJ (3x)
Det (3x)
Colorado (2x)
Dallas
T-Bay

That's one small market in 10 years. That's what? 10%? Even lower than your NBA model.

As for a run of 5 years 'at or near the top', what do you define as at or near the top? How many championship final appearances/victories does that include?

Still waiting for a reply to that question scaredsensfan. That seems to be the basis of your whole argument, that teams can't build to have a number of years of success. What is your definition of 5 years 'at or near the top'?

Though I'm guessing you'll just live up to your name and stay scared :D
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
ScottyBowman said:
Not accurate. Teams plan for free agents. In basketball, teams set it up to have a bunch of contracts expire in a certain year so they'll have a lot of capspace. A big market team will prepare for a big free agent and make cap space available. Also in the NBA, the old team gets to offer a larger contract with more years so if a UFA jumps he'll lose some money. The NHL doesn't offer any of those perks.

Gotcha. So only the old large market teams will plan for free agency and make sure they have contracts cleared to bring a player into the fold. I mean they proved it over the past decade by increasing their payrolls to obscene levels while the small markets were forced to live under a self imposed cap. So which teams are going to be better at adapting to the new business of hockey? Those that lived this way for 10 years already, or those that spent like drunken idiots! Oh yeah, the drunken idiots.

:biglaugh:
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
AH said:
Yes I know how an option years work. Some teams can walk away from an option year without penalty, but other contracts have a penalty clause (as in the case of Belfour). I believe his option year "penalty" for the Leafs is $2 million. Since this would be outside of the one time 2/3 buyout eligible from July 23 2005 to July 28 2005. walking away from Belfour's option year would count against the Leafs cap for 06-07 (the penalty amount). .
Firstly that is a rumour .. No way to confirm it as Leafs never release contract details .. That simply could be a rumour spread in the media ..The NHLPA site never lists things like this only base contract ..

However lets assume its true .. Buyouts are at 2/3 's payable (which this really isn't a true buyout) but these are also spread out under the old CBA and payable at twice the length of the contract .. So you have $ 2 mil X 2/3 = $1.3 mil over 2 years = $667K cap hit and payout ..

So you see the cost of nearly the league average 450K being a big concern to a cap hit for the Leafs that they wouldn't do it ..

Further complicated by the fact we don't know if the Cap itself will rise or fall next year so it could be absorbed ..

Then again with only Mats($ 6.8) and Tucker ($1.6 mil) and Belfour buyout($ 667K) tied up in cap space.

You see this as a problem when Thornton or Vinny or Hossa etc hit the market next year ?.


AH said:
Sure it's an advantage, but you are assuming that the zeal of big markets will NOT keep them from maxing out their cap right away in the new CBA and that they will continue to have cap room to play with year in year out. You are giving guys like JFJ and Holland and Armstrong and Sather too much credit. They have shown ZERO creativity since they have become GMs of their respective teams..
Isn't this a contradiction to all the doom and gloomers for the Leafs ..

Leafs already have $27 mil allocated for this upcoming year. Even if they max out the best strategy could be give Roberts, Newy, Domi and Leetch 1 year deals for next year and then not only do those players come off the books but also most of that $27 mil as well .. Leafs don't have a lot of wiggle room this year which might be a blessing in disguise in fact ..

Also who said part of the team building puzzle could not be to get a Scott Niedermayer signed this off season rather then wait for next .. "A bird in the hand is better then two in the bush" .. Now one knows who will be available for sure right now..

Think about this years crop of UFA .. Some teams have only 4-6 players under contract .. Are they going to be able to lure prize UFA to town on one year deals ?? Not likely, so that basically is filling next years cap space on multi year deals NO??. In turn become less competition next year as well in the process.

Leafs have the ideal opportunity to give 39 year old players like Roberts and Newy 1 year deals as they want to stay where they are .. but that is perfect for next year again ..

No doubt Leafs face the same team building challenges under a cap system .. However I am suggest Leafs have also are positioned to take advantage of the new UFA age them many teams ..

Ottawa and TB will struggle to keep teams together, Calgary will focus on keeping its own Star and max out the 20%. Not all teams will have a Cap ceiling as their own budgets either .. Joe Thornton is an Ontario boy not a Mass. How much will that influence decisions no ones knows as of yet ..

All advantages to the Leafs in the New NHL despite a Cap world ..
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
AH said:
I still dont understand how Messenger thinks having Luongo and Thornton is any better than having Sundin and Belfour of two years ago as your main players? Sure it allows them to replenish their star player vacancies, but does it guarantee a competitive team, especially when they can't go out and plug a Rechel for $3 million on the 4th line? Hell no.
Who is better .. a 40 year old Belfour with a history of a bad back or a 26 year old Luongo ??

Not just this year but the next 10 ??

If this UFA opportunity didn't exist in the new CBA .. Who would Leafs replace Belfour with to remain competitive that would be better then Luongo ??

Only a few goalies and many are under contracts.. In fact other then Khabby the UFA goalie market is so weak this year that buying out Eddie and not taking the Cap hit doesn't even make a lot of sense from a competitivness point of view ..
 

ScottyBowman

Registered User
Mar 10, 2003
2,361
0
Detroit
Visit site
The Iconoclast said:
Gotcha. So only the old large market teams will plan for free agency and make sure they have contracts cleared to bring a player into the fold. I mean they proved it over the past decade by increasing their payrolls to obscene levels while the small markets were forced to live under a self imposed cap. So which teams are going to be better at adapting to the new business of hockey? Those that lived this way for 10 years already, or those that spent like drunken idiots! Oh yeah, the drunken idiots.

:biglaugh:

Laugh all you want then but the small market teams won't have $7.5 mil to cough up because that would make a $37 mil payroll unless the NHL changes the 20% salary rule. I can go on and on about Carolina offering Fedorov ridiculous money or Boston giving Lapointe $5 mil or the Ducks paying Kariya $10 mil but it would completely fly over your head.
 

kingsfan

President of the Todd McLellan fan club by default
Mar 18, 2002
13,384
1,032
Manitoba, Canada
The Messenger said:
Who is better .. a 40 year old Belfour with a history of a bad back or a 26 year old Luongo ??

Not just this year but the next 10 ??

If this UFA opportunity didn't exist in the new CBA .. Who would Leafs replace Belfour with to remain competitive that would be better then Luongo ??

Only a few goalies and many are under contracts.. In fact other then Khabby the UFA goalie market is so weak this year that buying out Eddie and not taking the Cap hit doesn't even make a lot of sense from a competitivness point of view ..

How come when you discuss the Leafs it's ok to look 10 years down the road, but for teams like T-Bay and Ottawa, this CBA hurts them because they have a great team now and can't keep them together? Can't they look at it with the same 10 year benefit as you say the Leafs will have?
 

SPARTAKUS*

Guest
The Messenger said:
Who is better .. a 40 year old Belfour with a history of a bad back or a 26 year old Luongo ??

Not just this year but the next 10 ??

If this UFA opportunity didn't exist in the new CBA .. Who would Leafs replace Belfour with to remain competitive that would be better then Luongo ??

Only a few goalies and many are under contracts.. In fact other then Khabby the UFA goalie market is so weak this year that buying out Eddie and not taking the Cap hit doesn't even make a lot of sense from a competitivness point of view ..

What would prefer Toronto winter weather or the superb south florida weather and let's not forget all those georgous girls in bikinis???
:snide:
 

looooob

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,885
1
Visit site
ScottyBowman said:
Laugh all you want then but the small market teams won't have $7.5 mil to cough up because that would make a $37 mil payroll unless the NHL changes the 20% salary rule. I can go on and on about Carolina offering Fedorov ridiculous money or Boston giving Lapointe $5 mil or the Ducks paying Kariya $10 mil but it would completely fly over your head.

The Flames paid Iginla 7.5 M last year, and carried a payroll of 36 Milion...so for the Flames at least these are dollar figures than can both be handled if necessary....although I acknowledge not every "small market" will be comfortable at those dollar figures
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
OTTSENS said:
What would prefer Toronto winter weather or the superb south florida weather and let's not forget all those georgous girls in bikinis???
:snide:
Not sure what georgous girl is ?? :D

But during the Hockey season in Toronto during winter players are too busy.

I never said the UFA players can't buy themselves a Florida summer home to enjoy when hockey is not on ...
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
The Iconoclast said:
With the new CBA the majority of teams are all at the same level. They ALL have the ability to spend to the cap if they so desire.

You don't really believe that, do you?
 

AH

Registered User
Nov 21, 2004
4,881
0
Woodbridge, ON
The Messenger said:
Firstly that is a rumour .. No way to confirm it as Leafs never release contract details .. That simply could be a rumour spread in the media ..The NHLPA site never lists things like this only base contract ..

However lets assume its true .. Buyouts are at 2/3 's payable (which this really isn't a true buyout) but these are also spread out under the old CBA and payable at twice the length of the contract .. So you have $ 2 mil X 2/3 = $1.3 mil over 2 years = $667K cap hit and payout ..

So you see the cost of nearly the league average 450K being a big concern to a cap hit for the Leafs that they wouldn't do it ..
What are yuo talking about? If the Leafs decide not to exercise Belfour's option for 06-07, they owe him $2 million. There is no 2/3 formula at play here. There $2 million will go directly to their 06-07 cap number.

Leafs already have $27 mil allocated for this upcoming year. Even if they max out the best strategy could be give Roberts, Newy, Domi and Leetch 1 year deals for next year and then not only do those players come off the books but also most of that $27 mil as well .. Leafs don't have a lot of wiggle room this year which might be a blessing in disguise in fact ..

Also who said part of the team building puzzle could not be to get a Scott Niedermayer signed this off season rather then wait for next .. "A bird in the hand is better then two in the bush" .. Now one knows who will be available for sure right now..

And tehn what, you're going to throw 15 new players onto the team next year and hope to win? good luck !!!

No doubt Leafs face the same team building challenges under a cap system .. However I am suggest Leafs have also are positioned to take advantage of the new UFA age them many teams ..

so have 18 to 20 other teams.


Ottawa and TB will struggle to keep teams together, Calgary will focus on keeping its own Star and max out the 20%. Not all teams will have a Cap ceiling as their own budgets either .. Joe Thornton is an Ontario boy not a Mass. How much will that influence decisions no ones knows as of yet ..

Yes they will struggle to keep their cores, but not all the defections will be to big markets. The wealth is now spread to 18 to 20 teams, not just six teams.


All advantages to the Leafs in the New NHL despite a Cap world ..

and 18 to 20 other teams as well. Welcome to the new NHL.

I dont know with which part of "Leafs sign 2 max players in year 2 of the CBA and they will be out of the marqueee player free agency derby for the rest of the CBA" you're having trouble with. The marquee players will all command 3 to 5 year deals. You're dreaming if you think these guys will only take 1 year deals just because you want them to.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->