The curse of having an offensive team?

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by SuperUnknown, Jul 23, 2006.

  1. SuperUnknown

    SuperUnknown Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    I was wondering... In these days where players get a ton of money thrown at them for putting points on the scoreboard, isn't it kind of a curse to have an offensive team? Let me explain.

    The more offense your team generates, the more players will get better numbers. The same player playing in an offensive system with good teammates or on a defensive team on the third line could put up 65 points in the first case and 45 points in the second. That could mean millions of $ in the ensuing contract negociations, or through arbitration.

    In this light, isn't it a bit of a curse to have an offensive team, because sooner or later your players will command more money and you won't be able to keep the team together under the cap?
     
  2. Irish Blues

    Irish Blues Still on hiatus

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    21,801
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Occupation:
    Actuary
    As a note: I'm thinking about merging this thread with the one below:

    http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=274266

    And renaming the thread to discuss the impact of arbitration and various other factors on contracts going forward.

    But first I'm going to have dinner and figure out some stuff for work.
     
  3. william_adams

    william_adams Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,942
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Leafs Tea Drinker
    Location:
    Kyushu
    Interesting point. By inference then, a player who does things that don't show up in the scoresheet becomes more valuable... Also means that there is a point where a team SHOULD walk away from an arbitration award...

    As a Leaf Fan, I cringe at the thought of Jason Allison being 27 years old (but just as slow) and eligible for arbitration...
     
  4. KL*

    KL* Guest

    Teams are going to have to draft well now and then lock up them when the become RFA's... Also the earlier you sign them in the off season, obviously the better off you will be... But, it only takes one Richards contract to throw everyting off...

    I am just really happy to have signed Cole for 3/$12 mil, Staal 3/$13.5 mil, and Justin Williams 5/$17.5... Those contracts in their second and third years are going to look like absolute steals if you ask me...
     
  5. TheDanceOfMaternity

    TheDanceOfMaternity Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,720
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    As a sharks fan, I am feeling the fringes of being cursed. DW is very good at getting players locked up for good prices (cheechoo for 5 years, 15 million!), but since the D is sooo young, we need to give Hannan a BIG raise to stay here in 2007, and I can only imagine what that will do to Marleau and Thornton when they both will look for well deserved raises in 2008. And what will Bernier and Michalek want when they become more experienced and in free agency? And if we don't unload Nabokov by then.... man I could just go on and on.:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :help:
     

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"