Speculation: Impact of Budget on Team Culture/Morale

[BonkTastic]

almost like how going into the season people were fairly sure we would make the playoffs and be higher than Mtl and Tor....now we just dont have enough money or talent

losing a top 6 forward and bringing in THREE for the year is pretty damn good imo

Well, technically, IMO, we lost two: Alfie and Silfverberg.

 

[Holdurbreathe]

almost like how going into the season people were fairly sure we would make the playoffs and be higher than Mtl and Tor....now we just dont have enough money or talent

losing a top 6 forward and bringing in THREE for the year is pretty damn good imo

Many just don't want to accept some key players are having an average year based on past performance.

With a majority of NHL teams so close in talent, it doesn't take much for a team to drop down in the standings.

 

[Busboy]

Many just don't want to accept some key players are having an average year based on past performance.

With a majority of NHL teams so close in talent, it doesn't take much for a team to drop down in the standings.

Exactly. The crowd that cries about money are simply latching on to the most simplistic answer to out struggles that requires no critical thinking.

Even when pressured to offer any proposals for allocating more money the best they can come up with is some vague trade scenario to add a top 4 d man. Never mind the fact that Mureay has said he's confident in our D going forward on multiple occasions.

 

[Spez]

Alfie did leave mostly because of money reasons. If Murray offers a 10 million cheque to Alfie he's not a red wing today. Of course he wouldn't have done that but I was just using the Sundin in Vancouver example. Melnyk got cheap when it came time to sign the face of the franchise. There were hints that Alfie would be compensated for playing only for 1 million last season but Melnyk lowballed him. I can understand him getting angry considering that's a huge paycut on your last year. He did so much for this franchise really that I don't blame him. He could have left when the team was bankrupt and even was willing to wait on payments and play for less cash before Melnyk bought the team. He endured all the criticism about his leadership and his teams choking before the 07 run. I will always blame Melnyk for how the divorce ended unless Alfie were to come out and say it wasn't about the money and that his heart was set on leaving the whole time.

 

[Holdurbreathe]

That debt is his own fault though is it not? He re-financed the team multiple times to put the team in this situation when there didn't seem to be any need to do so. Plus, when he sells the team he'll make all that back anyways so it hardly hurts him. Although yeah... he's gotta get the debt under control before he can spend. That much is true and if the debt is really the main issue than maybe he's just being practical and trying to pay it down. Realistically though if he can't afford to do more than just pay the interest or if he's paying more than 1-3% on that debt he needs to sell the team.

Fact is without Melnyk there would be no team in Ottawa today, regardless of how he financed the purchase.

IMO fans need to decide whether they want a team that has an internal budget or no team at all. Those are the two choices.

Comment on first BOLDED remark:
To sell something requires an interested buyer, do you have knowledge of an individual or group that has offered Melnyk in excess of $300M for the Senators?

($300M = purchase price $120M in 1994 dollars + ~$100M in losses over 10 years + minimum of $80M to recover inflationary costs over 10 years)

Comment on second BOLDED remark:
If you know of some lending institutions that are offering loans at 1-3%, maybe you should email Melynk with the information, considering the historical average is 7.5%.

 

[BonkTastic]

Exactly. The crowd that cries about money are simply latching on to the most simplistic answer to out struggles that requires no critical thinking.

I resent that.

To say that:
1) speculating on our financial ability to compete both now, and going forward into the life of the current CBA, based on precedent and the media clippings that have been provided to us to date, and
2) trying to speculate on the nature of the CBA, how the cap is expecting to change and how the league is planning on changing with it,
3) Speculating on how the public statements of an owner, and how they directly comment on that owner's willingness to spend money, and how that might affect morale around the dressing room,
4) Discussing the possibility that trades may or may not have happened based solely on an owner's willingness to spend money to get a better deal (for instance, how the Islanders had much better deals on the table for Vanek, but Snow couldn;t pull the trigger because Wang refused to eat a bit of salary in the deal)

... to say stuff like that doesn't require some critical thinking, and to dismiss it both offhandedly and completely, shows that you haven't done any critical thinking on the topic yourself. Don't go chastising others because you can't be bothered to at least consider that this topic covers a larger sphere of influence than you are willing to discuss.

 

[Holdurbreathe]

Alfie did leave mostly because of money reasons. If Murray offers a 10 million cheque to Alfie he's not a red wing today. Of course he wouldn't have done that but I was just using the Sundin in Vancouver example. Melnyk got cheap when it came time to sign the face of the franchise. There were hints that Alfie would be compensated for playing only for 1 million last season but Melnyk lowballed him. I can understand him getting angry considering that's a huge paycut on your last year. He did so much for this franchise really that I don't blame him. He could have left when the team was bankrupt and even was willing to wait on payments and play for less cash before Melnyk bought the team. He endured all the criticism about his leadership and his teams choking before the 07 run. I will always blame Melnyk for how the divorce ended unless Alfie were to come out and say it wasn't about the money and that his heart was set on leaving the whole time.

Not 100% sure you are correct about money being the issue.

I believe the problem started during the 2011-12 season when Alfie indicated a willingness to negotiate an extension, the team responded with its preference to wait until season end.

Then prior to the 2012-13 season the Senators again were reluctant to start negotiations claiming concerns about the potential effects a new CBA might bring, again asking Alfie to wait.

At the same time other franchises were signing players in an obvious attempt to take advantage of the old CBA. What message did the Senators send to Alfie?

The final straw IMO was the offer made to Alfie's agent prior to the draft, at that point the only way the Senators were going to retain him was overpayment.

While BM claimed the offer was the starting point like any negotiation, it really wasn't normal in any way at all.

IMO Alfie was insulted by the treatment, and I for one don't blame him.

The Senators negotiation tactics presented a risk, a risk that at the end of the day couldn't be fixed with money.

The counter of $7M, as reported by the media, a message to Melnyk or Murray the relationship was over.

Alfie would still be a Senator if the owner hadn't believed #11 would never leave was an obvious mistake, he found out the hard way.

 

[NickLidstrom]

Well, technically, IMO, we lost two: Alfie and Silfverberg.

Except we gained one in Bobby Ryan, and then signed a second one in Clark MacArthur, so although we lost two, we still replaced them. And if you don't think that Ryan is an improvement on Silf, I don't know what to tell you. I know it hurt losing Alfie, but its not like we left two gaping holes in the lineup.

 

[BonkTastic]

Except we gained one in Bobby Ryan, and then signed a second one in Clark MacArthur, so although we lost two, we still replaced them. And if you don't think that Ryan is an improvement on Silf, I don't know what to tell you. I know it hurt losing Alfie, but its not like we left two gaping holes in the lineup.

Hey, I was just correcting the one-for-three claim.

 

[BankStreetParade]

Alfie did leave mostly because of money reasons. If Murray offers a 10 million cheque to Alfie he's not a red wing today. Of course he wouldn't have done that but I was just using the Sundin in Vancouver example. Melnyk got cheap when it came time to sign the face of the franchise. There were hints that Alfie would be compensated for playing only for 1 million last season but Melnyk lowballed him. I can understand him getting angry considering that's a huge paycut on your last year. He did so much for this franchise really that I don't blame him. He could have left when the team was bankrupt and even was willing to wait on payments and play for less cash before Melnyk bought the team. He endured all the criticism about his leadership and his teams choking before the 07 run. I will always blame Melnyk for how the divorce ended unless Alfie were to come out and say it wasn't about the money and that his heart was set on leaving the whole time.

I don't know how many times it has to be said that he was compensated fairly considering he signed a front-loaded contract. Just because he got all his money up front doesn't mean that he played for peanuts in his last year. That's the point of the structure of that contract.

 

[HSF]

Silfver isnt a top 6 forward for me yet

but i guess I get your point. Either way the money excuse doesn't fly with me. It is on the players

and melnyk just said we need to spend wisely which is true.

 

[NickLidstrom]

Hey, I was just correcting the one-for-three claim.

Fair enough, sorry. I just get annoyed when people act as if we gave Silf away for nothing

 

[Very Stable Genius]

Craig Custance
Sabres brought in 85 draft prospects last year for personal combines. By comparison Senators brought in 5-6.

 

[great1]

I don't know how many times it has to be said that he was compensated fairly considering he signed a front-loaded contract. Just because he got all his money up front doesn't mean that he played for peanuts in his last year. That's the point of the structure of that contract.

Except Alfredsson claims his contract was a 3 year deal and the 4th year was added on for the sole purpose of lowering the caphit, neither the Senators or Alfredsson expected him to play last season.

 

[Kellogs]

Craig Custance
Sabres brought in 85 draft prospects last year for personal combines. By comparison Senators brought in 5-6.

See, something like this (if true) is far more concerning than if the team is spending to the cap or not.

 

[BankStreetParade]

See, something like this (if true) is far more concerning than if the team is spending to the cap or not.

Why? What a ridiculous waste of resources. 85 players? What the **** could you possibly need to bring in 85 players from the same draft for?

 

[BankStreetParade]

Except Alfredsson claims his contract was a 3 year deal and the 4th year was added on for the sole purpose of lowering the caphit, neither the Senators or Alfredsson expected him to play last season.

So he didn't expect to play, but because he decided not to retire the team owed him a ton of money on a contract he agreed to. Right. Makes him look like even more of an idiot.

 

[Indrew]

Is that 56 or '5 or 6'?

 

[Busboy]

I resent that.

To say that:
1) speculating on our financial ability to compete both now, and going forward into the life of the current CBA, based on precedent and the media clippings that have been provided to us to date, and
2) trying to speculate on the nature of the CBA, how the cap is expecting to change and how the league is planning on changing with it,
3) Speculating on how the public statements of an owner, and how they directly comment on that owner's willingness to spend money, and how that might affect morale around the dressing room,
4) Discussing the possibility that trades may or may not have happened based solely on an owner's willingness to spend money to get a better deal (for instance, how the Islanders had much better deals on the table for Vanek, but Snow couldn;t pull the trigger because Wang refused to eat a bit of salary in the deal)

... to say stuff like that doesn't require some critical thinking, and to dismiss it both offhandedly and completely, shows that you haven't done any critical thinking on the topic yourself. Don't go chastising others because you can't be bothered to at least consider that this topic covers a larger sphere of influence than you are willing to discuss.

There's no problem discussing the impact of budget or internal budget on the team.

It's simplistic to suggest that our team is failing this year because of the budget. It's also simplistic to suggest our ability to compete wil be taken away in coming seasons because of the budget.

I'm not chastising those who want to have a critical discussion about the impact of the budget . I'm chastising the ones who are making bold and speculative claims about the impact the budget has had to date.

Sure you've raised some interesting points to consider, but I see very few people engaged in those types of discussion and many more who have taken the simple position that our failure this season is largely to blame because of speculation that Eugene is unwilling to make good moves due to an unwillingness to spend.

 

[Kellogs]

Why? What a ridiculous waste of resources. 85 players? What the **** could you possibly need to bring in 85 players from the same draft for?

Because it shows a possible information and preparation disparity for the draft for the Senators organization relative to their peers. The draft is something essential in this team's future competitiveness. It's not that much a financial stretch to shuttle over more than a handful of prospects from the central combine in Toronto to Ottawa.

A few years ago under their old ownership, the Sabres had scaled back their scouting department and were increasing the use of video scouting - obvious cost cutting measures. With their current ownership, their scouting department has been increased significantly and it looks like they're willing to invest a crapload of resources in a key aspect of their rebuild.

That being said, I wasn't suggesting the Senators bring over 85 prospects for a personal combine. Most people in this topic seem to be fixated on the financial troubles of this team and their effect on player payroll. Little attention is being drawn to the possibility that we may be cutting back on off-ice staff and scouting resources which would have a large effect on our future competitive ability.

 

[StefanW]

There's no problem discussing the impact of budget or internal budget on the team.

It's simplistic to suggest that our team is failing this year because of the budget. It's also simplistic to suggest our ability to compete wil be taken away in coming seasons because of the budget.

I'm not chastising those who want to have a critical discussion about the impact of the budget . I'm chastising the ones who are making bold and speculative claims about the impact the budget has had to date.

Sure you've raised some interesting points to consider, but I see very few people engaged in those types of discussion and many more who have taken the simple position that our failure this season is largely to blame because of speculation that Eugene is unwilling to make good moves due to an unwillingness to spend.

Funny, because what I see most often is fans saying "show me a trade that could have been made", which is absolute nonsense. No one is privy to discussions between GMs, so we only know what we hear from the media. We know from multiple reliable media accounts that BM's hands were tied by a dollar in/ dollar out budget scenario that prevented him from making moves earlier when it could have helped the team. We know from multiple media accounts that some teams were willing to unload
salary earlier in the season, but could not find takers because everyone was either nosing up to the cap ceiling or else hobbled by their internal budget.

We also have cold hard numbers from past seasons that clearly show that teams spending in the top third of the league have a much better chance of making the playoffs, and doing something while there, than teams like us who are in the bottom third. I started a thread a while back with all of those numbers so I wont repeat them here. While it is true that some teams with huge payrolls end up busting, and some teams with low payrolls go places, which you compare those categories of spending year after year it is impossible to miss the conclusion that teams who spend in the top third of the league have a huge advantage.

Despite all of this information to the contrary, some posters insist that anyone who contradicts Melnyk's "druken sailor" spending argument is somehow making arguments based on speculation when, in fact, the exact opposite is true. The dollars per point thing, and the belief that we can continue to win while spending just above the cap floor, is a complete fantasy.

 

[Busboy]

Funny, because what I see most often is fans saying "show me a trade that could have been made", which is absolute nonsense. No one is privy to discussions between GMs, so we only know what we hear from the media. We know from multiple reliable media accounts that BM's hands were tied by a dollar in/ dollar out budget scenario that prevented him from making moves earlier when it could have helped the team. We know from multiple media accounts that some teams were willing to unload
salary earlier in the season, but could not find takers because everyone was either nosing up to the cap ceiling or else hobbled by their internal budget.

We also have cold hard numbers from past seasons that clearly show that teams spending in the top third of the league have a much better chance of making the playoffs, and doing something while there, than teams like us who are in the bottom third. I started a thread a while back with all of those numbers so I wont repeat them here. While it is true that some teams with huge payrolls end up busting, and some teams with low payrolls go places, which you compare those categories of spending year after year it is impossible to miss the conclusion that teams who spend in the top third of the league have a huge advantage.

Despite all of this information to the contrary, some posters insist that anyone who contradicts Melnyk's "druken sailor" spending argument is somehow making arguments based on speculation when, in fact, the exact opposite is true. The dollars per point thing, and the belief that we can continue to win while spending just above the cap floor, is a complete fantasy.

Yes, the team has a budget and that is not speculation. I wouldn't disagree if the position taken were "it's hard to compete when you're working with a budget." To me this is drastically different than "we're screwed because of the budget, get rid of Eugene because we can't compete unless he spends."

I remember looking at the numbers you posted and there was clearly a lot of work put into your analysis which helped formed my opinion. Thank you for that. It's obvious that top third spenders have an advantage, but we are still a young team that has made the commitment to building a strong core through the draft. So far I believe we have done a great job of that and this season has been a good chance to guage how ready this core is to compete.

Our struggles, IMO, are most heavily influenced by the inexperience of our core players and the accompanying inconsistencies in their play. Adding 10 million in salary may have been enough to push us into the playoffs this year, but most likely we would still fall short of contenders because of our core.

So if we accept the realities that exist for a small market team, we must have a strong commitment to wise spending. An extra 10 million in salary for this season would obviously effect the budget for the following seasons. Murray and Melnyk have decided not to spend this year and I believe that was a wise choice.

This was never our year to contend. The ability to add talent and salary will always remain as long as we're under the cap so why should we have blown our budget this year just to give an extra push?

We made the playoffs the past two seasons and are on track to miss this season, let's collectively get over it. 14 teams don't make the playoffs every year and if fanbases want to boycott teams each time that happens then we're hurting the NHL and our respective clubs unnecessarily.

 

[StefanW]

Yes, the team has a budget and that is not speculation. I wouldn't disagree if the position taken were "it's hard to compete when you're working with a budget." To me this is drastically different than "we're screwed because of the budget, get rid of Eugene because we can't compete unless he spends."

I remember looking at the numbers you posted and there was clearly a lot of work put into your analysis which helped formed my opinion. Thank you for that. It's obvious that top third spenders have an advantage, but we are still a young team that has made the commitment to building a strong core through the draft. So far I believe we have done a great job of that and this season has been a good chance to guage how ready this core is to compete.

Our struggles, IMO, are most heavily influenced by the inexperience of our core players and the accompanying inconsistencies in their play. Adding 10 million in salary may have been enough to push us into the playoffs this year, but most likely we would still fall short of contenders because of our core.

So if we accept the realities that exist for a small market team, we must have a strong commitment to wise spending. An extra 10 million in salary for this season would obviously effect the budget for the following seasons. Murray and Melnyk have decided not to spend this year and I believe that was a wise choice.

This was never our year to contend. The ability to add talent and salary will always remain as long as we're under the cap so why should we have blown our budget this year just to give an extra push?

We made the playoffs the past two seasons and are on track to miss this season, let's collectively get over it. 14 teams don't make the playoffs every year and if fanbases want to boycott teams each time that happens then we're hurting the NHL and our respective clubs unnecessarily.

Very reasonable, I agree with all of this. I think the main difference between reasonable positions on either side of the fence is whether a person trusts that Melnyk will spend when it is time to make that push. I started off on the "of course Melnyk will spend when we are close" side prior to this past summer. But since then I started to doubt whether that will happen.

I see where you are coming from, and I am more than happy to agree to disagree. I also want to point out for the record that I hope that you are 100% right and I am 100% wrong on this, and that the wallet opens a bit when we are ready to make a push.