PA's turn to make an offer the NHL cannot refuse..

Status
Not open for further replies.

WC Handy*

Guest
signaliinoise said:
It is a fallacy that more money equates to a better team.

More money doesn't equate to a better team, but there's no denying that it provides an advantage.
 

signalIInoise

killed by signal 2
Feb 25, 2005
5,857
0
Latveria
WC Handy said:
More money doesn't equate to a better team, but there's no denying that it provides an advantage.

No... I dispute that.

Smart management provides the advantage.

There are limits on the number of players you can have on your roster. Smart management says that you should fill those slots with the best possible players ... or more importantly, with the players who can perform the best together while filling those slots.

At best, more money allows you to pay a little less attention to the checkbook while filling those slots -- but it also opens you up to bigger and bigger mistakes. You end up buying a Mercedes to go to the store for milk. This is bad management, pure and simple.

Glen Sather is a prime example of doing well with less money -- and then when he hit the Rangers lotto jackpot, bought a FLEET of Mercedes for his milk-getting needs.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
The Messenger said:
Okay then why are you so surprized at the results and questioning the fact that concessions are being made by the NHLPA.....................
..............................................................................

Once the new CBA is in place Pro-PA supporters will be able to say .. I TOLD YOU SO .. for years to come should the NHL prevail in this battle .. and the results of the predictions of above come true ..

Wow Messenger, for someone who is "just a fan and doesn't care which side wins" that sure was an awfully long and passionate post. Come to think of it you do spend a great deal of time trumpeting the PA cause for someone who doesn't care. :biglaugh:

As for your laughable predictions about the results of an owner friendly CBA, I'll be sure to give them all the attention they deserve.

They'll be a whole lot of "I told you so" going around, but the pro PA crowd will be on the recieving end.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
slats432 said:
No, but if a team that is a low revenue team ALWAYS made the playoffs, the PA apologists would at least have some validity to their point....but the one run from Carolina or Buffalo or Calgary really doesn't hold much weight.
Since 1998, the Eastern Conference has always been represented either by the New Jersey Devils or a low revenue team. And the Devils aren't even close to being one of the high revenue teams in the conference.
 

Drury_Sakic

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
4,917
795
www.avalanchedb.com
First... addressing the magent issue....


Magnet

*giggles*

I just like to say that word... comic relief...

The reason behind the NFL and NBA's teams all aproaching or being at their cap is that both league make almost enough through their TV deals to GET to their respective caps..Most of those teams spend up to their caps because they can afford to..

The NHL will NEVER get more than an Average of 2-5 million dollars PER TEAM from a TV deal in the short term(5-7 years)....

Thus why only the teams that can afford it(Avs, Rangers, Stars, Wings, Philly, Ext) would do it in the NHL... Calgary, as a case study, has had a lot of good players part due to money issues... If you were to place a 45 million cap on the Flames...Would the payroll change? NO...

Another reason you have seen the NBA and NFL teams all get closer to Cap levels is because of revenue sharing. Unless the NHL has a revenue sharing plan that makes SURE 100% that all teams can spend up to the cap, it won't EVER happen.


Granted.... I think over the 8 year term(thats whats being talked about) teams would get closer to the cap(in theory). Inflation would be a big factor.... Hopefully the league will become healthy again, which would mean more profits for all involved, and bigger payrolls as teams have more money to spend.. Plus I think in General hockey is entering an era of new Fans, Players, and Growth. Teams in weak markets will move to stronger markets..ext...ext.... but that will happen over time...

I would not be shocked to see more teams at around 38-40 million(if the cap is say 45) by the end of the 8 years...thats just the nature of things..... but you will still have teams just "gettting by" at 25-30 million...
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
Yes funny.....

Drury_Sakic said:
First... addressing the magent issue....


Magnet

*giggles*

I just like to say that word... comic relief...

The reason behind the NFL and NBA's teams all aproaching or being at their cap is that both league make almost enough through their TV deals to GET to their respective caps..Most of those teams spend up to their caps because they can afford to..

The NHL will NEVER get more than an Average of 2-5 million dollars PER TEAM from a TV deal in the short term(5-7 years)....

Thus why only the teams that can afford it(Avs, Rangers, Stars, Wings, Philly, Ext) would do it in the NHL... Calgary, as a case study, has had a lot of good players part due to money issues... If you were to place a 45 million cap on the Flames...Would the payroll change? NO...

Another reason you have seen the NBA and NFL teams all get closer to Cap levels is because of revenue sharing. Unless the NHL has a revenue sharing plan that makes SURE 100% that all teams can spend up to the cap, it won't EVER happen.


Granted.... I think over the 8 year term(thats whats being talked about) teams would get closer to the cap(in theory). Inflation would be a big factor.... Hopefully the league will become healthy again, which would mean more profits for all involved, and bigger payrolls as teams have more money to spend.. Plus I think in General hockey is entering an era of new Fans, Players, and Growth. Teams in weak markets will move to stronger markets..ext...ext.... but that will happen over time...

I would not be shocked to see more teams at around 38-40 million(if the cap is say 45) by the end of the 8 years...thats just the nature of things..... but you will still have teams just "gettting by" at 25-30 million...

The NHL could easily reproduce the NFL record in franchises spending at the cap...

Just make the cap small enough.
 

codswallop

yes, i am an alcoholic
Aug 20, 2002
1,768
100
GA
Drury_Sakic said:
First... addressing the magent issue....


Magnet

*giggles*

I just like to say that word... comic relief...

The reason behind the NFL and NBA's teams all aproaching or being at their cap is that both league make almost enough through their TV deals to GET to their respective caps..Most of those teams spend up to their caps because they can afford to..

The NHL will NEVER get more than an Average of 2-5 million dollars PER TEAM from a TV deal in the short term(5-7 years)....

Thus why only the teams that can afford it(Avs, Rangers, Stars, Wings, Philly, Ext) would do it in the NHL... Calgary, as a case study, has had a lot of good players part due to money issues... If you were to place a 45 million cap on the Flames...Would the payroll change? NO...

Another reason you have seen the NBA and NFL teams all get closer to Cap levels is because of revenue sharing. Unless the NHL has a revenue sharing plan that makes SURE 100% that all teams can spend up to the cap, it won't EVER happen.


Granted.... I think over the 8 year term(thats whats being talked about) teams would get closer to the cap(in theory). Inflation would be a big factor.... Hopefully the league will become healthy again, which would mean more profits for all involved, and bigger payrolls as teams have more money to spend.. Plus I think in General hockey is entering an era of new Fans, Players, and Growth. Teams in weak markets will move to stronger markets..ext...ext.... but that will happen over time...

I would not be shocked to see more teams at around 38-40 million(if the cap is say 45) by the end of the 8 years...thats just the nature of things..... but you will still have teams just "gettting by" at 25-30 million...

Teams wouldn't automatically spend up to the cap number, if it were at the $42M NHL offer or the $49M PA offer. Pretty obvious that some just aren't capable or willing to. But it will pull salaries upward, that's just part of the nature of the market.

The NHL exhibits many distinctive properties of an oligopolistic market. The business decisions of one entity (advertising/marketing, salaries, etc) are directly related to what their competitors do. In other words, you have to closely watch what the competition is doing and adjust your strategy accordingly. If you don't, you'll get left behind in a big damn hurry.

Every team, every year will not spend up to the limit. Like you alluded to, some just don't have the revenue streams to pull that off. But teams will get closer and closer to that cap as time goes on, that's what the market will dictate. Of course, they could keep to a low budget and hope to get lucky one year but that's part of the problem right now. One that can be corrected (or at least helped) by a more balanced economic system.

Don't know about you, but it looks like a magnet to me. Maybe not one that instantly pulls everyone to the top, but definitely one that will pull everyone upward in the near future.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
R0CKET said:
Seriously, I mean wise up pal!

The first offer was you cited was before the season would have started. Don't even begin to try this as some kind of offer , knowing how Don Goodenow works this, was all BS. I mean how many proposals do you want to go back to before during any prior talks for the last 2 years? This season should have began AFTER that 1 POS craposal. Its not relevant at all.

What the other crap says is that they found a way to talk the same offer in several different ways that all pretty much would have arrived at the same end...assurance that the 70% gravy train will go on for the long haul. You know its one of those 6 of one half a dozen of the other "deals".

Only a chump would actually be taken to think they would have resulted in something different.

You may see them as "formal proposed offers" but they are only BS designed to satisfy the idiots that believe these liars words and provide no way to hold them to accountability.

Words are cheap.

Apparently your definition of an offer is any proposal made by the NHL or any proposal that the NHL will absolutely love, nothing else counts. I'd love to see how a $49 million salary cap, rollback, and a pile of other owner-friendly changes would somehow be assurance that the 70% gravy train will go on for the long haul. That is utterly ridiculous. Even the NHL themselves admitted that the players offered up huge and meaningful concessions.

For payroll to hit 70% of $2.1 billion under this proposal the average team salary would have to be $49 million. How do you think that is going to happen with a $49 million salary cap?

R0CKET said:
So I noticed you're kinda mum about the Wayne and Mario "deal"?? :amazed: It had the same bona-fide validity as the rest of their "proposals" but you seem to have conveniently omitted it? Their BS "negotiations" are meaningless.

Beat a dead horse much? I didn't count that as an offer because there was no offer put forth by either side. Go ahead and blame this on the players, as every Bettmanite has done. But Gary hears rumours of some kind of thing developing within the union, calls a meeting without verifying anything, then invites Wayne and Mario at Linden's request and seems shocked when the players don't show up ready to roll over and capitulate.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
cw7 said:
Teams wouldn't automatically spend up to the cap number, if it were at the $42M NHL offer or the $49M PA offer. Pretty obvious that some just aren't capable or willing to. But it will pull salaries upward, that's just part of the nature of the market.

The NHL exhibits many distinctive properties of an oligopolistic market. The business decisions of one entity (advertising/marketing, salaries, etc) are directly related to what their competitors do. In other words, you have to closely watch what the competition is doing and adjust your strategy accordingly. If you don't, you'll get left behind in a big damn hurry.

Every team, every year will not spend up to the limit. Like you alluded to, some just don't have the revenue streams to pull that off. But teams will get closer and closer to that cap as time goes on, that's what the market will dictate. Of course, they could keep to a low budget and hope to get lucky one year but that's part of the problem right now. One that can be corrected (or at least helped) by a more balanced economic system.

Don't know about you, but it looks like a magnet to me. Maybe not one that instantly pulls everyone to the top, but definitely one that will pull everyone upward in the near future.

Wait a minute, I thought the absence of a salary cap was supposed to drive salaries up. Now a salary cap is going to pull salaries upward?
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
WC Handy said:
2. If you're lucky enough to sign a player for the league minimum that eventually turns into a Hart trophy winner and are able to pick up a goalie for next to nothing because he's holding out, you just might be able to win a Cup with a low payroll.

Yup. And don't forget "having zero injuries all season long", and "avoiding having to play previous champs in the playoffs". Most up and coming teams get derailed by a previous champ along the way, as they earn experience, and learn what it takes to become a champ (Jersey lost to the Rangers, Detroit lost to Jersey, etc). Tampa went from perennial bottom feeder to Cup winner pretty much faster than any team in modern history, because everything came together for them all at once.

Tampa's salary for this year would have been around $50 million whether they had won the Cup or not. It's only because they won the Cup ahead of schedule so to speak, that they became the exception.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
gc2005 said:
For payroll to hit 70% of $2.1 billion under this proposal the average team salary would have to be $49 million. How do you think that is going to happen with a $49 million salary cap?

Nope. Remember, it's player costs in the offers, not just salaries. With an average salary per team of just $40 million in 03/04, player costs hit the 75% mark.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
PecaFan said:
Nope. Remember, it's player costs in the offers, not just salaries. With an average salary per team of just $40 million in 03/04, player costs hit the 75% mark.

Nope, NHLPA has never used the term "player costs", their cap proposals have been payroll. There's no rule saying they have to make proposals based on "player costs" just because the NHL wants it that way.

The NHL uses "player costs" instead of "payroll" to make the number look bigger. As part of any proposal they have made it's listed as $2.2 million per team, and is a fixed number, i.e. if they payroll is $30 million or $42.5 million, additional "player costs" including BS items like per diems take up $2.2 million. So if you really want to include player costs in the 70%, then take $2.2 million off the $49 million average.

If you believe Levitt, and that's a big if, player costs were $1.494 billion in 2002-03, which is 75% of Levitt revenues of $1.996 billion.

Levitt didn't do 2003-04, so I'm not sure where you're getting 75% there. Revenues for that year are pegged at $2.1 billion. And average salary was $44.0 million in 03/04, not $40 million.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,669
37,463
WC Handy said:
2. If you're lucky enough to sign a player for the league minimum that eventually turns into a Hart trophy winner and are able to pick up a goalie for next to nothing because he's holding out, you just might be able to win a Cup with a low payroll.


Paul Mara isn't chump change


gc2005 said:
Wait a minute, I thought the absence of a salary cap was supposed to drive salaries up. Now a salary cap is going to pull salaries upward?


Apparently so. According to the pro-owners would feel obligated to spend the cap number as opposed to what they can afford. Some people just don't get it.
 

Drury_Sakic

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
4,917
795
www.avalanchedb.com
another thing that gets looked over is the fact that something in the 45 million value would still bring teams closer together for competitive balance...


take Pit and its 20 million payroll(towards the bottom)...and the Leafs 65 millionish payroll(towards the top)... Cut the Leafs to 45 million.. thats 20 million less than they can spend... raise Pits spending to 25 million (floor) and thats 25 million LESS in the Gap from high to low spending!


I don't think a gap of 20 million is streatching it.... I don't think the league should be a total level finanical playing field...

NJ is a valid example of a small market NHL club making the playoffs year after year... Payroll wize, it has caught up with the rest of the league since 2000... but before that they were not a big spender IMO....

The Oilers could also be an example, they have missed here and there.. but are almost always at the very least challanging for the 8 spot out west....

Another topic often not talked about much is the fact that any kind of cap will also at the very least slow down teams "buying" players at the deadline.

Cut the ability of Detroit, Colorado, Toronto, and Comp from being able to simply add on to their rosters at the deadline(as odds are they will all be at whatever the cap limit is at the begining of the season) and you will see teams having to hold onto those soon to be UFA's. When that happens.. you will see teams like the Oliers and such who might be in a playoff race, but choose to ditch high priced players for young talent, compete more IN the playoffs. Also, small market teams that have the 28-30ish ranged payrolls will gain bigtime, as they will be the only ones able to add those guys at the deadline. If a team that can typically only afford a 28ish payroll is looking like a lock for a playoff spot at the LATE NHL trade deadline, they might be more motivated and have to give up less to get that guy who will be off their books after the playoffs and since the BIG clubs cannot fit him under the cap, they will have less competition for him.

Say that in 2001 when the Avs got blake, they were already at the 45 million cap and could not fit him into the cllub... A team like say Phoenix might have looked at their books and said, "hey, we are going to get at least 2 playoff home games, and he won't cost that much, lets get him" An OK club will have a better shot at getting these types of players.. and it will totally redefine how the playoffs look IMO.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
gc2005 said:
Nope, NHLPA has never used the term "player costs", their cap proposals have been payroll. There's no rule saying they have to make proposals based on "player costs" just because the NHL wants it that way.

No, there's no rule, but R0cket was clearly talking about from the NHL side, which does include it. So the adjustments need to be made.

So if you really want to include player costs in the 70%, then take $2.2 million off the $49 million average.

Giving us $46.8 million.

Levitt didn't do 2003-04, so I'm not sure where you're getting 75% there. Revenues for that year are pegged at $2.1 billion. And average salary was $44.0 million in 03/04, not $40 million.

I was just talking in averages and approximations, rather than specifics right now, so I just did 1.2 billion / 30 teams.

So the difference between the players offer ($46.8) and last season ($44) is $2.8 million per team. Which pretty much proves his argument. That player's offer is one player or arbitration award from being right back at the 70% range, and it's a far cry from the 54% the owners need just to break even.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
PecaFan said:
So the difference between the players offer ($46.8) and last season ($44) is $2.8 million per team. Which pretty much proves his argument. That player's offer is one player or arbitration award from being right back at the 70% range, and it's a far cry from the 54% the owners need just to break even.

Can you post the link to when the PA offered for the average team salary to be $46.8m? I seem to have missed that.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
PecaFan said:
No, there's no rule, but R0cket was clearly talking about from the NHL side, which does include it. So the adjustments need to be made.



Giving us $46.8 million.



I was just talking in averages and approximations, rather than specifics right now, so I just did 1.2 billion / 30 teams.

So the difference between the players offer ($46.8) and last season ($44) is $2.8 million per team. Which pretty much proves his argument. That player's offer is one player or arbitration award from being right back at the 70% range, and it's a far cry from the 54% the owners need just to break even.

You're forgetting that $44 milllion average would have been cut by 24% to $33.4 million. That's one heck of an arbitration award to boost that up to $46.8 million, not to mention completely ignoring the fact that the big spenders will have to slash their payroll to get under the cap.

Do you honestly believe a $49 million salary cap proposal would put the average salary at $46.8 million? Are you that much in love with Bettman?

And where are you getting that the owners only break even at 54%?

$2,100 Revenue x 54% = $1,134 player costs
Operating costs = $800 (based on NHL projections for 2004-05)
PROFIT = $166 million
 

Nich

Registered User
Dec 8, 2004
6,895
0
Wantagh
42.5 mill cap? lol...could have gotten that before or right after they canceled the season...maybe 35....if they are lucky
 

WC Handy*

Guest
signaliinoise said:
No... I dispute that.

Smart management provides the advantage.

Dispute it all you want. It won't make me less right. Smart management with $60M will do better than equally smart management with $35M every single time. Dumb management with $60M will do better than equally dumb management with $35M every time. But here's the real kicker... Often times dumb management with $60M will do better than smart management with $35M (See: Blues, St Louis).
 

signalIInoise

killed by signal 2
Feb 25, 2005
5,857
0
Latveria
WC Handy said:
Dispute it all you want. It won't make me less right. Smart management with $60M will do better than equally smart management with $35M every single time. Dumb management with $60M will do better than equally dumb management with $35M every time. But here's the real kicker... Often times dumb management with $60M will do better than smart management with $35M (See: Blues, St Louis).

That's a straw man. Show me equally smart management in those two budgets. If all levels of management are equally smart and equally good, the one with more money to spend has a slight edge -- but the smart management also is not going to keep spending to the upper limit of the cap. He'll stop when he has his team. Part of smart is not spending for the sake of spending.

I'll admit, I don't know a damned thing about the Blues -- they've never interested me enough to pay attention. However, if you tell me what you're getting at with that reference, I'll read it.

As an aside: why is everyone so hot and bothered about chasing parity. Parity is boring. Parity opens the door to homogeny. Isn't watching David beat Goliath a big chunk of the appeal of sport?

Economics are only one factor that leads to disparity. If you really want to chase parity so much, then go whole hog. No one should be able to have better trainers than the other teams. No one should be better conditioned. No one should have better personnel evaluation or development. No Scotty Bowmans behind the bench. No Lamariellos, Burkes or Lombardis in the front office. Any of these things can give an (unfair||competitive) advantage. I think there's more of a direct corellation between just about any of these to success, than there is a corellation between budget-size and success.

This is supposed to be the ultimate team sport. Everyone is supposed to give their all ... if their 'all' includes more talent in management, better systems on ice or a fatter wallet, then that's what they should use. No two teams are the same, as it should be.

Honestly -- don't you get just the teensiest bit of schadenfreude out of seeing the high-spending Rangers stink on ice year after year? Or watching Bobby Clarke fall just shy of a cup run year after year? Watching the Leafs buy up every coffin-dodging superstar, and still not close the deal? Why curtail your own enjoyment of the game? Honestly, if you force these teams to spend more wisely, they will get better -- they will hoist the cup.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
signaliinoise said:
That's a straw man. Show me equally smart management in those two budgets. If all levels of management are equally smart and equally good, the one with more money to spend has a slight edge -- but the smart management also is not going to keep spending to the upper limit of the cap. He'll stop when he has his team. Part of smart is not spending for the sake of spending.

A slight edge? Have you watched hockey over the last 10 years? The high spending teams with smart management have won all but one Cup since 1993. The low spending teams with smart management have ONE Cup since 1993. Correct me if I'm wrong, but has a team with a top 5 payroll other than the Rangers missed the playoffs over the past decade? These are things you simply cannot ignore. Money clearly gives an advantage.

I'll admit, I don't know a damned thing about the Blues -- they've never interested me enough to pay attention. However, if you tell me what you're getting at with that reference, I'll read it.

Their management has been mediocre at best yet (up until this last season), they were putting up 100 point seasons because the owner was willing to spend money.

As an aside: why is everyone so hot and bothered about chasing parity. Parity is boring. Parity opens the door to homogeny. Isn't watching David beat Goliath a big chunk of the appeal of sport?

Economics are only one factor that leads to disparity. If you really want to chase parity so much, then go whole hog. No one should be able to have better trainers than the other teams. No one should be better conditioned. No one should have better personnel evaluation or development. No Scotty Bowmans behind the bench. No Lamariellos, Burkes or Lombardis in the front office. Any of these things can give an (unfair||competitive) advantage. I think there's more of a direct corellation between just about any of these to success, than there is a corellation between budget-size and success.

This is supposed to be the ultimate team sport. Everyone is supposed to give their all ... if their 'all' includes more talent in management, better systems on ice or a fatter wallet, then that's what they should use. No two teams are the same, as it should be.

Honestly -- don't you get just the teensiest bit of schadenfreude out of seeing the high-spending Rangers stink on ice year after year? Or watching Bobby Clarke fall just shy of a cup run year after year? Watching the Leafs buy up every coffin-dodging superstar, and still not close the deal? Why curtail your own enjoyment of the game? Honestly, if you force these teams to spend more wisely, they will get better -- they will hoist the cup.

Contrary to popular belief, parity is not something pro-owner people want. Nobody wants to see a league full of .500 teams. What people want is a system where a team has an equal chance to field a competitive team as every other team. A system where Florida fans and Edmonton fans feel like their team has a shot to be competitive over a number of years.

Are there fans that like to see certain teams lose? Certainly. But chosing between that and increasing the chances of my team winning the Cup (if I'm a small market team fan) is quite easy.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
WC Handy said:
Contrary to popular belief, parity is not something pro-owner people want. Nobody wants to see a league full of .500 teams. What people want is a system where a team has an equal chance to field a competitive team as every other team. A system where Florida fans and Edmonton fans feel like their team has a shot to be competitive over a number of years.

Are there fans that like to see certain teams lose? Certainly. But chosing between that and increasing the chances of my team winning the Cup (if I'm a small market team fan) is quite easy.

Parity won't be achieved under a cap.

The benefits of smart management will only be accentuated.
 

signalIInoise

killed by signal 2
Feb 25, 2005
5,857
0
Latveria
WC Handy said:
A slight edge? Have you watched hockey over the last 10 years? The high spending teams with smart management have won all but one Cup since 1993. The low spending teams with smart management have ONE Cup since 1993. Correct me if I'm wrong, but has a team with a top 5 payroll other than the Rangers missed the playoffs over the past decade? These are things you simply cannot ignore. Money clearly gives an advantage.

First, the condescending tone of the first two sentences is unnecessary. I realize you're posting on HFboards, so that's par for the course, but every disagreement doesn't have to include calling someone else an idiot, or call their credentials into question. We're all a little prone to hyperbole, so if that's not your intent, I apologize up front.

Okay -- as far as who has won the Cup with high payrolls and smart management... I see the Wings, and that's about it.

The Devils aren't a huge-spending team.

The past couple of seasons have shown that the Stars don't have the most brilliant managent -- if anything, they rode Hitchcock's coaching system, and ended up facing a much inferior team in te finals (my Sabres). Hitchcock moved on to an even more high-spending team, and hasn't gotten a whiff of the finals since.

The Avalanche -- I don't think qualify as being smart management. On the contrary, their success was built on the Lindros deal -- a savvy move, sure, but what have they done lately? Turning Drury into Morris into Gratton is not the mark of brilliance. Probably their biggest deal last season was Battaglia for Konowalchuk, which was more a courtesy Washington showed to their former captain than anything else (does anyone really believe that was a hockey decision or even a financial decision on Washington's part?) Colorado does seem to develop their players well, though (Tanguay & Hejduk will keep them set up for a while).

Is it possible that each of these teams continues to be successful in part because success is a self-fulfilling prophecy? Aren't players attracted to teams that they perceive as being close to a cup? If you're a UFA player, do you take the $4M from the Sabres or the $4M from the Avalanche? As a player, how much is contention worth? If I'm a UFA, I'd take $3.5M from Ottawa over $4M from Carolina.

The Oilers do contend every year. So do the Senators. So do the Devils. The Canadiens. The Flames and Lightning will be there for the next few years. Hell, even my Sabres are on the cusp of the playoffs with a pocketchange budget. I don't think that UFA signings are a panacea for sucking -- I think developing your players, finding chemistry and honing your system and skills is the way to go.
 

ti-vite

Registered User
Jul 27, 2004
3,086
0
gc2005 said:
$2,100 Revenue x 54% = $1,134 player costs
Operating costs = $800 (based on NHL projections for 2004-05)
PROFIT = $166 million

I dont endorse your numbers but its good to know that the PA thinks the team should make less of a profit than one player...5.5M$ per team. wow.

:shakehead
 

WC Handy*

Guest
signaliinoise said:
The Devils aren't a huge-spending team.

The idea that the Devils don't spend a lot of money is a misconception. They had a payroll over $52M when they won the cup in 2003 and they are always in the top 10.

The past couple of seasons have shown that the Stars don't have the most brilliant managent -- if anything, they rode Hitchcock's coaching system, and ended up facing a much inferior team in te finals (my Sabres). Hitchcock moved on to an even more high-spending team, and hasn't gotten a whiff of the finals since.

The current Stars management isn't the management that won the Cup.

The Avalanche -- I don't think qualify as being smart management. On the contrary, their success was built on the Lindros deal -- a savvy move, sure, but what have they done lately? Turning Drury into Morris into Gratton is not the mark of brilliance. Probably their biggest deal last season was Battaglia for Konowalchuk, which was more a courtesy Washington showed to their former captain than anything else (does anyone really believe that was a hockey decision or even a financial decision on Washington's part?) Colorado does seem to develop their players well, though (Tanguay & Hejduk will keep them set up for a while).

So what you're saying is that they won with non-smart management while spending a lot of money?

Is it possible that each of these teams continues to be successful in part because success is a self-fulfilling prophecy? Aren't players attracted to teams that they perceive as being close to a cup? If you're a UFA player, do you take the $4M from the Sabres or the $4M from the Avalanche? As a player, how much is contention worth? If I'm a UFA, I'd take $3.5M from Ottawa over $4M from Carolina.

If I'm a player, I take $4M from the Avs because I know they have the money to build a championship roster.

The Oilers do contend every year. So do the Senators. So do the Devils. The Canadiens. The Flames and Lightning will be there for the next few years. Hell, even my Sabres are on the cusp of the playoffs with a pocketchange budget.

The Oilers do not contend every year. The Senators have the last few years but only until their players hit their paydays and they have to ship them off just like the Oilers did. The Canadians don't compete every year. The Flames had a great run and their roster has since gotten weaker because they couldn't retain one of their key players (and history has shown they're unlikely to repeat their unlikely playoff run). The Lighting will be there for a few years and just like the Senators, only as long as they can afford to retain their players.

I don't think that UFA signings are a panacea for sucking -- I think developing your players, finding chemistry and honing your system and skills is the way to go.

The ability to sign UFAs is only a very small aspect of why money gives a distinct advantage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->