GDT: Sharks @ Kings 7:00pm Game 2 of the Balcers era

[tiburon12]

Looked around, could not find any data supporting this argument for all the teams currently or recently tanking/rebuilding. Everything I saw shows revenue and even gate receipts increasing or staying even at worst. Not even attendance took any noticeable dip among the rebuilding/bad teams I looked at.

Even the currently rebuilding California teams have no lost revenue, in fact the year before Covid both those teams had their highest revenue in roughly 20 years of data shown.

So where are you getting this opinion from? Actual data or are you just sorta assuming this is true?

Jumping into this conversation....

I think we can look at the Sharks as an example of how losing affected ticket sales (put aside revenue for now). Doing minimal research + crawling my memory, the Sharks sold out every game before the reverse sweep. Sharks’ sellout streak ends at 205 games – The Mercury News

since then, i cant recall them having a significant string of sellouts. Last year, a contact of mine high up in Sharks ticket sales said they really struggle to sell tickets when the team isn't elite, and even then weekday games are tough.

So while revenue may stay consistent, that could be a function higher ticket prices and other non-ticket revenue increasing. It's still a valid concern with this team that poor on-ice performance will lead to lower ticket sales.

 

[tiburon12]

I was talking with a co-worker today about how we suck and he was looking for a silver lining to the sucky years and he concluded that since we were bad, it would probably mean that tickets would be cheaper again. He thought it would be better bang for your buck to see a bad team be bad to meh than be outpriced of watching a competitive team during the regular season. I generally agreed with him.

On a trip to America last year I saw the Sharks play live for the first time in 6 years, and first time at the tank since 2008. Lower bowl ticket center ice for a Wednesday game against CBJ was like $60, if that.

small victories

 

[hohosaregood]

On a trip to America last year I saw the Sharks play live for the first time in 6 years, and first time at the tank since 2008. Lower bowl ticket center ice for a Wednesday game against CBJ was like $60, if that.

small victories

Jeez I think the last time I went to a game, it was $60 for the bottom of the upper bowl.

 

[Dicdonya]

Jumping into this conversation....

I think we can look at the Sharks as an example of how losing affected ticket sales (put aside revenue for now). Doing minimal research + crawling my memory, the Sharks sold out every game before the reverse sweep. Sharks’ sellout streak ends at 205 games – The Mercury News

since then, i cant recall them having a significant string of sellouts. Last year, a contact of mine high up in Sharks ticket sales said they really struggle to sell tickets when the team isn't elite, and even then weekday games are tough.

So while revenue may stay consistent, that could be a function higher ticket prices and other non-ticket revenue increasing. It's still a valid concern with this team that poor on-ice performance will lead to lower ticket sales.

Not saying it has no effect, but I think it is blown out of proportion, and there are many factors involved in the Sharks attendance issues other than competitiveness of the team. As evidenced by the fact that we had those issues during the period of, and right after our cup run, and with a franchise that had missed the playoffs once in like 15 years.

I too used to know someone who was intimately involved in the finances of the Sharks, and ticket price increases around that time were a major factor in attendance issues, specifically among season ticket resubs despite our current (at the time) on ice success.

That being said, you asked to disregard revenue, but we really cant because this issue boils down to people trying to use it as a reason this franchise will just fold up and leave SJ if they rebuild. While there is zero evidence, that I can find anyways, that indicates rebuilding teams suddenly going into catastrophic revenue losses during rebuilds. Probably because this league is setup to not allow teams to sink or swim in a vacuum.

I think some might forget that while yes attendance might go down, revenue might even take a dip, but you would also expect generally during a rebuild costs go down as well especially in the player cost side of things. Also with less attendance you can start saving costs in overhead, and purchasing products to sell to people that are not there.

Lastly, the year we missed the playoffs average attendance was still 17,420, or 99.6% of capacity, while the next year when we went to a cup, average attendance was 16,746 or 95.4% of capacity. Average ticket price shows 92$, which might have been even less then since I believe ticket prices rose since that time. That loss of attendance equates to about 2.5mil, with total revenue being 141mil that year. I think they will survive a rebuild, even if that number dropped a fair bit more than that. For example, both LA and ANA the year before last (since Im positive covid screwed attendance numbers last year) they both were over 97% attendance. Smack dab in the middle of their rebuilds, in the same state, with same fickle fair weather california fans.

So while no company wants to see a loss in revenue, I think unless someone can point me to something that shows otherwise, the Sharks will be just fine if they rebuild as long as the NHL as a whole comes out of this Covid crap OK.

 

[seroes]

#3... Tanking guarantees nothing but lost revenue from a reduced fan base. Also, DW has said they won't do that type of full rebuild.

DW has in the past traded mediocre trade players and picks for far better players. Doesn't mean it's a guarantee to happen again but counting on high picks to save the franchise carries a lot of risk in and of itself too.


And that matters how? They were never going to challenge Co IMO and I never said they would. I actually said I would be surprised if they even take a point in any game against the Avs this season. So yea... not sure what your point is. No one is saying they're challenging for the division title man.

Yeah I think Randy mentioned it or I wouldn't have known it was a new development.

No idea what that references...?

Agreed that they should have pre established how the standing would work out if teams miss a ton of games or play different numbers of games. Maybe there will be a play in round like last season.

Obviously they can't expect to only win in shoot outs. My opinion which has been stated over and over is that a higher level of consistency and execution is still coming. They haven't played their best hockey yet. So far they've been lucky to have more than 2 or 3 of their top players going at once. Most are showing signs of getting up to speed though. Meier and Hertl have both taken strides and Couture, Donato, Kane and to a certain degree Labanc are kind of carrying the forward group as far as producing chances. I don't know about Coutures advanced stats but he's got 10 points in 11 games. Evander has 9 in 11. Donato has 7 and he was almost an after thought 3rd liner prior to the season. Donato on a 50 point pace right now (based on 82 game season). That's great production on a team that has a non existent PP. Any of these other guys (including EK65) start to produce and they'll start winning more games in regulation. There is another gear that this team has played at yet as far as offense and frankly defense.

As far as BB lineup decisions... Other than continuing to play Jones, which has actually worked in many cases due to his lightfoot performances in the Shoot out, he's done most of what I personally wanted. Simek is with EK65 and that has helped at least fix the EK65 pairing and they aren't bleeding goals. Vlasic has been limited to 3rd pair and PK minutes and is probably being carried by Knyzhov which helps. And the you have Burns and Ferraro who can act as a shut down pair while still allowing Burns to put up 7 points in 11 games so far. Again with no PP production. This is pretty much exactly what I expected and what I was hoping for. They tread water until everyone finds their game and learns how to apply their game within the system. Now if they can fix the 2nd period let downs they might actually challenge for the 3rd spot and not just the 4th spot.


I think that was mostly Simek fault but Jones definitely takes some blame there. EK65 did exactly what you hope a d-man does. One of the rare times where I thought EK65 actually looked like he was doing the right thing in a one on one defensive situation. Drove him wide and behind the net and didn't let him feed it in from on the rush side. He's not supposed to chase the guy behind the net at that point. He's supposed to go net front and Simek was supposed to pick up Brown coming in behind. They'l watch film of that and I bet Simek doesn't mess that up again.



I'm fine being patient with him. He's starting from scratch with the system and the players. Think about how TDL acquisitions struggle at first typically. I mean except Kane. He was liberated. So far Balcers hasn't hurt the team and his positioning in the offensive zone has been right there for some near great opportunities. Once he gets to move up in the line up I think the dam breaks for him.

We will have to see how they do. We have seen parts of the top six play well for stretches or individual games and then make like Casper and poof for multiple games. At this point I just don't believe in them. 11 games in, and even in the games we won we weren't always the better team. I thought we were better than LA last night overall but but their D core was decimated and they are still in the middle of a rebuild. Being better than LA is not a barometer of much. The issue is once after tomorrow our schedule is brutal. A carousel of Vegas, Colorado, St. Louis for 16 of 19 games. We could be so far behind after that even if your theory is right it won't matter.

I would have preferred the line up changed were made sooner but BB did make them. Assuming no one gets traded, or claimed by Seattle on D, he will have an interesting choice to make if Merkley forces his way into the lineup late this season, or much more likely next season. Vlassic probably would need to sit most games.

Pretty much agree on Balcers. Wait a couple games and see how he does. So far I'm kinda meh on him.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

Looked around, could not find any data supporting this argument for all the teams currently or recently tanking/rebuilding. Everything I saw shows revenue and even gate receipts increasing or staying even at worst. Not even attendance took any noticeable dip among the rebuilding/bad teams I looked at.

Even the currently rebuilding California teams have no lost revenue, in fact the year before Covid both those teams had their highest revenue in roughly 20 years of data shown.

So where are you getting this opinion from? Actual data or are you just sorta assuming this is true?

The Sharks had a good team a couple years ago and couldn't sell out. The days of them filling the arena no matter what the team does have long since past. What locations are all the examples you "researched"? When you say revenue is it adjusted for the time period? Let's talk tickets sold then. Season ticket sales and attendance.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

We will have to see how they do. We have seen parts of the top six play well for stretches or individual games and then make like Casper and poof for multiple games. At this point I just don't believe in them. 11 games in, and even in the games we won we weren't always the better team. I thought we were better than LA last night overall but but their D core was decimated and they are still in the middle of a rebuild. Being better than LA is not a barometer of much. The issue is once after tomorrow our schedule is brutal. A carousel of Vegas, Colorado, St. Louis for 16 of 19 games. We could be so far behind after that even if your theory is right it won't matter.

I would have preferred the line up changed were made sooner but BB did make them. Assuming no one gets traded, or claimed by Seattle on D, he will have an interesting choice to make if Merkley forces his way into the lineup late this season, or much more likely next season. Vlassic probably would need to sit most games.

Pretty much agree on Balcers. Wait a couple games and see how he does. So far I'm kinda meh on him.

Well that's the difference, I do believe this group will play better. I've seen it over and over again with a group learning a new system. 10-11 games isn't enough time especially with no off season program and a reduced camp. At this point they just need to stay healthy.

I wouldn't count on them playing Vegas anytime soon. They're shut down again for Covid.

I don't think Merkley brings enough to force his way into the NHL this season unless there are a rash of injuries to EK65 and Burns. He's pretty far down the list of guys who will get the call at the moment.

 

[seroes]

Well that's the difference, I do believe this group will play better. I've seen it over and over again with a group learning a new system. 10-11 games isn't enough time especially with no off season program and a reduced camp. At this point they just need to stay healthy.

I wouldn't count on them playing Vegas anytime soon. They're shut down again for Covid.

I don't think Merkley brings enough to force his way into the NHL this season unless there are a rash of injuries to EK65 and Burns. He's pretty far down the list of guys who will get the call at the moment.

I could of sworn I saw that Vegas was playing tomorrow. I think they will be on.

That's what I suspect with Merkley as well. If we're out of the playoff race late I would like to see him in 1 or 2 games just so he can the experience of am NHL game but he is one prospect that really shouldn't be rushed.

 

[Dicdonya]

The Sharks had a good team a couple years ago and couldn't sell out. The days of them filling the arena no matter what the team does have long since past. What locations are all the examples you "researched"? When you say revenue is it adjusted for the time period? Let's talk tickets sold then. Season ticket sales and attendance.

No no no, you made the statement that "Tanking guarantees nothing but lost revenue from a reduced fan base" of which I found no proof that, on the contrary I found revenues increasing even among some teams I know are rebuilding. So I asked you for your source, don't worry about where I checked, because I clearly did not find what you did, and therefore I asked you to show me where I can find the data that makes you so sure of your statement that you would guarantee it.

If its just your opinion based on your own gut feelings that is fine, I am just trying to figure out if it is just an opinion, or something that has actually proven to be true and therefore an actual concern.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

I could of sworn I saw that Vegas was playing tomorrow. I think they will be on.

That's what I suspect with Merkley as well. If we're out of the playoff race late I would like to see him in 1 or 2 games just so he can the experience of am NHL game but he is one prospect that really shouldn't be rushed.

After their (Vegas) game yesterday or the day before they canceled the press conference and then shut down the facility again. We'll have to see what happens.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

No no no, you made the statement that "Tanking guarantees nothing but lost revenue from a reduced fan base" of which I found no proof that, on the contrary I found revenues increasing even among some teams I know are rebuilding. So I asked you for your source, don't worry about where I checked, because I clearly did not find what you did, and therefore I asked you to show me where I can find the data that makes you so sure of your statement that you would guarantee it.

If its just your opinion based on your own gut feelings that is fine, I am just trying to figure out if it is just an opinion, or something that has actually proven to be true and therefore an actual concern.

Dude... Ok, when I said revenue I was correlating ticket sales. Maybe their revenues increased thru some other means than number of tickets sold. How does that increase compare to what they could have earned if they weren't in a rebuild? Your research take into account potential playoff revenue too? Location matters in all this. I know at least for ticket sales this a truth for the Sharks. I lived it going to games. When they sucked they didn't sell out and no one went to games. I've told the story already of getting to go to more than 20 free games because people gave away season tickets. I know that the season ticket sold percentage has suffered as has already been described to you after the reverse sweep. The Bay Area isn't Edmonton or any other location where all they have is hockey and maybe a basketball team. The BayArea has lot's of other shit to spend money on so if you don't put a decent product on the ice no one goes to the games and no one buys merchandise. So... you need to show who you're comparing to the Bay Area because most places don't have the same problems. As far as actual revenue? Does this include TV contract money? Reduced salary? ticket price increase overtime? I have my own business... my profits increased every year for 14 years until last year yet we progressively took on fewer contracts each year over that time frame. How did our revenue increase? We raised our prices and found other way to increase our income each year through efficiencies. So again... time to show who you think should be compared directly to San Jose. I know for a fact that they lose a lot of the casual fans when they suck. Most fans are front runners and they don't go see losers. It's why there was almost no such thing as a 49ers fan in the bay until 1981. Back prior to that most people were Raiders fans and hardly anyone would admit to being a 49 fan or they followed out of market teams. Decades later with the 49ers success and the Raiders sucking ass you have tons of 49ers fans.

 

[Dicdonya]

Dude... Ok, when I said revenue I was correlating ticket sales. Maybe their revenues increased thru some other means than number of tickets sold. How does that increase compare to what they could have earned if they weren't in a rebuild? Your research take into account potential playoff revenue too? Location matters in all this. I know at least for ticket sales this a truth for the Sharks. I lived it going to games. When they sucked they didn't sell out and no one went to games. I've told the story already of getting to go to more than 20 free games because people gave away season tickets. I know that the season ticket sold percentage has suffered as has already been described to you after the reverse sweep. The Bay Area isn't Edmonton or any other location where all they have is hockey and maybe a basketball team. The BayArea has lot's of other shit to spend money on so if you don't put a decent product on the ice no one goes to the games and no one buys merchandise. So... you need to show who you're comparing to the Bay Area because most places don't have the same problems. As far as actual revenue? Does this include TV contract money? Reduced salary? ticket price increase overtime? I have my own business... my profits increased every year for 14 years until last year yet we progressively took on fewer contracts each year over that time frame. How did our revenue increase? We raised our prices and found other way to increase our income each year through efficiencies. So again... time to show who you think should be compared directly to San Jose. I know for a fact that they lose a lot of the casual fans when they suck. Most fans are front runners and they don't go see losers. It's why there was almost no such thing as a 49ers fan in the bay until 1981. Back prior to that most people were Raiders fans and hardly anyone would admit to being a 49 fan or they followed out of market teams. Decades later with the 49ers success and the Raiders sucking ass you have tons of 49ers fans.

Alright so its just your opinion, that's cool.

As for all that other stuff, its pretty meaningless. Plenty of NHL teams have all the issues you just mentioned that they contend with, especially the other two rebuilding California teams, that are doing just fine during the rebuild.

We disagree about whether SJ can afford a rebuild, that is fine, I just wanted clarity on whether that was your feeling, or if there was precedent for that concern. You have answered that question. Thank you

 

[tiburon12]

Not saying it has no effect, but I think it is blown out of proportion, and there are many factors involved in the Sharks attendance issues other than competitiveness of the team. As evidenced by the fact that we had those issues during the period of, and right after our cup run, and with a franchise that had missed the playoffs once in like 15 years.

I too used to know someone who was intimately involved in the finances of the Sharks, and ticket price increases around that time were a major factor in attendance issues, specifically among season ticket resubs despite our current (at the time) on ice success.

That being said, you asked to disregard revenue, but we really cant because this issue boils down to people trying to use it as a reason this franchise will just fold up and leave SJ if they rebuild. While there is zero evidence, that I can find anyways, that indicates rebuilding teams suddenly going into catastrophic revenue losses during rebuilds. Probably because this league is setup to not allow teams to sink or swim in a vacuum.

I think some might forget that while yes attendance might go down, revenue might even take a dip, but you would also expect generally during a rebuild costs go down as well especially in the player cost side of things. Also with less attendance you can start saving costs in overhead, and purchasing products to sell to people that are not there.

Lastly, the year we missed the playoffs average attendance was still 17,420, or 99.6% of capacity, while the next year when we went to a cup, average attendance was 16,746 or 95.4% of capacity. Average ticket price shows 92$, which might have been even less then since I believe ticket prices rose since that time. That loss of attendance equates to about 2.5mil, with total revenue being 141mil that year. I think they will survive a rebuild, even if that number dropped a fair bit more than that. For example, both LA and ANA the year before last (since Im positive covid screwed attendance numbers last year) they both were over 97% attendance. Smack dab in the middle of their rebuilds, in the same state, with same fickle fair weather california fans.

So while no company wants to see a loss in revenue, I think unless someone can point me to something that shows otherwise, the Sharks will be just fine if they rebuild as long as the NHL as a whole comes out of this Covid crap OK.

Those are great points. I'm on board with what you're saying. when i said "disregard revenue" i meant to only divorce it from ticket sales for that thought so we could discuss how poor on-ice performance led to a decrease in fan engagement.

If it's not the financial worry, then i wonder why the team is so hesitant to fully rebuild.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

Alright so its just your opinion, that's cool.

As for all that other stuff, its pretty meaningless. Plenty of NHL teams have all the issues you just mentioned that they contend with, especially the other two rebuilding California teams, that are doing just fine during the rebuild.

We disagree about whether SJ can afford a rebuild, that is fine, I just wanted clarity on whether that was your feeling, or if there was precedent for that concern. You have answered that question. Thank you

Yet you say you found numbers but won't post them? that's dumb. You might actually get me to agree but instead you're just going to be dismissive of the decades of actual reality of of the Sharks attendance and revenue and real world experience. Years ago there were articles in the Mercury about how much the team was losing even when they were good. Some of the long playoff runs were rare times when they actually didn't lose money. You didn't even address the reality of expected revenue either. It might increase in a year and still be considered a failure compared with the annual growth that these teams expect year over year.

Those are great points. I'm on board with what you're saying. when i said "disregard revenue" i meant to only divorce it from ticket sales for that thought so we could discuss how poor on-ice performance led to a decrease in fan engagement.

If it's not the financial worry, then i wonder why the team is so hesitant to fully rebuild.

Because it's obviously a financial concern.

 

[STL Shark]

Jumping into this conversation....

I think we can look at the Sharks as an example of how losing affected ticket sales (put aside revenue for now). Doing minimal research + crawling my memory, the Sharks sold out every game before the reverse sweep. Sharks’ sellout streak ends at 205 games – The Mercury News

since then, i cant recall them having a significant string of sellouts. Last year, a contact of mine high up in Sharks ticket sales said they really struggle to sell tickets when the team isn't elite, and even then weekday games are tough.

So while revenue may stay consistent, that could be a function higher ticket prices and other non-ticket revenue increasing. It's still a valid concern with this team that poor on-ice performance will lead to lower ticket sales.

Now add the headache that will be the new Google campus and you'll see even less weekday tickets sold. There simply is not a rabid enough hockey base in SJ to support a team not being a contender. I

f you're going to rebuild, you better do it now and be out the back end of it by 2025 and competing for Cups again on a regular basis because you don't want to be mired in a rebuild or in mediocrity whenever the TV deal is up in 2028. We already have one of the league's worst deals for TV which makes it all the more amazing we have basically been a cap ceiling team for as long as we have (thanks Hasso).

 

[Pavelski2112]

Now add the headache that will be the new Google campus and you'll see even less weekday tickets sold. There simply is not a rabid enough hockey base in SJ to support a team not being a contender. I

f you're going to rebuild, you better do it now and be out the back end of it by 2025 and competing for Cups again on a regular basis because you don't want to be mired in a rebuild or in mediocrity whenever the TV deal is up in 2028. We already have one of the league's worst deals for TV which makes it all the more amazing we have basically been a cap ceiling team for as long as we have (thanks Hasso).

There was for many years. Especially after having built up even more of a following over the past 30, I doubt this is an issue.

 

[one2gamble]

There was for many years. Especially after having built up even more of a following over the past 30, I doubt this is an issue.

Honestly the only reason they arent selling out is they priced the cheap seats to high but they are probably making more revenue that way. You used to be able to get into the tank for $20, which is a great buy.

You also have to remember that selling out vs attendance is not the same thing. The tank is largely more "sold" than attended.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

Before shutdown last year, I saw top of the lower bowl for ~40 and nosebleeds for ~12 on seat geek. $12 is worth it to me for a chance of there being empty seats near my buddies season tickets. Granted ticket prices are also affected by opponent and day of the week.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

There was for many years. Especially after having built up even more of a following over the past 30, I doubt this is an issue.

I don't think it's a concern like they would have to relocate the franchise but it is a concern as far as keeping fans wanting your product and for the Sharks, their financial bottom line. It's the entire reason the NHL is playing right now. It's a complete financial loss to play this season but they're concerned that the league would take years to recover if they took the season off.

But there have been more than a few articles that state this team operated in the red unless they get home playoff games. This is why a full scale rebuild has not been an option up to this point.

 

[Pavelski2112]

I don't think it's a concern like they would have to relocate the franchise but it is a concern as far as keeping fans wanting your product and for the Sharks, their financial bottom line. It's the entire reason the NHL is playing right now. It's a complete financial loss to play this season but they're concerned that the league would take years to recover if they took the season off.

But there have been more than a few articles that state this team operated in the red unless they get home playoff games. This is why a full scale rebuild has not been an option up to this point.

If the team had a much less wealthy owner, I would agree, but Hasso is one of the richest people on the planet.