Small market team happy with CBA....

Status
Not open for further replies.

mackdogs*

Guest
Jobu said:
And BTW, if you expect Edmonton or Pittsburgh to spend anywhere near $39m, well, sorry to be the bearer of bad news: not happening.
Taken from the article:

"The Oilers will have a player budget of $33-35 million next season."

Perhaps you should read the article the thread is based on before posting in it.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,461
2,512
Edmonton
:)

Montrealer said:
I can predict with 78% certainty that the on-ice product will be 23% more exciting with highs into the low 80s and lows falling into the high 60s. Tuesday's forecast is thundershowers early, with clearing in the afternoon.

sounds like a nice day!
 

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
mackdogs said:
Taken from the article:

"The Oilers will have a player budget of $33-35 million next season."

Perhaps you should read the article the thread is based on before posting in it.

Statements are not actions.

I am very skeptical that the Oilers will be likely or able to maintain a payroll that high long term. But, we shall see.
 

NYR469

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
5,785
0
Visit site
mackdogs said:
Taken from the article:

"The Oilers will have a player budget of $33-35 million next season."

Perhaps you should read the article the thread is based on before posting in it.

if the oilers have a budget of $33-35 mil that means they most they can give any 1 player is $6-7 mil, which means they can't compete for $7.8 mil players since you have to spend to the max to offer that much since its 20% of team payroll not 20% of the cap.
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
NYR469 said:
if the oilers have a budget of $33-35 mil that means they most they can give any 1 player is $6-7 mil, which means they can't compete for $7.8 mil players since you have to spend to the max to offer that much since its 20% of team payroll not 20% of the cap.

It's 20% of the cap.
 

Digger12

Gold Fever
Feb 27, 2002
18,313
990
Back o' beyond
NYR469 said:
if the oilers have a budget of $33-35 mil that means they most they can give any 1 player is $6-7 mil, which means they can't compete for $7.8 mil players since you have to spend to the max to offer that much since its 20% of team payroll not 20% of the cap.

Pretty sure this is erroneous...from TSN:

No player can earn more than 20 per cent of the team cap, which for 2005-06 means no player can earn more than $7.8 million.
 

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
NYR469 said:
if the oilers have a budget of $33-35 mil that means they most they can give any 1 player is $6-7 mil, which means they can't compete for $7.8 mil players since you have to spend to the max to offer that much since its 20% of team payroll not 20% of the cap.

"Team Cap" refers to the maximum amount any team can spend on payroll: $39 million, not the amount that the team actually spends. It is phrased that way to differentiate between the "player cap" - $7.8 million - and the "linked cap" - 54% of revenues. Confusing, but there is a lot of new terminology about to be introduced that we are not aware of.
 

NYR469

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
5,785
0
Visit site
Ismellofhockey said:
Imagine that, a small market that's actually happy about this CBA... that's unpossible!

To all the doom and gloom posters saying this CBA is a big market win, it's a win for everybody, everybody gets an equal opportunity.

its only equal in theory on the assumption that eveyone can spend $39 mil, but if some teams spend $25 mil then its no longer equal. its closer to equal and the difference between the haves and have nots is much less, but its still there.

and even if the $$ is the same when you factor in cost of living, taxes, etc $2 mil in nyc isn't the same as $2 mil in dallas which isn't the same as $2 mil in edmonton...

and then lastly there is the factor that some teams are simply better than others...the notion that all teams are starting from scratch is bs cause teams will keep most of their rfas and for the most part most teams will look awfully similar to before atleast in the short term...

so the gap is a lot less but the idea that all 30 teams have the same shot at any free agent isn't true. those small market teams won't get blown out of the water but i hope no one is holding their breath for scott niedermayer to leave nj for carolina or nashville.

but you'll never have a perfect system so its definitely better than it was before...

probably the biggest benefit for small market teams isn't that they can compete for the top tier guys but rather the fact that the big market teams won't be able to sign guys 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 on their wishlist. those teams will now sign the #1 guy and then look toward 6, 7, 8 due to cap restraints...so the small market teams might not get the 1a elite talent, but have a better shot at the 1b guys which is better than before.
 

NYR469

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
5,785
0
Visit site
i thought it was 20% of the team payroll...if thats wrong then i stand corrected. i'll try to find where i read that.

to me it just makes more sense that its 20% of the total payroll cause otherwise you could have a guy making 36%.
 

oil slick

Registered User
Feb 6, 2004
7,593
0
NYR469 said:
so the gap is a lot less but the idea that all 30 teams have the same shot at any free agent isn't true. those small market teams won't get blown out of the water but i hope no one is holding their breath for scott niedermayer to leave nj for carolina or nashville.

Well over the past 10 years I've seen players like Cujo, Geurin, Weight, Niinimma leave due to money only to be replaced with such UFA's as Dopita and Oates so I'll be happy with a gap that is a lot less, thank you very much.
 

coppernblue

Registered User
Apr 5, 2005
384
0
Resolute said:
Statements are not actions.

I am very skeptical that the Oilers will be likely or able to maintain a payroll that high long term. But, we shall see.

the oilers have a had a payroll in the low 30 million dollar range for a few years in a row, so why are u skeptical that they will stop having a payroll there now
 

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
coppernblue said:
the oilers have a had a payroll in the low 30 million dollar range for a few years in a row, so why are u skeptical that they will stop having a payroll there now

$4 million in guaranteed TV revenue is gone (ABC/ESPN deal), $3 million currency equalization is gone. Heritage classic is gone. Alberta payroll tax is set to expire. Flames/Oilers lottery has expired with no word on it being brought back. Oilers already playing to virtual capacity and did not raise ticket prices, so no additional income can be expected from selling more tickets.

Quite frankly, I do not see how the rise in the loonie and any revenue sharing money will cover those shortfalls. I expect the Oilers (and Flames) will see a small decline in regular season revenues as a result of factors beyond their control.

There are three ways the Oilers would be able to maintain such a payroll and be profitable, but I do not see any as likely for 2005-06:

1. The profit sharing TV deals produce an unexpected windfall.
2. The Oilers go deep into the playoffs (conference finals or later).
3. The Oilers bring a WHL team into Edmonton that is at least as successful as the Hitmen.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,813
1,464
Ottawa
Jaded-Fan said:
You will sign your share, but you will have competition and company at the trough from now on. Better get used to it.

A funny way of putting it. You just want to be a piggy at the trough too eh. Of course the most reliable to develop was to not go the trough like Tor, StL, NYR, Wash, Pit. Oh wait, you probably find it funny I said Pittsburgh. Yes one day, in a galaxy far away, Sens fans thought of Pittsburgh the way you now do of Colordao. You will probably get as much pleasure from those piggies dismantling as many of us did for you. Imagine having the superstar team of the decade of the Pens and then complaining they had to rebuild when they got old and couldnt win anymore. Next CBA, you will never have to go through such humiliation.


zeke said:
It's absolutely hilarious that some have tried to say that a salary cap is bad for small markets.

It will be bad for small markets when they start to win. Winners wont like it. Losers will.
 

bcrt2000

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
3,499
3
the latest buzz out of edmonton is their budget will be $33-35M, and out of pittsburgh, theirs will be $29-32M (and mario has stated they'll be in the hunt for some elite UFAs)
 

bcrt2000

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
3,499
3
thinkwild said:
Imagine having the superstar team of the decade of the Pens and then complaining they had to rebuild when they got old and couldnt win anymore. Next CBA, you will never have to go through such humiliation.


The Penguins started dumping before their players skills started to decline... actually, when they got rid of Kovalev he was still on the rise... they dumped Lang who hadn't reached his peak yet (his best season was in Wsh/Detroit).. Jagr had injury problems when they dumped him, but he was still helping lemieux put up big numbers... they dumped Hedberg.... the Pens even had to dump Andrew Ference.. I don't think hes an old timer, do you?
 

Asiaoil

Vperod Bizona!
May 3, 2002
6,811
414
Visit site
Resolute said:
$4 million in guaranteed TV revenue is gone (ABC/ESPN deal), $3 million currency equalization is gone. Heritage classic is gone. Alberta payroll tax is set to expire. Flames/Oilers lottery has expired with no word on it being brought back. Oilers already playing to virtual capacity and did not raise ticket prices, so no additional income can be expected from selling more tickets.

Quite frankly, I do not see how the rise in the loonie and any revenue sharing money will cover those shortfalls. I expect the Oilers (and Flames) will see a small decline in regular season revenues as a result of factors beyond their control.

There are three ways the Oilers would be able to maintain such a payroll and be profitable, but I do not see any as likely for 2005-06:

1. The profit sharing TV deals produce an unexpected windfall.
2. The Oilers go deep into the playoffs (conference finals or later).
3. The Oilers bring a WHL team into Edmonton that is at least as successful as the Hitmen.


Just take the effort to punch a few numbers into a calculator;

A $32 USD budget with a 0.65 cent Canadian dollar required almost $50 million Canadian dollars of revenue (situation in 2004)


A $32 USD budget with a 0.82 cent Canadian dollar requires only $39 million Canadian dollars of revenue (situation now)

Between the much improved health of the Canadian dollar, the new CBA, and the quickly shrinking debt load that the team ownership is carrying, the Oilers are in the best financial shape since the mid 1980s. There will be some TV revenue generated and the $3 million currency equalization is peanuts compared to the effect of the rise in the Canadian dollar.
 

discostu

Registered User
Nov 12, 2002
22,512
2,895
Nomadville
Visit site
Asiaoil said:
Just take the effort to punch a few numbers into a calculator;

A $32 USD budget with a 0.65 cent Canadian dollar required almost $50 million Canadian dollars of revenue (situation in 2004)


A $32 USD budget with a 0.82 cent Canadian dollar requires only $39 million Canadian dollars of revenue (situation now)

Between the much improved health of the Canadian dollar, the new CBA, and the quickly shrinking debt load that the team ownership is carrying, the Oilers are in the best financial shape since the mid 1980s. There will be some TV revenue generated and the $3 million currency equalization is peanuts compared to the effect of the rise in the Canadian dollar.

I imagine the booming oil industry in Alberta will play to Edmonton and Calgary's advantage. A healthy level of corporate support, coupled with the strong dollar, and I don't see those teams having too much of a problem.
 

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
Asiaoil said:
Just take the effort to punch a few numbers into a calculator;

A $32 USD budget with a 0.65 cent Canadian dollar required almost $50 million Canadian dollars of revenue (situation in 2004)


A $32 USD budget with a 0.82 cent Canadian dollar requires only $39 million Canadian dollars of revenue (situation now)

Between the much improved health of the Canadian dollar, the new CBA, and the quickly shrinking debt load that the team ownership is carrying, the Oilers are in the best financial shape since the mid 1980s. There will be some TV revenue generated and the $3 million currency equalization is peanuts compared to the effect of the rise in the Canadian dollar.

The dollar was not 65 cents in 2004.

And yes, you are right, the currency equalization is peanuts in comparison. It is, however, not the only revenue stream that the Oilers are losing. That's exactly the point. Even with the loonie holding steady at just over 80 cents, the differences in what has been gained and what has been lost is negligible at best. Thus, in my opinion, I can only see the Oilers expecting to turn a profit if an unlikely scenario plays out.

It is an aggressive plan, and one completely out of character given the Oilers owner's history. If they choose to do it, then good for them. I will, however, remain skeptical until they do.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
thinkwild said:
A funny way of putting it. You just want to be a piggy at the trough too eh. Of course the most reliable to develop was to not go the trough like Tor, StL, NYR, Wash, Pit. Oh wait, you probably find it funny I said Pittsburgh. Yes one day, in a galaxy far away, Sens fans thought of Pittsburgh the way you now do of Colordao. You will probably get as much pleasure from those piggies dismantling as many of us did for you. Imagine having the superstar team of the decade of the Pens and then complaining they had to rebuild when they got old and couldnt win anymore. Next CBA, you will never have to go through such humiliation.

It will be bad for small markets when they start to win. Winners wont like it. Losers will.


Where did I say anything like the above? I certainly hope that the Pens players develope to the point that we do lose some big names. That will mean that we are developing players with value. I have no problem at all with losing big name players if a system is in place that allows everyone to compete based on the brains of your GM, a bit of luck, and draft position. I have watched the Steelers lose all pros almost yearly and never complained about it, that is part of the system. Why would that upset small market teams at all?

I think that you are actually looking at this from the vantage on high of a fan of a big market team, who has grown used to the feeling of entitlement. What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine, eh? Now, those of us who are fans of teams not quite so blessed would be thoroughly unsurprised if we built a team that wins a Cup and then would, like NE does in football, replace a good chunk of that team in a couple of years if we wish to compete again. And I promise you that if my team ever does get so lucky to be 'great' and begins to be dismantled I can guarentee you that you will hear little of the whining that we hear from bigger market team's fans now. It is part of the system and we will hope to find the next great ones through luck, paying our dues with a bad season or two, and hoping that our GM knows a thing or two.
 

MarkZackKarl

Registered User
Jun 29, 2002
2,978
12
Ottawa
Visit site
Jaded-Fan said:
Where did I say anything like the above? I certainly hope that the Pens players develope to the point that we do lose some big names. That will mean that we are developing players with value. I have no problem at all with losing big name players if a system is in place that allows everyone to compete based on the brains of your GM, a bit of luck, and draft position. I have watched the Steelers lose all pros almost yearly and never complained about it, that is part of the system. Why would that upset small market teams at all?

I think that you are actually looking at this from the vantage on high of a fan of a big market team, who has grown used to the feeling of entitlement. What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine, eh? Now, those of us who are fans of teams not quite so blessed would be thoroughly unsurprised if we built a team that wins a Cup and then would, like NE does in football, replace a good chunk of that team in a couple of years if we wish to compete again. And I promise you that if my team ever does get so lucky to be 'great' and begins to be dismantled I can guarentee you that you will hear little of the whining that we hear from bigger market team's fans now. It is part of the system and we will hope to find the next great ones through luck, paying our dues with a bad season or two, and hoping that our GM knows a thing or two.

Yikes. Your reasoning is ridiculous. I can't believe someone could actually think the way you do. You act as if the NFL system is something to be admired.

BTW, thinkwild is a Senators fan. Anyone with an ounce of understanding would support the old CBA compared to the new one, at least from a fan's point of view.

If you want to argue from a business point of view, it probably is better for the owner's pockets for this new CBA (what a shock, thats why they are pushing for it, nothing to do with fans, just in case anyone STILL doesn't understand that).

But what is great for the owners usually means a trade off to the worse for the fans. Higher ticket prices in playoffs because of higher demand (remember, sparkies: ticket prices aren't related to salaries), pay per view TV for games televised, subsidies from governments etc... all good for the owner and in turn costs the fan more, either indirectly or directly. Of course if you measure these on the basis of 'if Bobby Billionaire NHL owner doesn't get what he wants we will lose our team' then I guess you could argue these things are good for the fan as well. Although the conclusion drawn, generally, will be ambiguous because it is unclear how credible these threats from the owners are, anyway.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
The 10 teams at the cap theory is simply laughable.

17 teams were above 37M last year.

Teams now see the opportunity to spend more to be competitive.

But most importantly, teams will be trying to build up hope/excitement and sell tickets. The easiest way to accomplish that goal is to make some splashy signings.

Most smart teams will leave some leeway to add payroll at the trade deadline, but I'm betting 20+ teams are within 3 - 4 M of the cap.
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
scaredsensfan said:
Anyone with an ounce of understanding would support the old CBA compared to the new one, at least from a fan's point of view.

.


Sadly, we are the uninformed masses, while you and a few others are the intelligent hockey analysts we have grown to love and admire...
 

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
Thunderstruck said:
The 10 teams at the cap theory is simply laughable.

17 teams were above 37M last year.

Teams now see the opportunity to spend more to be competitive.

But most importantly, teams will be trying to build up hope/excitement and sell tickets. The easiest way to accomplish that goal is to make some splashy signings.

Most smart teams will leave some leeway to add payroll at the trade deadline, but I'm betting 20+ teams are within 3 - 4 M of the cap.

But uncle Bob told me that a cap does not act like a magnet!

Oh, I'm so confused now. :shakehead
 

Crazy_Ike

Cookin' with fire.
Mar 29, 2005
9,081
0
Timmy said:
Sadly, we are the uninformed masses, while you and a few others are the intelligent hockey analysts we have grown to love and admire...

LOL!

He's easily the most uninformed poster on the boards that I've ever seen. And we've had some doozies!

This is a great CBA for fans. No longer do we need to worry about a team pushing the 100 million barrier setting salary standards for the rest of the league trying to hold to a budget with some resemblance to actual hockey revenues. I think the ignorant Sens fans in this thread are actually closet Leafs fans out to destroy the competition from within.

:biglaugh:
 

SPARTAKUS*

Guest
Jobu said:
I guarantee all fans of all teams are going to be singing a different tune when all of their players are jumping ship even earlier than the Doug Weights of years past.

While a salary cap may make things more competitive, it surely isn't a fan's best friend in terms of player identity and all the rest.

And BTW, if you expect Edmonton or Pittsburgh to spend anywhere near $39m, well, sorry to be the bearer of bad news: not happening.

In other words, they are still not going to be very competitive in the FA market, at least not for top-notch talent.

Oh jobu, wake up dude!!!! Welcome to the new and improved NHL where all 30 teams has a chance to competite for UFA's.

:clap: :p:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->