Strachan: Fans just don't understand...like I do

Status
Not open for further replies.

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
transplant99 said:
They didn't just "get" Langkow. They had to give up two assets in exchange.

LA "got" Conroy for nothing more than money....money that Calgary couldn't aford to pay him. Thanks for proving the point.



Yes...and were forced to pay him a 270% wage increase!! Great deal huh?


Thanks for pointing out the obvious....player salaries were driving the team to extinction with the course they were on.

Someone missed the point. All I'm saying is it's ignorant to think the Flames would miss the playoffs, simply because they're a small-ish market team that made the finals last year. A previous poster thought Calgary must follow in the footsteps of Anaheim for that reason alone.

And what would you rather have, Kiprusoff at $3 million or Turek at $4.5 million? If Turek was still starting, he wouldn't have re-negotiated his contract, and the Flames would be much worse.

Could Calgary afford Conroy? Probably. Was that money better spent elsewhere? Absolutely.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
Crazy Lunatic said:
I didn't neglect the Lightning, they were mentioned in the list of Stanley Cup winners. One small market team in 11 years! Wow, thats just amazing! Tampa will have two choices, either pony up and have a payroll that makes even the big boys blush or dismantle and rebuild. Lecavalier, St.Louis and Richards (all 3 megastars)would have a combined salary of the entire 2004 Lighting payroll if the CBA doesnt change drastically.

New Jersey .. I don't have payroll for the first Cup in 1995, but the following year they were 9th out of 26 (6% above the league average). In 2000 they were 15th out of 30 (1% below league average). In 2003 they were 8th out of 30 (24% above league average). The following year the Devils cut payroll and were back to just 9% above league average.

Another question to you ... If you WIN the Stanley Cup, shouldn't you expect your payroll to rise ?? .... god knows that revenues will rise.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
Jobu said:
It's true. The majority of fans are misguided and uninformed. 90%+ probably don't know that it's a "lockout" and not a "strike," and that's one of the easiest issues to understand.

I agree, but it's not that fans are uninformed, they're misinformed and swallow everything that Bettman tells them word for word as being the absolute gospel truth. The NHL hired a PR firm to put a spin on the lockout. That right there should tell everyone something.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
transplant99 said:
They didn't just "get" Langkow. They had to give up two assets in exchange.

LA "got" Conroy for nothing more than money....money that Calgary couldn't aford to pay him. Thanks for proving the point.

So they couldn't afford Conroy's $3.15 million, but they could afford Langkow's $2.95 million ??? :help:
 

grego

Registered User
Jan 12, 2005
2,390
97
Saskatchewan
gc2005 said:
Someone missed the point. All I'm saying is it's ignorant to think the Flames would miss the playoffs, simply because they're a small-ish market team that made the finals last year. A previous poster thought Calgary must follow in the footsteps of Anaheim for that reason alone.

And what would you rather have, Kiprusoff at $3 million or Turek at $4.5 million? If Turek was still starting, he wouldn't have re-negotiated his contract, and the Flames would be much worse.

Could Calgary afford Conroy? Probably. Was that money better spent elsewhere? Absolutely.

I won't say the Flames definately will miss the playoffs. But if there was a season there were about 50 50 odds they would miss roughly. After all they are a team that fits in the category of a 6 to 10 th place team in the West. Which isn't a total insult since there are a few good teams in that category.
 

gerbilanium

Registered User
Oct 17, 2003
274
0
John Flyers Fan said:
So they couldn't afford Conroy's $3.15 million, but they could afford Langkow's $2.95 million ??? :help:

Then subtract Gauthier at $1.6 million and saprykin at $1.2 million. Pretty close
 

transplant99

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
549
0
Visit site
John Flyers Fan said:
So they couldn't afford Conroy's $3.15 million, but they could afford Langkow's $2.95 million ??? :help:


Uh...yes they could...after they dropped Gauthiers 1.6 million and Saprykins 1.2 million.


What part of that arent you grasping?
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
gc2005 said:
I agree, but it's not that fans are uninformed, they're misinformed and swallow everything that Bettman tells them word for word as being the absolute gospel truth. The NHL hired a PR firm to put a spin on the lockout. That right there should tell everyone something.

We should all know that revenues for the league are flat.

We should all know that the previous CBA with its arbitration system and the way the NHLPA colluded to increase salaries was inflationary.

Didn't need a PR firm to tell me that, actually it was Keith Primeau who told us about the collusion.
 

grego

Registered User
Jan 12, 2005
2,390
97
Saskatchewan
From Strachan:
The agents don't understand it. They're complaining that the rollbacks offered by the NHL Players' Association will have a major negative impact on their salaries.

Because they live off commission, their incomes will be cut by 24% off the top. But furthermore, the removal of the pressure points that cause inflation has some of them hopping mad.

Ever since the NHLPA offer was presented, they've been trying to devise ways to quickly ratchet up the salaries if and when the league comes back. And they can't do it.

And the players, the most important segment of the hockey community, don't understand it either.

They made an offer they believed was workable, in many cases at considerable personal cost. They chopped a minimum of 24% off their salaries. But the league won't take it.

End Strachan

Is this guy schizo. He talks about how the agents freaked about 24% decrease, and that they were all thinking about how to get the salaries inflated again. Then right after he says players thought the deal was workable, and he makes a whole "point" about how the NHL owners didn't get all ready to jump at that roll back as some big deal.

The NHL owners knew agents would drive the price right up they aren't totally stupid. That is why the lockout hasn't ended with that terrible proposal the owners gave them.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
transplant99 said:
Uh...yes they could...after they dropped Gauthiers 1.6 million and Saprykins 1.2 million.


What part of that arent you grasping?

They could have traded Gauthiers and Saprykin for anything ??? ... wouldn't have been too difficult to move them for draft pics.

Sutter made a decision that he'd rather have Langkow than Conroy, a 2nd and a 5th (approx. value of Gauthiers & Saprykin).
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Jobu said:
It's true. The majority of fans are misguided and uninformed. 90%+ probably don't know that it's a "lockout" and not a "strike," and that's one of the easiest issues to understand.

Please provide proof of this fact or would you prefer us to file it under "the usual Jobu BS."
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
transplant99 said:
Uh...yes they could...after they dropped Gauthiers 1.6 million and Saprykins 1.2 million.


What part of that arent you grasping?

All about money, right? Every team would be better just by throwing more money at older players who aren't worth it? Calgary ditched Gauthier more to make room for Phaneuf than cash issues.

Montreal did the same thing with Quintal. Veteran d-man, wasn't worth his salary, didn't need him because they had Komisarek, so LA picked up Quintal. Oh no, the sky is falling, Montreal must be a small market team, they have no hope since they can't afford their stellar players, blah blah blah.

Hockey teams do make decisions for hockey reasons too. Smart teams replace older guys with younger cheaper guys, especially when the older ones are no longer worth their pay cheque. If Calgary stumbled across $1.6 million under a tree they still wouldn't have kept Gauthier.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
gc2005 said:
Failed to notice they'd have Kiprusoff for the whole season?
Failed to notice recently how goalies' games have dropped off the season after signing a big contract? e.g. Theodore, Nabokov, Giguere
 

oil slick

Registered User
Feb 6, 2004
7,593
0
Thunderstruck said:
Please provide proof of this fact or would you prefer us to file it under "the usual Jobu BS."

I've got to say I take offence to some of the rhetoric leveled at times. Argue my points, but I find there is way too much of the "the other side is dumb and doesn't understand" junk. I'm sure there are people who don't know it's a lockout, but myself, I'm perfectly cognicent of that fact, and am still pro-owner.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Thunderstruck said:
Please provide proof of this fact or would you prefer us to file it under "the usual Jobu BS."

I think it's a fair comment. After all, the IOC President doesn't know any better, and neither do dozens of posters on this board. It's not a leap to suggest that the laymen and those who don't even frequent this board are even more ignorant.

If you want to give more credit to Joe Fan than me, fine, but go ask 100 people about the "NHL strike" and I bet less than 10 will correct you or even perceive the difference.

The extent of most fans' knowledge is that the owners want a salary cap/linkage and the players don't. And because many of these people are jealous of hockey players because they play a "game" and are way more successful financially, they blindly side with owners.

Anecdotally, this has been my experience, and based on commentary on this board and elsewhere, I have no problem expressing it.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
All about money, right? Every team would be better just by throwing more money at older players who aren't worth it? Calgary ditched Gauthier more to make room for Phaneuf than cash issues.

The talent thin Flames forward ranks were further depleted of their #1 C to make room for a rookie Dman and cost the Flames TWO assets in the process.

It all makes perfect sense once a PA apologist shows us the light. Good thing the posters here are able to avail themselves of the pearls of wisdom from the PA spin doctors, otherwise they might remain part of the ignorant majority.
 

transplant99

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
549
0
Visit site
They could have traded Gauthiers and Saprykin for anything ??? ... wouldn't have been too difficult to move them for draft pics.

Conroy left...for more money. Thats just a fact.

So they then had to trade two assets for one, to replace Conroy. (Note, i was calling for Gauthier to be gone 3 years ago)

Im not saying it was a bad "hockey" trade per se, but it was forced by economics.


So now they have lost Conroy, Gauthier, Saprykin from last year, and gotten Langkow in return and Kiprusoff at a 270% wage increase. Great deal eh?

Add to that now, Iginla still is unsigned and looking square at 8+ million a year (if he so chooses to ask for "market" price) and what have you got?

3 players taking up at least 14 Million dollars of salary on a team that cant afford more than 36 a year. 22 Million to pay 20 other guys.

Yeah...no need to cap salaries at that pace. :eek:
 

The Maltais Falcon

Registered User
Jan 9, 2005
1,156
1
Atlanta, GA
Jobu said:
I think it's a fair comment. After all, the IOC President doesn't know any better, and neither do dozens of posters on this board. It's not a leap to suggest that the laymen and those who don't even frequent this board are even more ignorant.

If you want to give more credit to Joe Fan than me, fine, but go ask 100 people about the "NHL strike" and I bet less than 10 will correct you or even perceive the difference.
So the statistic you pulled out of thin air might be achievable if you were to frame the question in a way that tries to catch the person being asked off guard? I'm glad you're here to keep the level of debate high and spin-free. I know I can get nothing but the facts from good ol' Jobu.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Jobu said:
I think it's a fair comment. After all, the IOC President doesn't know any better, and neither do dozens of posters on this board. It's not a leap to suggest that the laymen and those who don't even frequent this board are even more ignorant.

If you want to give more credit to Joe Fan than me, fine, but go ask 100 people about the "NHL strike" and I bet less than 10 will correct you or even perceive the difference.
Most wouldn't correct you based on politeness, just like many here prefer to leave your BS unchallenged. To suggest that 90% don't know this is a lockout, not a strike, tells far more about your level of arrogance than the reality of the situation.

The extent of most fans' knowledge is that the owners want a salary cap/linkage and the players don't. And because many of these people are jealous of hockey players because they play a "game" and are way more successful financially, they blindly side with owners.
Yes, fans are so insanely jealous of the player's wealth that they side with the owners, who just happen to make the players look like paupers.

The fans side with the owners because their solution to the NHL's problems provides the best chance for a healthy and competitive league and feel little sympathy for the players who would still be handsomely paid in a capped league.

Anecdotally, this has been my experience, and based on commentary on this board and elsewhere, I have no problem expressing it.
Rough translation--I have no evidence and am simply giving vent to my frustration and arrogance.
 

Dazed and Concussed

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
112
0
Sherwood Park, Alberta
Visit site
Jobu said:
It's true. The majority of fans are misguided and uninformed. 90%+ probably don't know that it's a "lockout" and not a "strike," and that's one of the easiest issues to understand.

Please don't use your own assumptions about fans being misguided and uninformed to argue you case. I have seen you use your own fabricated statistics (90% +) on several occassions. Until you can somehow prove your fabricated statistics are correct, please stop using them. The percentages you quote are nothing more then pure speculation on your part.

Another assumption you make is that people are not perhaps just using the incorrect term. I have heard the use of the term "strike" used (incorrectly) by people that are fully aware that the owners locked out the players. The term "strike" is used by some people to describe any work stoppage.
 
Feb 28, 2002
10,922
0
Abbotsford, BC
Visit site
Crazy Lunatic said:
Had your head in the sand when they lost Conroy to the Kings for a big fat American paycheck? I'm sure Calgary will be just as good without him though and I'm sure Calgary would have bucked the trend of one hit wonders like Florida and Anaheim being exposed the year after they had playodff success. Calgary couldn't even keep the core of their team together for a single year, much less 3 or 4. Welcome to the world of a small market NHL team in 2004-2005. But I guess small things like that don't matter.

Had you head in the sand when they traded for Langkow who is slated to make 3 million a season? I don't think Conroy signed for more than 2.5 mil.

Calgary got better on paper, but chemistry on the ice, that was their strength.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
The Maltais Falcon said:
So the statistic you pulled out of thin air might be achievable if you were to frame the question in a way that tries to catch the person being asked off guard? I'm glad you're here to keep the level of debate high and spin-free. I know I can get nothing but the facts from good ol' Jobu.

Where did I claim the statistic was one of fact? Didn't I say 90%+ probably don't know the difference? I'm not sure how you can argue with that assertion, but either way I never cited any sort of poll.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
The term "strike" is used by some people to describe any work stoppage.

Wrongly. Calling a "lockout" a "strike" is like calling a car a horse. It is a misconception that inherently connotes misunderstanding.
 
Last edited:
Feb 28, 2002
10,922
0
Abbotsford, BC
Visit site
transplant99 said:
They didn't just "get" Langkow. They had to give up two assets in exchange.

LA "got" Conroy for nothing more than money....money that Calgary couldn't aford to pay him. Thanks for proving the point.



Yes...and were forced to pay him a 270% wage increase!! Great deal huh?


Thanks for pointing out the obvious....player salaries were driving the team to extinction with the course they were on.

Saprykin is not an asset that cannot be replaced easily.

Look the Flames have shown over the last 4 years they willl spend the money if it means they are getting someone they feel will help and will fit their budget.

The only salary that is really jurting them is Iginla's @ 7 million.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
transplant99 said:
Conroy left...for more money. Thats just a fact.

So they then had to trade two assets for one, to replace Conroy. (Note, i was calling for Gauthier to be gone 3 years ago)

Im not saying it was a bad "hockey" trade per se, but it was forced by economics.

So now they have lost Conroy, Gauthier, Saprykin from last year, and gotten Langkow in return and Kiprusoff at a 270% wage increase. Great deal eh?

Are the Flames better off with Langkow & Phaneuf or Conroy, Gauthier and Saprykin ???

Kipper is 28 years old .. under the NHL proposal he would have been an unrestricted free agent this past summer, and the Flames could have lost him for nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->