Yashin vs Weight

[Isles72]

1) OTT was lucky to be dealing with Mad Mike Milbury, who was desperate to turn his team around in a big hurry. Add in that the Isles had more better young assets than the Blues, and it's it's advantage OTT.
2) OTT was lucky that their prospect (Chara) developed, whereas Hecht struggled in EDM.
3) At the time of the deal, Yashin was 3 years further away from UFA status.
4) Doug Weight said he would only consider signing a contract extension before testing with UFA waters with STL or DET. This SEVERELY limited the return for DW as the acquiring team knew he would be a rental.
5) Yashin is a better goalscorer. He was a proven 40g, 40a man in OTT, and was just entering his prime.

thats pretty much what I was gonna add .

Milbury's hands had been tied behind a chair for most of his tenure .Yashin , Peca , two disgruntled players with their respective squads and a green light from isles new owner Wang to increase payroll to prove to the fans he means business was the recipe .

You cant really argue the results .Isles have made the playoffs (without as much success as isles fans would like)every year since the bold moves were made .

what were they supposed to do ?
draft Spezza and wait another 4 , 5 years to rebuild around him ?
Isles fans waited long enough

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

I think this is a good point. No matter what, Doug Weight was only the property of the Edmonton Oilers for another year anyway. Period. End of story. He became an unrestricted free agent, an independent contractor. All of the best Oiler players will get this at some point in their careers. The only way they stay is if the Oilers are winning.

For the first time in his career, Weight would get to choose where he played. For the first time in his career, he would get to field offers from different teams. Maybe he could go to a team with a chance to win a Cup. There is zero chance he would sign with the Oilers under any circumstances. No matter what they offered, Weight's agent would correctly figure there was at least one team in the NHL who would be willing to pay a lot more.
Tom

i think you over-estimate hockey players loyalty to a team. even if the oilers won the cup that year, you think weight will pass up a chance to grab a huge contract (something like the $40M for 5 years he got from the blues? not sure of the exact figure but you get the idea) as a UFA or stick with the cup winner for $5M per? look at holik, he won 2 cups with the devils and was part of one of the most dominating team in the last 10 years, when he become a UFA what does he do? stay with the elite team or sign with the highest bidder? how about conroy this summer? how about mogilny 2 years ago?

 

[copperandblue]

maybe this is what i am getting at, every time you point out how hard done by EDM is, the fans say look what we have. so how can you take those same fans seriously when they complain how the system cheats them ?

The frustration isn't so much with the trades that are made - when talking value for value.

The frustration is about that fact that it is always an "either/or" situation with money dictating the ultimate direction (this goes well beyond Edmonton).

I think most fans - meaning fans of the 20 teams that see finances dictate the direction of the team - simply want the personell decisions to be hockey decisions...not financial decisions.

Most probably don't care if there is an "either/or" decision as long as there can also be an "and" decision when it is needed.

That said, I think most realize that time has past long ago and finances will always likely be an underlying influence for teams as they move forward. Which brings us to the issue of payroll parity (wether you subscribe to a cap, luxury tax, revenue sharing ....what ever).

If 60% of the league is hampered significantly more by spending restraints, then I think most owner supporters feel that they simply want the other 30% of teams to have to deal under the same - or similar conditions. The talk of competetive balance isn't as much what we see on the ice as it is what we see off it - how the teams are built.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I think most fans - meaning fans of the 20 teams that see finances dictate the direction of the team - simply want the personell decisions to be hockey decisions...not financial decisions.

but this was a hockey decision, wasnt it ? Weight had earned the right to UFA status and no CBA was going to change that. EDM would have had to make the decision to trade him for something or lose him for nothing under any CBA.

DR

 

[copperandblue]

but this was a hockey decision, wasnt it ? Weight had earned the right to UFA status and no CBA was going to change that. EDM would have had to make the decision to trade him for something or lose him for nothing under any CBA.

DR

You tell me if it was a hockey decision.

It's been debated to death I don't really care to do it again for this specific case.

That said, there are teams out there that either can or choose too (for the ones that simply can - I say good on them but the ones that choose to irregardless of losses are the big problem - including St Louis who ultimately took Weight) sign their guys regardless of pending free agency.

If Edmonton would have had a realistic shot of signing him beyond 31 then I think it is realistic to assume they would have.

You can debate the merits of wether it would have been a good decision or not and different people can come to different conclusions but it doesn't change the underlying point.

Look at Calgary and the Conroy situation. They basically traded Gauthier and Saprykin for Langkow and the ability to let him walk away. Good hockey move? Some say yes, some say that in an ideal world they keep Conroy and use the Gauthier and Saprykin as bait for a different need....

 

[I in the Eye]

my personal take on parity is that the goal should not be to allow every team to compete every year, but to make sure that all teams have the ability to, at some point, be dominant.
A poster mentioned previously that the natural cycle of teams is to: be bad and get high draft picks, get better and get middle picks, get good and get lower picks, then decline as players age. Good drafting and mangement can sustaine a team's stay at the top but eventually teams have to rebuild from the bottom up to re-begin the process.

The problem arises when teams picking at the top of the draft can't keep they're developing teams intact and that talent flows to the teams already on top. This distrupts the natural cycle and disenfranchises alot of fans. The current system, unfourtunatly, allows this to happen. Having a 'cinderrella' season is not the goal of franchises, sustained years of playoff runs and cup contention is. As fun as it is to be cinderella nobody wants to go home when the clock strikes midnight.

A hard cap would also discourage teams from maintaining prolonged success by creating an artifical ceiling for how good a team can be. If you've got a set limit of money you can spend to keep together a great team chances are it's not gonna happen, one need only look at the NFL to see how hard it is to maintain a high level team (yes i know the patriots have had success over the last few years, but they seem to be the only team that can do it.)

This is why i support implimenting an NBA style soft cap that would encourage teams to hold on to they're young talent and sustaine quality teams over an extended period of time. A soft cap would encourage teams to sign they're own players and make it harder for financially powerful teams to pick off talented young players from poorer teams.

This system should also be acompanied by some sort of revenue sharing system, not nessisarily one as extensive as the NFL's, but some kind of system will be needed to insure that smaller teams have a reasonable amount of capital to resign they're own players (coupled of course with the drag on saleries created by the cap itself.)

I think that an NBA type system would ensure a healthier, more comptitive league, and I'm suprised that i havn't seen it being discussed more often as a viable alternative to the two options (hard cap/tax) currently being pushed by the NHL and NHLPA.

any thoughts?

My thought is that I agree... and I would raise the drafting age to 20 - so that the bad teams have a better chance to draft the best players... The bad teams should have youngest, cheapest, yet most promising talent...

 

[The Gabe Blade]

Milbury has been a disease to the Isles and the NHL.

He trades Palffy and Brian Smolinski to the Kings for Ollie Jokinen, and some scubs.

Then trades Ollie to Florida for nothing (pretty much).

Trades Spezza and Chara to Ottawa for Yashin, and then gives the guy a 10 year contract. Contracts like that one, Jagr's, and Guerin have created the state that we are in, in the NHL.

Instead of being responsible and building from within like a true franchise, he buys players and gives away the future. How much better would the Isles be today, just a couple years after the trades if they had Ollie and Spezza up the middle, and Chara on defense.

Yashin is a good player, but to me he isnt a guy that I want on my team since he sat out a season.

 

[I in the Eye]

Milbury has been a disease to the Isles and the NHL.

He trades Palffy and Brian Smolinski to the Kings for Ollie Jokinen, and some scubs.

Then trades Ollie to Florida for nothing (pretty much).

Trades Spezza and Chara to Ottawa for Yashin, and then gives the guy a 10 year contract. Contracts like that one, Jagr's, and Guerin have created the state that we are in, in the NHL.

Instead of being responsible and building from within like a true franchise, he buys players and gives away the future. How much better would the Isles be today, just a couple years after the trades if they had Ollie and Spezza up the middle, and Chara on defense.

Not to mention trading Luongo, and then drafting Dipietro instead of Heatley or Gaborik... I thought it was a dumb move then... and I still think it's a dumb move now...

If the Isles kept their young 'core', IMO, they'd be one of the next elite teams... The could conserve money in the cheap, growing years (going the young core route)... and then likely afford to pay the majority of the contracts as the team gets older and has playoff success...

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

i think you over-estimate hockey players loyalty to a team. even if the oilers won the cup that year, you think weight will pass up a chance to grab a huge contract (something like the $40M for 5 years he got from the blues? not sure of the exact figure but you get the idea) as a UFA or stick with the cup winner for $5M per?

No. I think Edmonton would have considered paying him if he was leading them to Stanley Cups, just like Colorado decided to keep Sakic and Ottawa decided to keep Alfredsson.

The Oiler fan position is that Edmonton is maxed out on revenues and they have been priced out of the league. That no matter what they could not keep Weight. I think that if they had drafted four or five players 1995-1998, they are much better, they generate more revenues and they would decide - like Ottawa did - to keep their captain. Or at least try to keep their captain by making a competitive offer.

If Oiler fans are correct, Edmonton is not an NHL market. Nothing can save them, and nothing should save them. If I'm correct, Edmonton has nothing to complain about with this CBA.

Tom

 

[copperandblue]

If Oiler fans are correct, Edmonton is not an NHL market. Nothing can save them, and nothing should save them. If I'm correct, Edmonton has nothing to complain about with this CBA.

Maybe this is a fair statement.

I know I have asked before without getting an answer so I will ask again.

Where is the cut off?

If Edmonton isn't an NHL market then clearly there are 10-12-15 teams that also aren't NHL markets. Is edmonton the benchmark or is the benchmark higher and Edmonton simply falls under it?

What do you picture for a Tom Benjamin NHL?

 

[The Gabe Blade]

Not to mention trading Luongo, and then drafting Dipietro instead of Heatley or Gaborik... I thought it was a dumb move then... and I still think it's a dumb move now...

I am not a Isles fan so I didnt even realize that one had taken place.

Can you imagine the Isles today with Luongo in net, Ollie, Spezza, Heatley, and the others up front.........Can you imagine Heatley and Spezza together on a line in a couple years? They would make the Naslund/Morrison/Tuzzi line look like AHL'ers lol

Oh snap, what a team.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

If Edmonton isn't an NHL market then clearly there are 10-12-15 teams that also aren't NHL markets. Is edmonton the benchmark or is the benchmark higher and Edmonton simply falls under it?

What do you picture for a Tom Benjamin NHL?

I expect all 30 markets would do fine. I haven't seen anyone break up a team that I considered to have even a remote chance of winning. Pittsburgh needs a new rink or they are gone. Carolina and Anaheim have to start selling tickets or they are gone. Everbody else can generate Colorado revenues with a winner.

I have no idea where you get this 10 to 12 to 15 teams.

Tom

 

[copperandblue]

I expect all 30 markets would do fine. I haven't seen anyone break up a team that I considered to have even a remote chance of winning. Pittsburgh needs a new rink or they are gone. Carolina and Anaheim have to start selling tickets or they are gone. Everbody else can generate Colorado revenues with a winner.

I have no idea where you get this 10 to 12 to 15 teams.

You said that if Edmonton is maxed out on revenue then they aren't an NHL market.

What if I suggested that without a good TV deal, they are every close to being maxed out?

Obviously that would mean that Edmonton isn't an NHL market in your mind.

Fine, I can accept your opinion...but I ask, if Edmonton is doing the best it can and still isn't an NHL market then who else isn't an NHL market. I would suggest that there are 10-12-15 teams - maybe more that are in worse shape than Edmonton so I want to know where the cut off is....

Or are you just throwing those types of comments out to hammer home your tired personal opinion that Edmonton - specifically - shouldn't be in Tom Benjamin's NHL?

As for Colorado's revenues, yes they do quite well but they also gamble their possible profits against possible losses depending on how they fair in the playoffs. That's not sound business imo and I don't think most teams have the willingness or ability to operate as such.

 

[I in the Eye]

I am not a Isles fan so I didnt even realize that one had taken place.

Can you imagine the Isles today with Luongo in net, Ollie, Spezza, Heatley, and the others up front.........Can you imagine Heatley and Spezza together on a line in a couple years? They would make the Naslund/Morrison/Tuzzi line look like AHL'ers lol

Oh snap, what a team.

I believe that Ollie was a part of the Luongo deal (could be wrong)... and who knows how things would have played out with the butterfly effect... But...

Luongo would be the goalie... and assuming that the Isles drafted Heatley (who was one of the projected top 3), then IMO, these two are the beginning of the young core... Then, you play the young players... Sure, you suck, but costs are kept down... and you get a high draft choice the following year - the top two choices following the Heatley draft were Kovalchuk and Spezza... If you are astute and lucky enough to pick one of them, your young core is now Luongo, Heatley, Spezza...

Then, you play the young players... Sure, you suck, but costs are kept down... and you get a high draft choice the following year - the top three choices following the Spezza draft were Rick Nash, Lehtonen, and Bouwmeester... If you are astute and lucky enough to pick one of them, your young core is now Luongo, Heatley, Spezza, and Bouwmeester...

Then, you play the young players... Sure, you suck, but costs are kept down... and you get a high draft choice the following year... etc...

IMO, raise the draft age to 20... make the draft far less of a gamble, and thus, make it much more attractive for the bad teams to hold on to their top picks... and PLAY THEM... allow them to develop chemistry... allow them to learn to win and lose together... give them experience playing as a team...

The 'growing years' are tough, but they are much more inexpensive, and assuming that you've assembled a quality young core (say a 5-year plan), then the struggles won't last forever...

If after 5 years your team doesn't experience significant improvement, then IMO, it's time to dismantle some of your aging core pieces and try again - building around young, promising players... Not over-the-hill, expensive players...

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

What if I suggested that without a good TV deal, they are every close to being maxed out?

I say you are wrong. They don't have any playoff revenues! Ticket prices are low. They are not selling out. Do you honestly believe Oiler fans will pay the same for a loser as they will for a winner? If the local movie theatre shows a good movie in Edmonton do they draw more people than if they show a lousy one? Like Calgary didn't do much better on the revenue side last year?

With a mediocre team, the Oilers generate mediocre revenues. With a really good team, revenues will stay mediocre? I do not believe it.

I can't see how anyone could believe it. It defies common sense. Has there ever been a sports franchise that generated the same money as a winner as they did as a loser?

Tom

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

I say you are wrong. They don't have any playoff revenues! Ticket prices are low. They are not selling out. Do you honestly believe Oiler fans will pay the same for a loser as they will for a winner? If the local movie theatre shows a good movie in Edmonton do they draw more people than if they show a lousy one? Like Calgary didn't do much better on the revenue side last year?

With a mediocre team, the Oilers generate mediocre revenues. With a really good team, revenues will stay mediocre? I do not believe it.

I can't see how anyone could believe it. It defies common sense. Has there ever been a sports franchise that generated the same money as a winner as they did as a loser?

Tom

Isn't Edmonton at something approaching 95% attendance?

I think that you have to look at the local demographics to suggest that more winning means that more can be charged for tickets. If that's the case, the Oiler's dynasty would never have been dismantled.

By demographics I mean what is the earning power of your fans. In "big market towns" there is a much higher percentage of major corporate ownership that can bear MUCH, MUCH higher ticket prices. In addition, these cities tend to have a larger population of very affluent people that can afford the more expensive tickets. In these types of enviroments, your theory is probably valid.

However, when you have a "traditional" hockey market (more blue collar in nature), there is a point where they can't afford to pay more for tickets even if the team is winning.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Isn't Edmonton at something approaching 95% attendance?

I think that you have to look at the local demographics to suggest that more winning means that more can be charged for tickets. If that's the case, the Oiler's dynasty would never have been dismantled.

By demographics I mean what is the earning power of your fans. In "big market towns" there is a much higher percentage of major corporate ownership that can bear MUCH, MUCH higher ticket prices. In addition, these cities tend to have a larger population of very affluent people that can afford the more expensive tickets. In these types of enviroments, your theory is probably valid.

However, when you have a "traditional" hockey market (more blue collar in nature), there is a point where they can't afford to pay more for tickets even if the team is winning.

the corridor between Calgary and Edmonton (and including those two cities) is amongst the wealthiest in North America on a per capita basis.

There is lots of money in Edmonton.

DR

 

[EJsens1]

Has there ever been a sports franchise that generated the same money as a winner as they did as a loser?

The Leafs???

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

However, when you have a "traditional" hockey market (more blue collar in nature), there is a point where they can't afford to pay more for tickets even if the team is winning.

And? Blue collar people can't afford lots of other things in life either.

 

[Isles72]

It was jokinen,luongo for kvasha,parrish

I've since ''gotten over it''

 

[copperandblue]

I say you are wrong. They don't have any playoff revenues! Ticket prices are low. They are not selling out. Do you honestly believe Oiler fans will pay the same for a loser as they will for a winner? If the local movie theatre shows a good movie in Edmonton do they draw more people than if they show a lousy one? Like Calgary didn't do much better on the revenue side last year?

With a mediocre team, the Oilers generate mediocre revenues. With a really good team, revenues will stay mediocre? I do not believe it.

I can't see how anyone could believe it. It defies common sense. Has there ever been a sports franchise that generated the same money as a winner as they did as a loser?

Tom

But your not answering the question.

Time and again I see you throw it out for all to see that Edmonton isn't a NHL market.

I am just asking what the cut off is in your mind.

Debating Ticket prices or business strategies or wether or not playoff revenues should be planned for and passed back to the players is all seperate.

.... I'll leave it alone, you haven't answered the question in the past and I guess I don't really expect you to answer it now and chalk it up to you attempt to bait the masses once again....

 

[The Gabe Blade]

It was jokinen,luongo for kvasha,parrish

I've since ''gotten over it''

LOL

Wouldnt you rather have Jokinen, Heatley and Luongo?

 

[I in the Eye]

Isn't Edmonton at something approaching 95% attendance?

I think that you have to look at the local demographics to suggest that more winning means that more can be charged for tickets. If that's the case, the Oiler's dynasty would never have been dismantled.

By demographics I mean what is the earning power of your fans. In "big market towns" there is a much higher percentage of major corporate ownership that can bear MUCH, MUCH higher ticket prices. In addition, these cities tend to have a larger population of very affluent people that can afford the more expensive tickets. In these types of enviroments, your theory is probably valid.

However, when you have a "traditional" hockey market (more blue collar in nature), there is a point where they can't afford to pay more for tickets even if the team is winning.

IMO, when you're winning and ticket prices are at a premium, it's up to the marketing department to be creative in offering more solutions (regardless of the market)...

When Edmonton sucks, ticket prices are low, and perhaps the average EDM fan ticket buyer can afford to buy a 10-game ticket pack (costing, say $300 in the cheap seats)... When Edmonton is a consistent contender, ticket prices are high, and perhaps the average EDM fan ticket buyer can afford to buy a 5-game ticket pack (costing, say $300 in the cheap seats)... If EDM has so much success that it costs $150 per ticket, then it's up to the marketing dept. to develop a 2-game ticket pack (costing, $300 in the cheap seats)...

IMO, Edmonton has not nearly maxed out their revenue potential... I'm all for making life easier for Edmonton, but IMO, the 'maxed out revenue problem' in Edmonton is a myth... Edmonton allegedly has attendance approaching 95% capacity every night... As of right now, the poor people of Edmonton can afford to pay and see a single game (as they've proven through having near capacity every night)... If EDM had high ticket prices and low attendance every night with 1-game packs, THEN there would be a 'maxed out ticket price revenue concern'...

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Isn't Edmonton at something approaching 95% attendance?

So what? It is not 100% and prices are among the lowest in the league.

I think that you have to look at the local demographics to suggest that more winning means that more can be charged for tickets. If that's the case, the Oiler's dynasty would never have been dismantled.

All dynasties are dismantled. This position is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Oiler fans will pay the same amount and Oiler revenues will be the same whether they have a Colorado Avalanche quality team or not? In other words, the fans don't care about the team quality. It's silly. If the Oilers were as good as the Senators or the Canucks, fans would be beating down the doors.

They would generate the same kind of excitement Calgary generated last season. I wonder how the Flames did on merchandising during the run. I wonder how many extra season tickets they would have sold this year if there had been no lockout.

With a mediocre team, the Canucks have to market like crazy to generate mediocre revenues. With a good team, fans throw money at Orca Bay. With a mediocre team, all anyone talks about is brutal ticket prices. With a good team, fans pay $100 to get on a waiting list for season tickets.

Edmonton fans are different? Do you have any evidence that this is so?

By demographics I mean what is the earning power of your fans. In "big market towns" there is a much higher percentage of major corporate ownership that can bear MUCH, MUCH higher ticket prices.

Isn't Edmonton oil country? But welcome to Gary Bettman's NHL. If a city can't draw corporate sponsorship dollars, the team can't survive. "Blue collar" disappeared a long time ago in big time sports.

In fact, corporate sponsorship money goes way up with a winner, too. When the team is bad in Vancouver, the Canuck logo is hardly ever seen. When the team is good, the grocery stores have life sized Markus Naslund posters.

Tom

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

But your not answering the question.

Time and again I see you throw it out for all to see that Edmonton isn't a NHL market.

I am just asking what the cut off is in your mind.

What answer are you looking for? I think Edmonton is an NHL market. If I am wrong about revenues improving with a winner, then I am proved wrong, and Edmonton is not an NHL market.

If you are right and Oiler revenues max out at $80 million Canadian, they belong in the AHL. They have to be able to generate, say, another $25 million with a winner.

Your choice.

Tom