2024-2025 Blues Trade Proposals Thread.

[Drubilly]

Or we can offer sheet one of Lou’s players for ol times sake….

 

[ChicagoBlues]

And there’s also bidding wars

Individual parcels are often individually different.

This may sound obtuse, but each homeowner is operating within a unique set of circumstances and the external pressures to sell matter.

Friend of mine here has had his house listed for over a year and has dropped the price by 100k and still no buyers. For him, a 100k incremental decrease is not that big of a deal because they are liquid and they’d still bring in some decent proceeds.

So, no pressure to sell. But with the shift to investment properties and investment firms gobbling up homes and paying cash it is most enticing for many homeowners who are under pressure.

As far as the Blues go, Maj1 is right, in that there are revenues, then expenses and finally profit, which is assuredly shared across the Taylor family.

To assess the financial health of the Org, we need to continue to consider ticket prices and how much of a full house is full price.

Many balls to juggle.

 

[Brian39]

I can't say how much the Blues make or lose on good or bad years for the ownership group. Honestly I wouldn't even know what to believe regarding that because sports team owners aren't exactly transparent with their financials, but I've always been highly skeptical of the messaging that the Blues can't stomach a heavy rebuild. The franchise was at close to a hypothetical worst case scenario being a hopeless basement team coming out of a full year league lockout with virtually no young players wearing the Note to get excited for. All while the team was still competing with an in market NFL team and a Cardinals team that had just won a world series. Not only did the franchise survive, but Stillman's group bought it just a few years after that complete mess. Now I'm supposed to believe the team can't survive another rebuild ever again? Even now that we have a more resilient fanbase with the cup? Even after the Rams left? Even after how much the franchise's value has risen since these owners bought it? I just don't buy that the overall franchise health would be at all jeopardized by a full rebuild. I also roll my eyes whenever anyone from the front office frames a rebuild as 5+ years of being in the basement. That's what a failed rebuild is, but that's the same outcome for always going for it when you shouldn't and falling. For every Buffalo or pre-McDavid Edmonton, there's also a Philadelphia or Calgary who just kept going for it with diminishing returns forever.

I'm not saying I want a rip-it-all-up rebuild, but the team would survive if we went that route. Everything we had to go through in the post-lockout years was worse than any kind of full rebuild we could go through now. And if anyone bought an NHL team thinking they would never have to withstand the team being bad enough to draft in the top 5 more then once within a few years, then they didn't look at the league before buying. Not saying it's impossible to win without drafting high, but the list of Cup winners, and even just the best regular season teams, speaks for itself.

tldr: I don't believe the owners about their dire finances. We could draft in the top 5 for 5 years straight and it would be fine.

Chicago missed the playoffs 5 years in a row and drafted in the top 7 for four straight years in the mid-2000s in their rebuild that resulted in 3 Cups in 6 years.

Pittsburgh missed the playoffs 4 years in a row and drafted top 5 for five straight years in their rebuild that resulted in 3 Cups and 4 Final trips in 10 years. They would have missed the playoffs 5 years in a row, but they lockout was sandwiched in their when they were terrible.

LA missed the playoffs 6 years in a row and drafted top 5 for three straight years in their rebuild that resulted in 2 Cups in 3 years.

It's definitely not just the failed rebuilds that result in long stays in the basement.

All that said, the last decade hasn't seen many teams rebuild from the basement to the Cup.

Let's look at the last 10 years of data on bottom 5 teams:

2014/15: Buffalo, Arizona, Edmonton, Toronto, Carolina

2015/16: Toronto, Edmonton, Vancouver, Columbus, Calgary

2016/17: Colorado, Vancouver, Arizona, New Jersey, Buffalo

2017/18: Buffalo, Ottawa, Arizona, Montreal, Detroit

2018/19: Ottawa, LA, New Jersey, Detroit, Buffalo

2019/20: Detroit, Ottawa, San Jose, LA, Anaheim

2020/21: Buffalo, Anaheim, New Jersey, Columbus, Detroit

2021/22: Montreal, Arizona, Seattle, Philly, New Jersey

2022/23: Anaheim, Columbus, Chicago, San Jose, Montreal

2023/24: San Jose, Chicago, Anaheim, Columbus, Montreal

That's 19 of 32 teams with at least one bottom 5 finish. Only one of those teams has turned it into a Cup. Edmonton and Montreal each got to a Cup Final. Carolina has built a great organization, although they so far haven't been able to win a game in the Conference Final.

And then you have a ton of perpetual basement dwelling and mediocrity. 7 teams on this list have 4+ finishes in the bottom 5 (Buffalo, Arizona, Montreal, Detroit, Columbus, Anaheim, and New Jersey). I see maybe 1 contender in there (and I have to squint a bit). Buffalo's playoff drought is 13 years. Detroit's is 8. Anaheim is at 6.

Another two teams have 3 visits to the bottom 5 (Ottawa and San Jose). Ottawa has missed the playoffs for 7 straight seasons. San Jose is only at 5 straight, but they aren't close to being a good team again.

There are way more teams getting stuck in the basement than there are teams that successfully rebuild out of the basement. My theory is that the McDavid/Eichel draft somewhat ruined tanking as a strategy. More teams are aggressively tanking, which means that the race to the bottom got more and more competitive. Teams have to dig the hole deeper than ever to reach the bottom, which means that the climb back up is longer than ever.

In the 8 full seasons between 2005/06 to 2013/14, there were only 7 instances of a team finishing below 65 points and just 4 instances of a team finishing below 60 points.

In the 8 full seasons from 2014/15 to 2023/24, there were 18 instances of a team finishing below 65 points and 11 instances of a team finishing below 60 points.

 

[Brian39]

I was going to mention this, but you beat me to it. I think if we had the TV deals that the NFL, MLB, and Euro football teams have, then doing a full tear down rebuild would be manageable from an ownership group perspective. The health of the game is much better than it was years prior, but that doesn't change the fact that we are still like the 4th most popular sport in the US. That does have an impact on the cap, profits, improvements to arenas, etc.

Not sure if this is true, but it looks like average revenue for an NHL franchise is 225 million. I'm not sure what the total operating cost is, but let's just say that's 60 million for the Blues. That's roughly 165 million in profits? What happens when you cut down attendance from 80% to 20%? Point is I agree with you and it seems like the Blues are trying to avoid a complete rebuild either for this reason or other reasons.

The annual salary of our current NHL roster is about $96M. That does not include the $2.5M+ we've already paid Saad, bonuses owed (or potentially already paid) to Suter, or the AHL payroll. The Blues will be paying $100M+ for hockey players this year.

Then you also have salaries for coaches, executives, scouts, accounting, marketing, medical staff, etc.

Then you have utilities, hockey gear, meals, workout equipment, rent/ice fees at Centene, etc.

Then you also foot the bill for road trips. Hotels, chartered flights, per diem, meals, etc.

You are wildly underestimating the operating cost of an NHL team.