Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Roster Building Thread II (2022-23): The Puck is Prepared to be Mounted

  • We're expecting server maintenance on March 3rd starting at midnight, there may be downtime during the work.
  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Machinehead said:
The players are far from suffering but we also shouldn't forget that there are several owners who are worth more than every single player in the NHL put together.

The scale of what owners take vs what players take, combined with the scale of what owners provide (nothing) with what players provide (the entire sport), makes it an extremely one-sided fight, even if one side are millionaires.

And for me, it makes it kind of stomach-turning when the people with everything enter every negotiation with the intention of grabbing every nickel and dime, and they've hurt the game with the intention of grabbing every nickel and dime.

The players rely on this to make it their entire lives. The owners were billionaires before they had NHL teams. They're not the same.
Click to expand...

Arent they getting a 50/50 split of revenues? Well before this whole escrow debacle?

The players signed up for it. They owners own the buildings, contracts etc. there is a reason why players dont own and run the league. They are not capable without having owners or people running it who again would be paid extremely well if that happened. And without the owners, there probably isnt a league. The owners need the players and the players need the owners.

Im not taking the owners side here, i just find it poor wording to make it sound like the players are suffering. They arent. The owners are POs’ in their own right and most if not all deserve to roast in the depths of hell.

The only people who could be seen as suffering are fans pockets, but that is remedied by not going to games and just watching on tv. Heck i even skip all the commercials bc i can never watch the game on time. Though the in game commercials bother the hell out of me. Also i cant stand all the gambling stuff, and i do like to play cards at casinos. But it is being pushed way too much across all sports now.

Machinehead said:
You also have to keep in mind that the average NHL salary is inflated by the top.

Guys like Panarin, Fox, Zibanejad, Kreider, etc. are RICH.

Jonny Brodzinski might make $3m (gross) playing hockey and then ride off into the sunset at 31 with no experience doing anything else.

It would be nice if a guy like that, say, didn't have to pay into escrow because James Dolan entitled himself to 50% of revenue.
Click to expand...
Thats very true and a good point. But many of these guys also get other jobs within the league, or other leagues too. Some truly do suffer. But so do normal people who never have the chance to make $3m in 5 or 10 years. So i just cant feel bad. I wish i had it as “bad” as them
 
GAGLine said:
If the cap doesn't go up by more than 1 mil next year, which teams are going to have the cap space to take his contract? Other teams, if they have interest, are going to want to dump players back on us. So he may be moveable, but the net effect will be that we clear something less than the full 3.6 mil. A buyout clears the full amount, plus a cap credit, for the next 2 years.

Sure, if we can find a team that is willing to take on the entire contract without sending cap back, by all means do it. But that's going to be a lot harder than you think.
Click to expand...
the bad teams looking for vet leadership... assuming they're not on his NTC
 
Machinehead said:
I don't know if revisionist history is fair.

Lots of people here hated the Goodrow contact day one and the Buchnevich trade was almost unanimously panned.
Click to expand...
I never defended the buch trade as if it were great, but i understood it based on the culture here, the cap, and the incoming talent. fast forward and blais was really playing well before the subban kick and he has never recovered from it, buch is still a beauty, the team put themselves in cap shit anyways, and the team did not ebrace the incoming young talent. sucks
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDirtyH, egelband and redwhiteandblue
Ruggs225 said:
Arent they getting a 50/50 split of revenues? Well before this whole escrow debacle?

The players signed up for it. They owners own the buildings, contracts etc. there is a reason why players dont own and run the league. They are not capable without having owners or people running it who again would be paid extremely well if that happened. And without the owners, there probably isnt a league. The owners need the players and the players need the owners.

Im not taking the owners side here, i just find it poor wording to make it sound like the players are suffering. They arent. The owners are POs’ in their own right and most if not all deserve to roast in the depths of hell.

The only people who could be seen as suffering are fans pockets, but that is remedied by not going to games and just watching on tv. Heck i even skip all the commercials bc i can never watch the game on time. Though the in game commercials bother the hell out of me. Also i cant stand all the gambling stuff, and i do like to play cards at casinos. But it is being pushed way too much across all sports now.


Thats very true and a good point. But many of these guys also get other jobs within the league, or other leagues too. Some truly do suffer. But so do normal people who never have the chance to make $3m in 5 or 10 years. So i just cant feel bad. I wish i had it as “bad” as them
Click to expand...
When I say everyone else suffers, there's different levels of suffering. Sure, I'd trade places with any of them. Except Evan Rodrigues. Imagine being that ugly.

We're suffering the most. The Rangers can't afford toilet paper to wipe their ass and the cap is going up a whole one million. You can't get one player with that.

We have to watch this shit.

Meanwhile, team valuations are soaring and the owners are doing absolutely peachy. They're going to milk this covid excuse until the next pandemic.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: bbny, egelband, UnSandvich and 2 others
Ruggs225 said:
Arent they getting a 50/50 split of revenues? Well before this whole escrow debacle?

The players signed up for it. They owners own the buildings, contracts etc. there is a reason why players dont own and run the league. They are not capable without having owners or people running it who again would be paid extremely well if that happened. And without the owners, there probably isnt a league. The owners need the players and the players need the owners.

Im not taking the owners side here, i just find it poor wording to make it sound like the players are suffering. They arent. The owners are POs’ in their own right and most if not all deserve to roast in the depths of hell.

The only people who could be seen as suffering are fans pockets, but that is remedied by not going to games and just watching on tv. Heck i even skip all the commercials bc i can never watch the game on time. Though the in game commercials bother the hell out of me. Also i cant stand all the gambling stuff, and i do like to play cards at casinos. But it is being pushed way too much across all sports now.


Thats very true and a good point. But many of these guys also get other jobs within the league, or other leagues too. Some truly do suffer. But so do normal people who never have the chance to make $3m in 5 or 10 years. So i just cant feel bad. I wish i had it as “bad” as them
Click to expand...
The split of 50/50 isn’t quite as even as it sounds.
The owners manipulate that number fairly egregiously and the players don’t get to audit it.

Using msg as an example.
Players don’t get a piece of parking revenue (those owned by msg’s subsidiaries), they don’t get anything from any of the ad money that the tv station gets, and because msg network owns the rangers they don’t need to pay the team any real numbers.
So assume the rangers tv deal is worth 50m a year, but msg pays the team 5m a year the players are losing 23 million. The devils and islanders likely have better deals but there’s no audit to determine if that’s true, and the owners are just passing money behind the players backs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband, MrAlmost, UnSandvich and 2 others
Ruggs225 said:
Thats very true and a good point. But many of these guys also get other jobs within the league, or other leagues too. Some truly do suffer. But so do normal people who never have the chance to make $3m in 5 or 10 years. So i just cant feel bad. I wish i had it as “bad” as them
Click to expand...

Boo f***ing hoo. And this is coming from someone (me) who tried their hand at becoming a professional athlete and sacrificed years before succumbing to a career ending injury. It’s a passion. It’s a choice. No crying over making that choice and not prepping for life after it - that’s on the athlete.
 
FWQ_Xg7WIAEDYUJ.jpg


Always relevant
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: TheRedressor, egelband, UnSandvich and 2 others
IDvsEGO said:
The split of 50/50 isn’t quite as even as it sounds.
The owners manipulate that number fairly egregiously and the players don’t get to audit it.

Using msg as an example.
Players don’t get a piece of parking revenue (those owned by msg’s subsidiaries), they don’t get anything from any of the ad money that the tv station gets, and because msg network owns the rangers they don’t need to pay the team any real numbers.
So assume the rangers tv deal is worth 50m a year, but msg pays the team 5m a year the players are losing 23 million. The devils and islanders likely have better deals but there’s no audit to determine if that’s true, and the owners are just passing
Click to expand...

While it is scummy, players have their own revenues that are directly tied to them being be in the NHL but arent counted either which are brand endorsements. They use their NHL platform to make alot of extra money. And im not saying they shouldnt (they absolutely should make that money) but it does go both ways. They bargain for what is counted as nhl revenue and im not sure if it is as simple as u make it out to be.

So it does go both ways though not nearly as fair.

I mean parking shoulsnt be counted if the team doesnt own the stadium or lot.

Tv rights are definitely a sore spot but are h sure about the ad money on tv contracts?

And not all teams own their own stations. Most teams actually dont.
 
jersey ads, digital ads, tv deal... barely any cap movement. the owners are swimming in it right now, and it hurts teams like us the most -- high locality taxes, young players (but not ELC young), legacy players on big deals, competitive.

the nhl will always be a bush league operation compared to the big 3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
Ruggs225 said:
No i just find it bizarre how people get upset at owners making money and think the players who are making a ton of money still are being treated unfairly. Its just really odd.

I personally could care less.

Though i wish the players and owners took 50% cuts so ticket prices and concessions could come down to reasonable levels.

So i guess in the end the fans pockets are suffering. But not the players.
Click to expand...
Speaking for myself, my issue has nothing to do with the players being treated unfairly...it's about a sport that has massive issues with the on-ice product yet the owners could give a shit to improve it. We're getting ads on helmets, jerseys, all over the ice, superimposed on the glass & now ads on that boards that literally take your eyes away from the puck as the play moves into the zone.

Yet the league has done nothing to address the massive officiating problem, the intentional game management, the horrible way it markets the sport, & least of all the way it deals with the NHLPA to find common ground. The CBA extension in 2020 was so short sighted....you can't tell me the owners couldn't see this coming from a mile away. It was just another opportunity for them to artificially keep salaries lower & they pounced. There is no rational way anyone can defend Bobby Holik making $9M in 2002, but Mika Zibanejad making less than that 20 years later other than intentional salary suppression. The hard cap isn't about "cost certainty" or competitive balance, it's about keeping player salaries lower, simple as that.

However, the biggest issue with this stagnant cap is good teams needing to do financial gymnastics to ice a team that's actually full of NHL players. Because of this cap, before we dumped Carpenter Reaves & Hunt, we had a roster with 6 4th liners. This is not an enjoyable product to watch & not a way to keep young fans interested.

There's no sane reason for not agreeing to spilt the cap projection for the following season, when the escrow is paid off, into 2 equal advances to allow teams to operate like major league franchises & not some beer league team that can't afford new uniforms. But somehow the league will tell us at the end of the season that the game has never been better.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: ArPanet, egelband, UnSandvich and 2 others
Hard to pass judgment without seeing the underlying numbers. The NHL added a lot of new revenue streams, but the players also owed the owners a ton of money from covid. Would the players be even further behind without the new revenue streams? Are the owners cooking the books? We don't have access to the underlying numbers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HatTrick Swayze, NYR Viper, duhmetreE and 1 other person
Why does everyone think more cap space will help a team with a lot of players to sign in the next couple years? Its pretty much guaranteed that means salaries go up with the increase, so outside of maybe Trouba's contract "looking" better as a percentage of the cap it's not likely gonna help us sign players. A team like Toronto who has most of their players already signed might gain from it, ofcourse there is Matthews, but with us needing to sign, Laf, Kakko, Chytil, Miller, etc i doubt it helps us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ruggs225
Ruggs225 said:
While it is scummy, players have their own revenues that are directly tied to them being be in the NHL but arent counted either which are brand endorsements. They use their NHL platform to make alot of extra money. And im not saying they shouldnt (they absolutely should make that money) but it does go both ways. They bargain for what is counted as nhl revenue and im not sure if it is as simple as u make it out to be.

So it does go both ways though not nearly as fair.

I mean parking shoulsnt be counted if the team doesnt own the stadium or lot.

Tv rights are definitely a sore spot but are h sure about the ad money on tv contracts?

And not all teams own their own stations. Most teams actually dont.
Click to expand...
Parking lots owned by a subsidiary of msg, mean msg gets the money in the end, and who’s revenue depends on the knicks/rangers, should be revenue.

And no they don’t get tv ad revenue money, the station pays a flat fee for the rights, and then gets the ad money to offset things.
That’s why the players don’t get a say on digital ads vs analog.
They may have had a say on jersey patches though because it’s clearly hrr.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ruggs225
Crease said:
Hard to pass judgment without seeing the underlying numbers. The NHL added a lot of new revenue streams, but the players also owed the owners a ton of money from covid. Would the players be even further behind without the new revenue streams? Are the owners cooking the books? We don't have access to the underlying numbers.
Click to expand...
Friedman made a good point on Marek’s show the other day: just look at the pre-cap salaries. Some of the top guys were making more then than the top guys now.

Lidstrom was at something like $10M before the cap. I still blame this all on the stupid f***ing TV deal Bettman agreed to with Versus. Brilliant idea to market your league on a channel nobody has that’s main draw is fishing and hunting. The ESPN deal was less money, but the visibility would’ve helped grow the sport so much faster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ruggs225, UnSandvich, Boris Zubov and 1 other person
Mac n Gs said:
Friedman made a good point on Marek’s show the other day: just look at the pre-cap salaries. Some of the top guys were making more then than the top guys now.

Lidstrom was at something like $10M before the cap. I still blame this all on the stupid f***ing TV deal Bettman agreed to with Versus. Brilliant idea to market your league on a channel nobody has that’s main draw is fishing and hunting. The ESPN deal was less money, but the visibility would’ve helped grow the sport so much faster.
Click to expand...
This is why the richer players were against the salary cap in 2005.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mac n Gs
Crease said:
Hard to pass judgment without seeing the underlying numbers. The NHL added a lot of new revenue streams, but the players also owed the owners a ton of money from covid. Would the players be even further behind without the new revenue streams? Are the owners cooking the books? We don't have access to the underlying numbers.
Click to expand...

I do agree with you, generally. It's hard to say from the outside without full access to the numbers.

What I do know is that COVID was a (hopefully) once in a lifetime "act of God". What I do know is the owners collectively possess billions of dollars worth of assets. What I do know is they surely could have access to a ton of capital based on this collateral at historically low interest rates.

I recognize COVID massively impacted revenue. I recognize the CBA governs that the players collective earnings are determined based on league revenue. But the NHL and NHLPA had to negotiate one-time CBA adjustments to return to play post-pandemic.

As part of this negotiation the owners COULD have agreed to pay player salaries, or even a portion of player salaries, for a set period of time regardless of HRR. They could have collectively borrowed the money to do that and paid it off over 10, 15, 20 years. Excluded it from current or future cap calculations, recognizing that the entire world was experiencing a calamity because they had the means to do so.

So that there wasn't still a massive operational overhang on the entire league years after returning to full capacity stadiums. So that it didn't impact the on-ice product. Hell, they could have sold jersey, board, and glass ads to me under the guise of repaying that debt and I would have been ok with it.

They didn't do that, they didn't even entertain it. They took advantage of the situation to line their own pockets at the expense of their customers via the on-ice product. To say the least that sits poorly with me as a paying customer.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: RagFinMet, UnSandvich and Boris Zubov
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom