Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part LV

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
Beer League Sniper said:
Honestly, a lot of these teams just have stadiums in the wrong part of town. Look at Nashville for an example of a team that did everything right. Beautiful stadium and the location can't be beat. Arizona, Florida, Ottawa, and to a lesser extent Carolina do not have good stadium situations.
Click to expand...

and this is where i wonder if Bettman is the right guy. He has added much needed stability yet he’s not growing the NHL brand well enough. It’s basically up to local writers to get the word out.

Without Covid, Florida, AZ, Columbus, Nashville, Winnipeg, Islanders and Anaheim were all in the red. So how many are in the red now and how deep in red are the teams mentioned?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clark Kellogg and egelband
Just spitballing an idea that will never happen but what if the NHL doesn't find a way to get the next season going by mid January, wouldn't having a World Cup of Hockey on outdoor ice be a decent revenue generator? You could put it in a 50000 seat building and put fans in with social distancing, maybe you get 10000 people in? Gives the network some tv as well. It's probably a crazy idea no side gets behind lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doriva
haohmaru said:
The NHL is a gate driven league and, if there's no gate, it's going to get complicated.
Click to expand...
That is why I believe that there are going to be fans in some capacity this year. But beyond this year, they will need to go to full capacity (for those that will go). Owners of a league will only have so much interest in running a league on nothing but television revenue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gardner McKay and egelband
True Blue said:
That is why I believe that there are going to be fans in some capacity this year. But beyond this year, they will need to go to full capacity (for those that will go). Owners of a league will only have so much interest in running a league on nothing but television revenue.
Click to expand...

For sure, but they won't start up again until they can do this.
 
Leetch3 said:
buch rocking the kreider t-shirt lol

Click to expand...


The more I think it I doubt Buch goes at this time ... Buch, Kakko, Gauthier , Howden , Kravtsov on RW IMO..... Kravtsov won’t be around till after the khl season ... kinda need Buch and the guys seem to love him

They also seem to like Strome as a teamate from the outside looking in
 
Oscar Lindberg said:
Dolan isn't as flush right now as people seem to think either. A ton of his money comes from entertainment which has shut down the last 6 months.

MSG is laying off a bunch of employees for a reason
Click to expand...

that’s right, and imagine if there is a loop hole and MSG has to pay north of $500 million in taxes.
 
KreiderBomb said:
Just spitballing an idea that will never happen but what if the NHL doesn't find a way to get the next season going by mid January, wouldn't having a World Cup of Hockey on outdoor ice be a decent revenue generator? You could put it in a 50000 seat building and put fans in with social distancing, maybe you get 10000 people in? Gives the network some tv as well. It's probably a crazy idea no side gets behind lol
Click to expand...

it’s a couple of pennies
 
download (1).png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mac n Gs, TheDirtyH and Leetch3
ramp5 said:
NBCSports analyst Pierre McGuire admitted as much this week during one of his regular morning hits on TSN1200.
“I’m going to caution everybody including Mark Borowiecki’s agent, these are way different times in the National Hockey League, and you’re just starting to see just a little ripple in the water. This is going to be a very different time financially for the league, and for a lot of member clubs in the league. I’m just telling you. The stories haven’t broken yet, but this is going to be a way different time for free agents, be a way different time for established players. You’re going to see some major cost-cutting around the National Hockey League, major, major cost-cutting. There are people writing stories now about this team laying off these people. You’re going to see a lot more. It’s going to trickle down to player’s salaries. This is a very different time in this league. It’s not getting enough exposure right now. I completely understand because of the playoffs. No one really wants to talk about it.​
Click to expand...
This is not just a hockey problem. MLB and NBA have some real trouble spots.
 
bobbop said:
This is not just a hockey problem. MLB and NBA have some real trouble spots.
Click to expand...

I honestly think you're going to see teams push for a vote on whether they can release players but get some forgiveness on the cap punishment.

"Look we'll pay your vets, but if you want your younger members to stay employed and get better deals, we need some kind of recapture on the money we paid to make the old guys do away. Otherwise the guys who are set to be your members for the next 10-15 years are going to end up paying the price."
 
Edge said:
I honestly think you're going to see teams push for a vote on whether they can release players but get some forgiveness on the cap punishment.

"Look we'll pay your vets, but if you want your younger members to stay employed and get better deals, we need some kind of recapture on the money we paid to make the old guys do away. Otherwise the guys who are set to be your members for the next 10-15 years are going to end up paying the price."
Click to expand...
It’d be nice if the NHL could ease back on how ironclad player contracts are.

Like some of these dudes are making 6M for 5 more years when they’re not even earning a 10th of that. Hypothetically there should be conditions where if x player doesn’t produce at a certain rate, he can be released with less cap penalty than a buyout. Or something like that. Basically in between the NFL where contracts are mostly magic beans and the NHL where a 4 year 4M contract is an immovable anchor.

obviously the chance of this happening are basically zero but tldr I think NHL contracts are way too airtight. A player should not just be able to sign a huge contract and play like shit for the duration of it without worrying about losing a penny because of it.
 
Edge said:
I honestly think you're going to see teams push for a vote on whether they can release players but get some forgiveness on the cap punishment.

"Look we'll pay your vets, but if you want your younger members to stay employed and get better deals, we need some kind of recapture on the money we paid to make the old guys do away. Otherwise the guys who are set to be your members for the next 10-15 years are going to end up paying the price."
Click to expand...
The teams with money will certainly want to do this. Not sure I see the advantage for teams that will be cutting payroll lower than the cap.
 
MahomesIsGod said:
It’d be nice if the NHL could ease back on how ironclad player contracts are.

Like some of these dudes are making 6M for 5 more years when they’re not even earning a 10th of that. Hypothetically there should be conditions where if x player doesn’t produce at a certain rate, he can be released with less cap penalty than a buyout. Or something like that. Basically in between the NFL where contracts are mostly magic beans and the NHL where a 4 year 4M contract is an immovable anchor.

obviously the chance of this happening are basically zero but tldr I think NHL contracts are way too airtight. A player should not just be able to sign a huge contract and play like shit for the duration of it without worrying about losing a penny because of it.
Click to expand...

I've personally always felt that each team should have two buy-out options that don't count against the cap. They can only use one per year, maybe not even in consecutive years, and maybe have a stipulation that they can't use more than two in any five year span, or something along those lines.

For example, the Rangers can use but-outs in 2020 and 2022, but then the earliest they can use a buy-out again is 2025.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RGY, Trxjw, JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK and 1 other person
bobbop said:
The teams with money will certainly want to do this. Not sure I see the advantage for teams that will be cutting payroll lower than the cap.
Click to expand...

I think you'd be surprised how many teams "without money" would still prefer to buy someone out and invest in younger talent.

There's this belief that smaller markets prefer the cap because it keeps the larger markets in line. And there is some truth to that.

But I've heard from a lot of people in smaller markets that it a lack of cap amnesty really hurts them as well. They're not bidding on certain guys because their margin for error is smaller. More teams than we'd suspect are willing to eat the one time cost of a buyout if it frees up cap space for them. I think most people might be surprised to hear that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheBloodyNine
Edge said:
I've personally always felt that each team should have two buy-out options that don't count against the cap. They can only use one per year, maybe not even in consecutive years, and maybe have a stipulation that they can't use more than two in any five year span, or something along those lines.

For example, the Rangers can use but-outs in 2020 and 2022, but then the earliest they can use a buy-out again is 2025.
Click to expand...

even if the buyout doesn't count against the cap, you would also have to get the owners to agree that it is not part of the total 50% owed to the players, otherwise that extra $$ spent on players just comes back to the owners via escrow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DutchShamrock
Leetch3 said:
even if the buyout doesn't count against the cap, you would also have to get the owners to agree that it is not part of the total 50% owed to the players, otherwise that extra $$ spent on players just comes back to the owners via escrow.
Click to expand...

I think you have more owners who are willing to accept that than we might think.
 
Edge said:
I think you have more owners who are willing to accept that than we might think.
Click to expand...

but I think the norm for the nhl is lowest common denominator and taking care of the teams at the bottom. and so far the big $$ owners have stayed in line cause everything has come out of the players pocket and not their own in terms of revenue sharing or whatever
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom