The owners are insane

[jomota]

Show me the last player that lost $$$$ in hockey.

[fingerbang]

If so many teams are having financial trouble, then why do the owners continue to offer obscene contracts to players. Can't blame anyone but the owners here, as even mid-level role players are getting huge offers. Forget about what the star guys are getting...

Now they are trying to fix the mess they got into. Shame, as we are likely all going to suffer...

They offer obscene contracts because:

1. The NHLPA got a good deal last time.

2. You have to invest money into players if you want people to buy tickets or turn on the game...

[runnermjr1296]

They're all making too much money which in turn drives ticket prices, parking, concessions, cable bills etc etc up and slams the door in the face of the people that appreciate the game, the middle class. Watching a game with a bunch of suits is frustrating, and half the time they don't even show up and the rink is empty. The problem starts and ends with greed. I am not taking any sides on this but I wish they'd get it figured out for the people that rely on the jobs at the arena's and businesses surrounding them get back to work. Shutting the season down so a bunch of millionaires can bicker over who gets what is shameful when there's people at the bottom trying to feed their families being shut out of their job, I could care less about the players or the owners. Even a low paying NHL salary is about 15 years work for the average Joe working in most of those arena's. The league and it's players should have had this deal done in July at which time it should have went to an arbitrator if not.

as usual you are the voice of reason

[averymustgo]

It's idiots like the Flyers owners who offer morons like Simmonds 4+ million over 6 years at 22 years old when they have control that ruin the pay scale. They could have offered Simmonds 4 years at 2.5 and he would have gladly taken it. He had one good, offensive year. He had no leverage.

[notoriousbig21]

Cant believe this season is probably gonna be severely shortened and at the worst cancelled.

Especially since we just had our best year in the last 15 and signed a superstar like Nash.

[fingerbang]

It's idiots like the Flyers owners who offer morons like Simmonds 4+ million over 6 years at 22 years old when they have control that ruin the pay scale. They could have offered Simmonds 4 years at 2.5 and he would have gladly taken it. He had one good, offensive year. He had no leverage.

You can read minds now, too?

[NYY09]

They offer obscene contracts because:

1. The NHLPA got a good deal last time.

2. You have to invest money into players if you want people to buy tickets or turn on the game...

They caved when it came to a salary cap so I'm not sure how "good" the deal was for them per se...

You can read minds now, too?

Thats just him, trolling along.... Pay no mind

[ShadyOne]

They offer obscene contracts because:

1. The NHLPA got a good deal last time.

2. You have to invest money into players if you want people to buy tickets or turn on the game...

Yes, you have to invest in the team to make money...

But noone forced them to hand out huge contracts like candy on halloween. Seems that even mid-level talents get minimum 4-5M per season now. Forget about the all-stars/elite players. Like, for example, those matching deals for Parise and Suter. Which then set up the ridiculous deal for Weber. Which then sets the market for any other stars who are due contracts.

Like, for example, if he continues on the upward trend, Giroux, or even scarier, Malkin. If you compare Malkin to Parise, Malkin is younger, much bigger, and has more 100+ point seasons than Parise has point-per-game seasons. So Malkin would be likely looking for 130M or more on the market.

[fingerbang]

Yes, you have to invest in the team to make money...

But noone forced them to hand out huge contracts like candy on halloween. Seems that even mid-level talents get minimum 4-5M per season now. Forget about the all-stars/elite players. Like, for example, those matching deals for Parise and Suter. Which then set up the ridiculous deal for Weber. Which then sets the market for any other stars who are due contracts.

Like, for example, if he continues on the upward trend, Giroux, or even scarier, Malkin. If you compare Malkin to Parise, Malkin is younger, much bigger, and has more 100+ point seasons than Parise has point-per-game seasons. So Malkin would be likely looking for 130M or more on the market.

You do realize this is all dependent on the owner/player split. The fact that the NHLPA got a great deal is the exact reason why mid level talent gets paid that much. You lower the cap, you lower the cap hits owners give out.

Basically, if an owner can spend it, he might just to compete. Look at Buffalo, Doan's not worth all that money but they have the cap room to spare so they'll throw it at him.

[ShadyOne]

You do realize this is all dependent on the owner/player split. The fact that the NHLPA got a great deal is the exact reason why mid level talent gets paid that much. You lower the cap, you lower the cap hits owners give out.

Basically, if an owner can spend it, he might just to compete. Look at Buffalo, Doan's not worth all that money but they have the cap room to spare so they'll throw it at him.

But that really has no relevance on what I'm saying...

So what if a team has cap room. If they are losing money, then why continue to spend foolishly? Don't need to max out your cap, and definitely don't need to waste millions on guys who aren't worth it. Build smart, draft well, grow your business, and your fan base, and stop crying about it. Then you have the cash, and you spend it..

And then all the owners are going to contend that they can't afford to pay these salaries, and then lock out the season, they then basically put themselves into this position.

I am honestly not sure of Buffalo's financial situation, but I'd wager they aren't one of the franchises that are relatively profitable. So honestly, is paying Shane Doan 30M smart? Not making them that much more of a draw, or that much better. So what do they accomplish by totally blowing the salary structure out of whack? Nothing except driving other contracts for similar level free agents way up.

Noone is forcing these owners to hand out terrible contracts, it's all up to them. They have the money, and the power to do with it whatever they want. So now, they want to lock out the season, and pretty much strike a finishing blow to any hope this league had of gaining a reasonable level of popularity. Some more smart business decisions from people I would have assumed knew at least a little something about business...

[Garden Faithful]

If so many teams are having financial trouble, then why do the owners continue to offer obscene contracts to players. Can't blame anyone but the owners here, as even mid-level role players are getting huge offers. Forget about what the star guys are getting...

Now they are trying to fix the mess they got into. Shame, as we are likely all going to suffer...

Simple economics you have to spend money to make money and while sometimes it is ill spent those owners believe they are going to benefit from spending in the short term in order to facilitate long term stability and income. If you are going to blame anyone for player salaries it is the players association because they drive the price of their product up since they are there to benefit their constituency. While the owners sign the contracts they are left with no choice seeing as how the market price is set by the NHLPA in the CBA. The players receive a large portion of the revenue sharing agreement and as a result inflate their market value, consequently mid level players seem to be getting paid what many believe to be over-payments and in some cases gross over-payments. Now I understand the animosity towards the owners because it appears as though they are the mean greedy barons of the league which could be true to an extent but to put all the blame on them seems unfair to me since they have done things such as give a majority of the money from the NBC deal to the players in the form of compensation in the future as well as their pensions. Many owners are in the precarious situation of being forced to spend money they don't want to, or in some cases don't have available for that area of their finances, on their teams in order to have the potential at success in the league as well as monetarily. I think they are both at fault, the players more so IMO and I see Mr. Fehr being a very big problem for the NHL, and of course as you and everyone else stated earlier we are truly the ones that suffer unfortunately.

you saw the "or they should anyway" right? I know it a job but I think the players enjoy their job right?

I did and I apologize for glossing over that but the reality, albeit hockey players for the most part seem to be more humble than other athletes, is that it is a job and while they should, as many do, enjoy their jobs they're are trying to get as much of the revenue as they can whether warranted or not. We all want more money for what we do but they are doing it to the detriment of their own futures and the future of the league. They make more of a percentage than any other league and they have more owners losing money than any other league. So I hope that clears that up if not we can continue this, I'm always up for a discussion.

[fingerbang]

But that really has no relevance on what I'm saying...

So what if a team has cap room. If they are losing money, then why continue to spend foolishly? Don't need to max out your cap, and definitely don't need to waste millions on guys who aren't worth it. Build smart, draft well, grow your business, and your fan base, and stop crying about it. Then you have the cash, and you spend it..

And then all the owners are going to contend that they can't afford to pay these salaries, and then lock out the season, they then basically put themselves into this position.

I am honestly not sure of Buffalo's financial situation, but I'd wager they aren't one of the franchises that are relatively profitable. So honestly, is paying Shane Doan 30M smart? Not making them that much more of a draw, or that much better. So what do they accomplish by totally blowing the salary structure out of whack? Nothing except driving other contracts for similar level free agents way up.

Noone is forcing these owners to hand out terrible contracts, it's all up to them. They have the money, and the power to do with it whatever they want. So now, they want to lock out the season, and pretty much strike a finishing blow to any hope this league had of gaining a reasonable level of popularity. Some more smart business decisions from people I would have assumed knew at least a little something about business...

The league itself forces you to hand out those contracts. You need players to fill seats. You're not going to profit with a bad team unless you're in a great market.

In Minnesota, the GM obviously feels that adding Parise and Suter will increase revenues enough to justify their contracts.

A lower cap means a small market team has to spend less to stay competitive.

[bsi]

The only problem is that you can't hand out a big contract and then beg for money. In the case of Holmgren he just offered up 110 million dollars to someone and will claim they can't make money. I'm sure the Flyers will be profitable next year with or without Weber, the same goes for most teams in the league. The problem is that they want to sign these players to ridiculous contracts and now they want to go back on the contract that they signed and cut a percentage off of it. IMO any contract that was signed before this CBA should be honored as it was signed.

[fingerbang]

The only problem is that you can't hand out a big contract and then beg for money. In the case of Holmgren he just offered up 110 million dollars to someone and will claim they can't make money. I'm sure the Flyers will be profitable next year with or without Weber, the same goes for most teams in the league. The problem is that they want to sign these players to ridiculous contracts and now they want to go back on the contract that they signed and cut a percentage off of it. IMO any contract that was signed before this CBA should be honored as it was signed.

A major reason why those contracts are ridiculous is a direct result of the owner/player split from the last CBA. The CBA is a direct influence on what those contracts look like. By calling those contacts crazy, you're actually arguing in support of the owners.

[bsi]

A major reason why those contracts are ridiculous is a direct result of the owner/player split from the last CBA. The CBA is a direct influence on what those contracts look like. By calling those contacts crazy, you're actually arguing in support of the owners.

Except it was the owners who signed those contracts and the owners that signed the last CBA. If a person signs a 6 million dollar contract under the last CBA, then I'd expect that contract to be honored under that CBA and not reduced afterwards because the owners aren't happy with a deal they signed. The NHLPA didn't create the last CBA on their own, both sides signed and agreed to it and now it seems as though the league doesn't want to honour those contracts that they themselves signed under that CBA. Like I said before I'm not taking sides but the one thing I agree with the players on is that it's ridiculous to ask players to reduce their salaries because the teams are overspending, especially when they have a contract that was signed under the last CBA.