LabattBlue Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 I have a question as to the statements being made that the NHL is now a "level playing field". The Sabres in recent years had a team salary of around 30 million dollars and were "supposedly" losing 5-10 million per year. The new salary cap will be 39 million dollars. Lets assume the Sabres will have a team payroll of between 25-30 million in 05-06. This is somewhere between 9 and 14 million less than what the "spend at all cost" teams(DET, TOR, COL, DAL, NYR, etc...) will be playing with as they will all be spending right to the edge of the cap. I realize that the upper echelon teams will have to share revenue(details yet to be revealed), but I don't anticipate this being more than 1 or 2 million(combined) to each of the sisters of the poor. That being said, where is the level playing field when there will be teams spending 25-35 percent more on players than the Sabres? Maybe I'm missing something in the CBA?
jad1 Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 The Sabres lost money the last few years by missing the playoffs. A strong playoff run, combined with revenue sharing, could make up much of their losses from a higher payroll. It benefits them in a big way by controlling player costs and making a whole group of top players affordable. With a cap, they would have been able to keep guys like Peca and Hasek. Another thing that will help them is that the playoff field is being expanded to 20 teams under the new CBA. In the long run, this will help the team fill the arena, because fans will know the Sabres aren't competing against teams that outspend them by 30 or 40 million dollars.
Fezmid Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Another thing that will help them is that the playoff field is being expanded to 20 teams under the new CBA. I havn't had time to read about the new CBA, but you're kidding about this right? My god, the NHL is already a huge joke for letting almost everyone into the playoffs. Now they're going to EXPAND that number? And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously. *sigh* CW
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 I have a question as to the statements being made that the NHL is now a "level playing field". The Sabres in recent years had a team salary of around 30 million dollars and were "supposedly" losing 5-10 million per year. The new salary cap will be 39 million dollars. Lets assume the Sabres will have a team payroll of between 25-30 million in 05-06. This is somewhere between 9 and 14 million less than what the "spend at all cost" teams(DET, TOR, COL, DAL, NYR, etc...) will be playing with as they will all be spending right to the edge of the cap. I realize that the upper echelon teams will have to share revenue(details yet to be revealed), but I don't anticipate this being more than 1 or 2 million(combined) to each of the sisters of the poor.That being said, where is the level playing field when there will be teams spending 25-35 percent more on players than the Sabres? Maybe I'm missing something in the CBA? Well, 25-35% more is better than 100% more. And I'd have to think that Tom would be willing to open the purse strings to get the puck rolling so to speak and jump start interest in the team.
LabattBlue Posted July 15, 2005 Author Posted July 15, 2005 Well, 25-35% more is better than 100% more. And I'd have to think that Tom would be willing to open the purse strings to get the puck rolling so to speak and jump start interest in the team. 382377[/snapback] You're correct that the new salary structure is better than the old, I just wouldn't refer to it as a level playing field. As far as Golisano spending more, I guess it all depends what he is going to receive in terms of revenue sharing to supplement the team operating budget. The next couple of weeks should be very exciting as players are let go left and right. Combined with the start of training camp, it should make for an interesting month of August.
jad1 Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 I havn't had time to read about the new CBA, but you're kidding about this right? My god, the NHL is already a huge joke for letting almost everyone into the playoffs. Now they're going to EXPAND that number? And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously. *sigh* CW 382373[/snapback] It used to be 16 of 20 teams made the playoffs. The number of playoff seeds have not changed through the expansion years. With the increase number of entrants, roughly 2/3rds of the league will now make the playoffs. That might be high, but the NHL, with a lousy national TV contract, needs the extra games to increase revenue. I'm not going to complain. Playoff hockey is an awesome thing to behold. The more the merrier.
EZC-Boston Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 If salaries are lower, they should be able to afford better players, hopefully leading to better attendance as well.
LabattBlue Posted July 15, 2005 Author Posted July 15, 2005 If salaries are lower, they should be able to afford better players, hopefully leading to better attendance as well. 382390[/snapback] The same can be said for the other 31 teams in the league. We'll see how things shake out.
jad1 Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 The same can be said for the other 31 teams in the league. We'll see how things shake out. 382395[/snapback] That's how it evens out the playing field, which benefits a small market club like the Sabres.
plenzmd1 Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 I have a question as to the statements being made that the NHL is now a "level playing field". The Sabres in recent years had a team salary of around 30 million dollars and were "supposedly" losing 5-10 million per year. The new salary cap will be 39 million dollars. Lets assume the Sabres will have a team payroll of between 25-30 million in 05-06. This is somewhere between 9 and 14 million less than what the "spend at all cost" teams(DET, TOR, COL, DAL, NYR, etc...) will be playing with as they will all be spending right to the edge of the cap. I realize that the upper echelon teams will have to share revenue(details yet to be revealed), but I don't anticipate this being more than 1 or 2 million(combined) to each of the sisters of the poor.That being said, where is the level playing field when there will be teams spending 25-35 percent more on players than the Sabres? Maybe I'm missing something in the CBA? 382348[/snapback] Lets remember to that in the NFL, not everyone spends to the limit.Think the Vikes were $30M under last year and still compettive. As mentioned earlier, the cap brings everybodys price down as there are less options for a players services, cause even if the big money teams spend to the max, the next year they will not have cap room to add to the team via FAs. As opposed to football, these contracts are guaranteed, so no cutting an underperforming player as that money will still count agaisn't your cap. This is why the the cream of the crop as far as GMs is going to rise to the top, as mistakes can longer be brushed aside with the stroke of a check.My guess is guys will take less money per year for a longer contract, as that will provide the security all pro athletes say they crave. I would think this first year of the new CBA you will se a lot of one and two year deals until the GMs get a better feel on how to work within the cap.
SDS Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 The same can be said for the other 31 teams in the league. We'll see how things shake out. 382395[/snapback] So, hopefully the sabres can nab a couple of great players as they get spread around the league. That may put fannies in the seats and increase team revenue. Even if they decided to deficit spend in a year when the team looks like it is gelling - they can make that up with a nice playoff run and spend just as much as the Detroits of the league.
LabattBlue Posted July 15, 2005 Author Posted July 15, 2005 That's how it evens out the playing field, which benefits a small market club like the Sabres. 382397[/snapback] It brings teams "somewhat" closer together, but it's not a level playing field like the NFL, where most teams are within a couple of million dollars of the cap limit. Like I stated earlier, you will still have teams spending 25-35% more on player salaries than others. IMO...I do not look for the Sabres to go on a spending spree landing top notch players left and right, like some folks do. No matter what happens, I will have my part season tickets for 05-06 and am glad to see hockey coming back.
LabattBlue Posted July 15, 2005 Author Posted July 15, 2005 Lets remember to that in the NFL, not everyone spends to the limit.Think the Vikes were $30M under last year and still compettive. 382402[/snapback] Is this true? I can't believe with the talent on that club(including signing AW to a huge contract last season), that they could be that far under the cap?
Ramius Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Another thing that will help them is that the playoff field is being expanded to 20 teams under the new CBA. 382369[/snapback] Can i ask where you got this info from? I've read a ton of stuff and seen a bunch on the new CBA and rule changes, and no where have i seen them say they were expanding to 20 teams...
PTS Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 I havn't had time to read about the new CBA, but you're kidding about this right? My god, the NHL is already a huge joke for letting almost everyone into the playoffs. Now they're going to EXPAND that number? And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously. *sigh* CW 382373[/snapback] I'm 99% sure that the playoffs won't be 20 teams. The 16 team playoff structure worked great. Playoffs were never a problem in hockey.
shrader Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Can i ask where you got this info from? I've read a ton of stuff and seen a bunch on the new CBA and rule changes, and no where have i seen them say they were expanding to 20 teams... 382413[/snapback] I'm too lazy to look it up, but this info has been all over most stories over the past week.
Ramius Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 I'm too lazy to look it up, but this info has been all over most stories over the past week. 382421[/snapback] link? I've read all over the 'net and nowhere has this been mentioned...
plenzmd1 Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Is this true? I can't believe with the talent on that club(including signing AW to a huge contract last season), that they could be that far under the cap? 382407[/snapback] Was very true, as a matter of fact, AW bonus last year was a roster bonus, not a signing bonus. They did this so the whole bonus would be counted in last years cap figures. Thats also how they could sign Smoot, Phat Pat etc this year. One of the reasons Moss wanted out of there so bad was he kept saying they would not spend the money on FAs. To the point about 20 teams in the playoffs, almost a certainty. The proposed set up will be a best of three for teams 7-10 in each conferance, then best of sevens for the remaining 8. Could be looking at a late septemebr start and late June ending between an extra rd of the playoffs as well as a three week break for the Olympics this tr
Ramius Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Was very true, as a matter of fact, AW bonus last year was a roster bonus, not a signing bonus. They did this so the whole bonus would be counted in last years cap figures. Thats also how they could sign Smoot, Phat Pat etc this year. One of the reasons Moss wanted out of there so bad was he kept saying they would not spend the money on FAs. To the point about 20 teams in the playoffs, almost a certainty. The proposed set up will be a best of five for teams 7-10 in each conferance, then best of sevens for the remaining 8. Could be looking at a late septemebr start and late June ending between an extra rd of the playoffs as well as a three week break for the Olympics this tr 382425[/snapback] Honestly, 20 teams in the playoffs suck...why not just scrap the regular saeson and make it 1 big playoff series since all the teams are gonna make it anyway... NHL screwed the pooch on this one...
plenzmd1 Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 From ESPN This will be a matter for the board of governors to approve, but look for two more teams to be added in each conference and for the seventh through 10th teams to play best-of-three series immediately after the end of the regular season. This preliminary round would lead into the traditional four best-of-seven series for the Cup. This brings to 20 the number of teams that would qualify for the playoffs. That's a lot. But it's also a good business practice and will mean more excitement in more cities and will see fewer teams selling off players at the trade deadline, not to mention more revenue generated all around. http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?id=2106971 Long column, but some good stuff
Recommended Posts