|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 28, 2008 21:09:40 GMT -5
You're not looking at the big picture CO. You're thinking next season only, but you have to think down the road to the end of his contract. Let's take team 'A' and team 'B'. Team 'A' signs Streit for a (heavily) discounted 3.5 over 4 years. Team 'B' lets Streit walk and picks up Schneider for 5.7 over 1 year. In year one most of the team is already signed. Neither 'A' nor 'B; suffers from the cap too greatly, especially if 'A' can dump an anchor like Dandenault. Both have some room at the deadline to make that last minute acquisition. However in year two some interesting things happen. 'A' has 5.7 million in cap space magically appear as Schneider is allowed to walk. 'B' although it did get a minimum amount of benefit out of the extra 2.2 million in year 1, now does not have that cap space open. And certain players are without contracts. Namely Tanguay, Koivu, Kovalev, Begin, Kostopolous, Bouillon, Dandenault and Komisarek are all UFA's; while Higgins, Plekanec, Chipchura and Latendresse are all RFA's. That 3.5 million is 3.5 million that the team doesn't have to offer these guys. By the time Streit's contract is up every player on the team will have an opportunity to get a raise. Is he worth losing a Koivu or a Kovalev for? Markov? The Kostitsyns? You have to budget man. Aren't you neglecting the fact the cap almost always goes up by 4 million every year? So while in year 1, the increase in cap covers Streit's contract, in year 2, 3, and 4, you'll have 4, 8, and 12 respectively in extra cap just from the increase which will go to save those expiring contracts. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Aug 28, 2008 21:36:34 GMT -5
You're not looking at the big picture CO. You're thinking next season only, but you have to think down the road to the end of his contract. Let's take team 'A' and team 'B'. Team 'A' signs Streit for a (heavily) discounted 3.5 over 4 years. Team 'B' lets Streit walk and picks up Schneider for 5.7 over 1 year. In year one most of the team is already signed. Neither 'A' nor 'B; suffers from the cap too greatly, especially if 'A' can dump an anchor like Dandenault. Both have some room at the deadline to make that last minute acquisition. However in year two some interesting things happen. 'A' has 5.7 million in cap space magically appear as Schneider is allowed to walk. 'B' although it did get a minimum amount of benefit out of the extra 2.2 million in year 1, now does not have that cap space open. And certain players are without contracts. Namely Tanguay, Koivu, Kovalev, Begin, Kostopolous, Bouillon, Dandenault and Komisarek are all UFA's; while Higgins, Plekanec, Chipchura and Latendresse are all RFA's. That 3.5 million is 3.5 million that the team doesn't have to offer these guys. By the time Streit's contract is up every player on the team will have an opportunity to get a raise. Is he worth losing a Koivu or a Kovalev for? Markov? The Kostitsyns? You have to budget man. Aren't you neglecting the fact the cap almost always goes up by 4 million every year? So while in year 1, the increase in cap covers Streit's contract, in year 2, 3, and 4, you'll have 4, 8, and 12 respectively in extra cap just from the increase which will go to save those expiring contracts. And those contract signings inflate at the same rate as the cap to absorb that cap space. Not to mention that $1M each of the last two years (ignore the first cap increase from $39M to $44M, since $39M was a projection, not a hard figure) is accounted by a rising Canadian dollar, which appears to have plateaued, and a looming economic stagnation in both Canada and the US might suggest that perhaps the NHL won't continue to grow faster (between 3 and 5 times) than the economies of its' host nations forever. I would bet that there won't be another $4M increase in cap revenue this season. But then again, "almost always" using history to extrapolate the future is a pretty rock-solid foundation upon which to build an argument. It "almost always" happens. Until it doesn't, and you're ****ed. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 29, 2008 6:18:34 GMT -5
Aren't you neglecting the fact the cap almost always goes up by 4 million every year? So while in year 1, the increase in cap covers Streit's contract, in year 2, 3, and 4, you'll have 4, 8, and 12 respectively in extra cap just from the increase which will go to save those expiring contracts. And those contract signings inflate at the same rate as the cap to absorb that cap space. Not to mention that $1M each of the last two years (ignore the first cap increase from $39M to $44M, since $39M was a projection, not a hard figure) is accounted by a rising Canadian dollar, which appears to have plateaued, and a looming economic stagnation in both Canada and the US might suggest that perhaps the NHL won't continue to grow faster (between 3 and 5 times) than the economies of its' host nations forever. I would bet that there won't be another $4M increase in cap revenue this season. But then again, "almost always" using history to extrapolate the future is a pretty rock-solid foundation upon which to build an argument. It "almost always" happens. Until it doesn't, and you're ****ed. No ... the cap goes up and the contract inflation absorbs that money. The argument was we wouldn't have money to sign our expiring contracts if we signed Streit ... but as you have pointed out, if the cap goes up, we have room to give those players raises. You've pointed out that the cap can't go up forever (which I whole-heartedly disagree with). But, let's just for an instance say it doesn't go up (or only goes up by 1 million), or god-forbid it goes down. Are we ****ed? Well if we are, then the whole league is .... and since the payroll of the NHL is now tied to the revenue it generates, the teams collect the eskrow to pay the salaries .... Why will the cap continue to rise? Well, IMO, teams (have you seen a Habs game lately) that are successful on the ice and at the gate (ie teams in Canada) will continue to increase their ticket prices. As long as fans in Canada are willing to shell out $100-$200 dollars for tickets, fans in the US can enjoy their $15 ducats. What the NHL should consider is putting a floor on the ticket prices on all NHL games. Say $50 (maybe too high, but it is an example) for instance. If your franchise can't get fans in at the minimum price to have a viable franchise then you lose the team. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Aug 29, 2008 8:30:16 GMT -5
Aren't you neglecting the fact the cap almost always goes up by 4 million every year? So while in year 1, the increase in cap covers Streit's contract, in year 2, 3, and 4, you'll have 4, 8, and 12 respectively in extra cap just from the increase which will go to save those expiring contracts. Tch, tch... when you were learning stats didn't they teach you that three is an insufficient sample size for anything (by the by the average increase has been in excess of five million each year). But back on topic, lets say your theory holds true. Lets say that the salary cap will increase four million a season for all eternity. What happens to player salaries? They increase to match (note, this is a terribly over simplification and generalization meant to keep things simple). If the salary cap goes up by 10% than it is likely that any player negotiating his contract will ask for 10% more than he would have (again, not entirely true - but agents are not dumb people when it comes to numbers with dollar signs in front of them). What this means is not that we'll have more room to sign contracts in those coming seasons, but that the 4.1 million we save from not having signed Streit becomes less and less valuable (think of it in terms of percentage of the total salary cap). That still does not invalidate the fact that we save money for our better players (because, as good as some of us may think he was, he is no Markov, no Koivu, no Kovalev etc.). And the value that the money saved decreases over the term of his contract is still rather small. If we say the salary cap it 40 million and his contract 4 million, then we save 10% in year 1, 9% in year 2, 8% in year 3 and so on. It's still a significant savings. Now, how'd we get here from discussing Schneider again? |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Aug 29, 2008 9:18:48 GMT -5
And those contract signings inflate at the same rate as the cap to absorb that cap space. Not to mention that $1M each of the last two years (ignore the first cap increase from $39M to $44M, since $39M was a projection, not a hard figure) is accounted by a rising Canadian dollar, which appears to have plateaued, and a looming economic stagnation in both Canada and the US might suggest that perhaps the NHL won't continue to grow faster (between 3 and 5 times) than the economies of its' host nations forever. I would bet that there won't be another $4M increase in cap revenue this season. But then again, "almost always" using history to extrapolate the future is a pretty rock-solid foundation upon which to build an argument. It "almost always" happens. Until it doesn't, and you're ****ed. No ... the cap goes up and the contract inflation absorbs that money. The argument was we wouldn't have money to sign our expiring contracts if we signed Streit ... but as you have pointed out, if the cap goes up, we have room to give those players raises. Contracts will inflate proportional to the new cap (though my initial research suggests otherwise, we'll consider this a reasonable assumption for this conversation), so if you sign deal for a player that occupies 5% of this cap right now, the same player would occupy 5% of the cap if you signed them next season. The extra space is occupied mostly by those contracts and can only be used if you have a large number of contracts which pass through the current year. So this year and years previous we saved some of that increase because Koivu, Kovalev etc. didn't need to be re-signed. However next the Habs don't have many contracts passing through, as they have 8 UFA and 4 RFA contracts for NHL players to sign next season, not to mention a bunch of RFAs that might become NHLers this year. So if the cap increases less than you project, you're ****ed because you can't sign your players within your projected budget (which is now above the cap constraints). If you budget based on the current cap, then you can afford to re-sign your players by giving them market raises. Your comment at the end contains an if, which is the whole point of mine. If it doesn't, you don't have that room. You've pointed out that the cap can't go up forever (which I whole-heartedly disagree with). But, let's just for an instance say it doesn't go up (or only goes up by 1 million), or god-forbid it goes down. Are we ****ed? Well if we are, then the whole league is .... and since the payroll of the NHL is now tied to the revenue it generates, the teams collect the eskrow to pay the salaries .... Why will the cap continue to rise? Well, IMO, teams (have you seen a Habs game lately) that are successful on the ice and at the gate (ie teams in Canada) will continue to increase their ticket prices. As long as fans in Canada are willing to shell out $100-$200 dollars for tickets, fans in the US can enjoy their $15 ducats. What the NHL should consider is putting a floor on the ticket prices on all NHL games. Say $50 (maybe too high, but it is an example) for instance. If your franchise can't get fans in at the minimum price to have a viable franchise then you lose the team. As someone who enjoys facts, I'd have thought you'd actually read what I wrote. I never said the cap can't go up forever. I only mentioned that I find it a highly dubious suggestion that we can count on the cap rising by 3 to 5 times the rate of growth of the countries in which the NHL resides, which is what you implicitly suggested. If you're projecting your payroll on a 8 to 10% growth rate, you're setting yourself up to fall short and not be able to sign the quality or type of player you've projected in one season or another. The reason being is that a player who's been on a contract for 3 or 4 or 5 years -- that you'd like to re-sign -- is likely to be underpaid relative to the current cap. So we're talking about compounded growth over the contract length on top of the value of the improvement that player has made, less the decreased value relating to a player's age (which in the NHL appears to be just about nothing as players stop getting paid when they stop producing -- look at Shanahan as an example). In other words, hefty raises that occupy a lot of cap space. I say project with the money you're certain you have (the cap will not likely ever decrease) and whatever marginal gain you have via cap space gets allocated to those players you need to sign. As far as revenue goes, if you hadn't noticed Montreal is an outlier in the broad spectrum of ticket revenue for the NHL since it has both the highest capacity, attendance, and top 5 ticket prices. Each market is individual and imposing a broad ticket minimum would be hazardous (to put it mildly). Not every market will be sustainable like New York or Montreal or Toronto, but New York and Montreal and Toronto need those less successful franchises around to keep payroll lower. It's beneficial to the better-off franchises for there to be worse-off franchises, so there's no way a ticket minimum would pass through the Board of Governors, where owners from so-called big markets retain a lot of power. Payroll is only linked to revenue on a broad NHL-wide calculation. Generally speaking, Montreal spends far less than 56% of its revenue on payroll. As do Toronto, New York, etc. Just like teams like Florida and Nashville probably end up paying more. There are just more low-revenue teams than there are high-revenue teams. The bottom line of this argument is whether you'd rather have Schneider for 1 year, or Streit for 4. Frankly, I want neither, but if I'm pressed into a decision, it's definitely Schneider. It seems to me that in both choices there isn't much upside, and in Schneider's case there's less downside. Streit only becomes a good deal (and that he takes $3.5M to stay here seems unlikely) if the cap continues to rise by a whole lot IMO. M-A Bergeron is someone I think is similar, it's just that Streit benefited from a much better power play. I rambled a lot in the above post. I might clean it up if I have time. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Aug 29, 2008 20:09:37 GMT -5
Nothing beats a rousing statistical debate except maybe a white paper on the declining population of gerbils.  |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Sept 3, 2008 9:42:52 GMT -5
Keep in mind this is from Eklund Sources this morning have informed me that Schneider may be a Canadien as early as "this evening or tomorrow morning" There is much speculation surrounding this move as it may be a trigger move that comes from th Canadiens being officially "out of the Sundin Sweepstakes."www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=16569I like Schneider but what would we send the other way? If this were to happen I'm guessing they would be making cap room for Selanne. Maybe Eklund needs new sources.  |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Sept 16, 2008 13:34:25 GMT -5
Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere. Schneider has been waived according to USA Today's Kevin Allen.
I guess Burke found no takers at his price. Personally, I'd love to have him.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Sept 16, 2008 13:57:02 GMT -5
He'll never drop to us. We claim according to our regular season finish I believe. Unlikely he'll fall past 26 other teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Sept 16, 2008 15:20:56 GMT -5
Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere. Schneider has been waived according to USA Today's Kevin Allen. I guess Burke found no takers at his price. Personally, I'd love to have him. I posted it in the Non-Habs forum - forgot about this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Sept 16, 2008 16:17:16 GMT -5
He'll never drop to us. We claim according to our regular season finish I believe. Unlikely he'll fall past 26 other teams. I'm hoping a non-contending team with cap space like the Kings picks him up and he becomes available at the trade deadline. |
|
|
|
Post by roke on Sept 16, 2008 16:23:51 GMT -5
He'll never drop to us. We claim according to our regular season finish I believe. Unlikely he'll fall past 26 other teams. I'm hoping a non-contending team with cap space like the Kings picks him up and he becomes available at the trade deadline. That would be swell indeed. I'd rather see Bob convince LA to claim him and then trade right now for him. Given the nature of the salary cap, more teams will have the cap room to acquire Schneider at the deadline and it would probably take more to acquire him. Of course, LA, if they claim Schneider, probably realize that. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 16, 2008 17:04:28 GMT -5
You're not looking at the big picture CO. You're thinking next season only, but you have to think down the road to the end of his contract. Let's take team 'A' and team 'B'. Team 'A' signs Streit for a (heavily) discounted 3.5 over 4 years. Team 'B' lets Streit walk and picks up Schneider for 5.7 over 1 year. In year one most of the team is already signed. Neither 'A' nor 'B; suffers from the cap too greatly, especially if 'A' can dump an anchor like Dandenault. Both have some room at the deadline to make that last minute acquisition. However in year two some interesting things happen. 'A' has 5.7 million in cap space magically appear as Schneider is allowed to walk. 'B' although it did get a minimum amount of benefit out of the extra 2.2 million in year 1, now does not have that cap space open. And certain players are without contracts. Namely Tanguay, Koivu, Kovalev, Begin, Kostopolous, Bouillon, Dandenault and Komisarek are all UFA's; while Higgins, Plekanec, Chipchura and Latendresse are all RFA's. That 3.5 million is 3.5 million that the team doesn't have to offer these guys. By the time Streit's contract is up every player on the team will have an opportunity to get a raise. Is he worth losing a Koivu or a Kovalev for? Markov? The Kostitsyns? You have to budget man. Aren't you neglecting the fact the cap almost always goes up by 4 million every year? So while in year 1, the increase in cap covers Streit's contract, in year 2, 3, and 4, you'll have 4, 8, and 12 respectively in extra cap just from the increase which will go to save those expiring contracts. I live in California and that is exactly the same pitch that has been made for sub-prime mortgages. Your salary is bound to increase and the value of your house will go up by 25% indefinately. Spend away. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 16, 2008 21:47:13 GMT -5
He'll never drop to us. We claim according to our regular season finish I believe. Unlikely he'll fall past 26 other teams. I don't think Schneider will be picked up. He'll pass waivers and some team will pick him up on re-entry waivers for half the cost. How many teams have 5.5 million (or so) on hand now anyway? Isn't the waiver order based on the draft day order? ... We drafted 25th. But still I agree with you, he isn't slipping past 24 teams, especially at half the cost. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Sept 17, 2008 12:06:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Sept 18, 2008 16:52:02 GMT -5
Unless a team was well below the floor and needed a d-man that was the only way Burke would have found a sucker.Looks good on the big whinner who Dis's the way others run their team.At roughly 2.5 they my get a taker.Unless the Habs make a deal or put somebody in the minors Schnied won't be a Hab.
Though I wouldn't mind his offense on th pp.
HFTO
|
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Sept 25, 2008 19:19:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 25, 2008 20:13:38 GMT -5
I've actually been wondering how much upside there is to Ryan. #2 pick after Crosby sounds pretty good, but there have been other #2 picks who haven't worked out, and his progress to date is questionable. This was the same draft as Price, and right now I'd much rather have Price than Ryan. Not a write-off by any stretch as big guys develop slower, but we took Gui 45th in that draft and he's arguably a better player at this point. So, while I'm not against having another possible prospect, I wouldn't give much for him, after all, taking on the Schneider contract saves Burke's skin big time. The Niedermayer matter really screwed Burke.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Sept 25, 2008 20:30:31 GMT -5
I think several teams would do same. However, picking those two up puts us in a worse cap position than Anaheim is in now. So say we send them Latendresse and a low a pick back for Ryan and Schneider, though I, like seventeen, am not convinced that Ryan is any more talented than Latendresse at this point. That adds $6.697M in net salary for us.. putting us at 61.582M. Throw Chipchura in the AHL (subtract 0.943) and we're presuming that we can unload Dandenault for free (subtract 1.75). That puts us at 58.889. Put Ryan in the AHL (subtract 1.922). $56.967. Still need to unload another million somehow, I'd guess by dumping Bouillon (subtract 1.875) to someone to make room, which then gives us Schneider as our third pairing left defenseman. $55.092. So Latendresse doesn't have to be sent back, but it doesn't leave much cap room (about $150k) for any subsequent transactions or injury, and we'd probably be forced to carry a roster of 22 all season which would leave us vulnerable to injury concerns. I mean, I'm all for it if it can be done. Ryan would give us an asset that we can use as depth in the playoffs, and if we can keep Latendresse I'm drooling at the possibility of having Ryan, Pacioretty and Latendresse all on the same roster. However, there are so many contingent transactions that would have to happen that, to me, we're plainly out of the Schneider sweeps and whatever it will gain. Add in that Burke was miffed that Gainey somewhat stiffed him 2 years ago at the deadline, and that Burke's certainly the kind of guy to hold a grudge... I just don't see it happening. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 25, 2008 21:13:49 GMT -5
Add in that Burke was miffed that Gainey somewhat stiffed him 2 years ago at the deadline, and that Burke's certainly the kind of guy to hold a grudge... I just don't see it happening. But Burke's a hockey man with hockey acumen . . . he knows what's going on and he knows the values of players . . . doesn't he? And any franchise would be happy to have him at the helm . . . wouldn't they? |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Sept 25, 2008 21:26:45 GMT -5
Add in that Burke was miffed that Gainey somewhat stiffed him 2 years ago at the deadline, and that Burke's certainly the kind of guy to hold a grudge... I just don't see it happening. But Burke's a hockey man with hockey acumen . . . he knows what's going on and he knows the values of players . . . doesn't he? And any franchise would be happy to have him at the helm . . . wouldn't they? That's what they've been shoving down our throats, anyway.  |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Sept 26, 2008 11:19:21 GMT -5
I've actually been wondering how much upside there is to Ryan. #2 pick after Crosby sounds pretty good, but there have been other #2 picks who haven't worked out, and his progress to date is questionable. This was the same draft as Price, and right now I'd much rather have Price than Ryan. Not a write-off by any stretch as big guys develop slower, but we took Gui 45th in that draft and he's arguably a better player at this point. So, while I'm not against having another possible prospect, I wouldn't give much for him, after all, taking on the Schneider contract saves Burke's skin big time. The Niedermayer matter really screwed Burke. I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of Bobby Ryan. We're talking about a 6'1, 213lb twenty-year-old, who had 49 points in 48 games as a rookie in the AHL last year. Great numbers by any standard, if you ask me. Heck, even his 10 points in 23 NHL games is pretty decent for a rookie. Granted, he's not a great skater, which seems to not fit to well with the direction our team is heading in, but if an easy deal for both Schneider AND Ryan were on the table I'd leap all over it. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Sept 26, 2008 14:45:38 GMT -5
Add in that Burke was miffed that Gainey somewhat stiffed him 2 years ago at the deadline, and that Burke's certainly the kind of guy to hold a grudge... I just don't see it happening. But Burke's a hockey man with hockey acumen . . . he knows what's going on and he knows the values of players . . . doesn't he? And any franchise would be happy to have him at the helm . . . wouldn't they? Sure he knows the value of players - just look at the contracts he gave to Bertuzzi & Schneider. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Sept 26, 2008 16:43:48 GMT -5
Schneider just got dealt to Atlanta.
Klee, Brad Larsen, Chad Painchauld went back. It clears up about $4M for the Ducks.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 26, 2008 19:23:04 GMT -5
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of Bobby Ryan. We're talking about a 6'1, 213lb twenty-year-old, who had 49 points in 48 games as a rookie in the AHL last year. Great numbers by any standard, if you ask me. Heck, even his 10 points in 23 NHL games is pretty decent for a rookie. Granted, he's not a great skater, which seems to not fit to well with the direction our team is heading in, but if an easy deal for both Schneider AND Ryan were on the table I'd leap all over it. That's why I say not a write-off by any stretch. Just that others from that draft have impressed faster than he has, but again, he is a big boy and may just be taking longer. The PPG in the AHL are good. All's I'm saying is don't take that #2 overall choice at face value, and squeeze the hell out of Burke. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Sept 27, 2008 10:30:34 GMT -5
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of Bobby Ryan. We're talking about a 6'1, 213lb twenty-year-old, who had 49 points in 48 games as a rookie in the AHL last year. Great numbers by any standard, if you ask me. Heck, even his 10 points in 23 NHL games is pretty decent for a rookie. Granted, he's not a great skater, which seems to not fit to well with the direction our team is heading in, but if an easy deal for both Schneider AND Ryan were on the table I'd leap all over it. That's why I say not a write-off by any stretch. Just that others from that draft have impressed faster than he has, but again, he is a big boy and may just be taking longer. The PPG in the AHL are good. All's I'm saying is don't take that #2 overall choice at face value, and squeeze the hell out of Burke. Agreed. Gainey has received some criticism for choosing Price over players like Marc Staal & Anze Kopitar. If BG gets reamed for it so should Burke. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 21, 2008 16:31:33 GMT -5
Schneider back in a Habs jersy
Only if he gets it at ClassicAuctions!
|
|
