CBA discussions.

[Habit]

NHLFA has a good current CBA layout on their website:

www.nhlfa.com/CBA/index.asp

Has everything you want to know about the current (past) CBA with all the Articals.

Enjoy.

[blaise]

With a lockout the agents will lose their fees. But don't waste your sympathy on them. Like rats deserting a sinking ship, they'll find a more lucrative haven. Recently it was announced that in the US hockey has been surpassed by NASCAR in fan interest. By the time NHL hockey resumes even the Canada-based agents will have acquired southern accents.

[Forum Ghost]

BOIVIN: HABS READY TO RISK THE SEASON

MONTREAL (CP) - The Montreal Canadiens are prepared to risk the entire National Hockey League season to secure a lasting solution to the league's financial problems, team president Pierre Boivin said Thursday.

"We only have one imperative, that's to put in place a system that allows the sport not only to survive but to progress in the future,'' he said at a news conference in the Bell Centre.

"So as far as the Montreal Canadiens, yes we are ready (to sacrifice the season.)''

Despite saving millions in players' salaries, the team will continue to lose money during the lockout because of municipal taxes that are owed, he said.

The labour dispute has forced the layoff of about 1,000 part-time employees who work during games. Another 150 full-time team employees will begin four-day work weeks starting next week. Employees, including senior officials such as Boivin and general manager Bob Gainey, will also be subject to undisclosed wage reductions.

Attempts will be made to fill the arena with other events but Boivin said nearby restaurants, bars and parking lots will be hurt financially by the lockout.


www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=98884&hubName=nhl

[blaise]

I was going to visit Montréal and take in some preseason and early season games, but I've canceled.

Let's hope the hockey climate is different next autumn.

[MC Habber]

Madden willing to accept a salary cap

"It all comes down to what's fair," Madden told the Star-Ledger. "The only problem I'm having with things is believing whose numbers are right and whose numbers are wrong. Those are the big issues. And if it needs to have a cap, give it a cap, you know?"

Madden said that a cap would only be acceptable if it was higher that the reported $31 million offered by the owners.

"Be realistic," he said. "How can you have a $31 million cap? I'm not going to go out on a limb and say what I think the cap should be, but be reasonable."

[blaise]

OK, make it higher. However, the players didn't quibble about the amount. They oppose any cap on principle as though it violated the constitution.

[BadCompany]

MC said:

Madden willing to accept a salary cap

"It all comes down to what's fair," Madden told the Star-Ledger. "The only problem I'm having with things is believing whose numbers are right and whose numbers are wrong. Those are the big issues. And if it needs to have a cap, give it a cap, you know?"

Madden said that a cap would only be acceptable if it was higher that the reported $31 million offered by the owners.

"Be realistic," he said. "How can you have a $31 million cap? I'm not going to go out on a limb and say what I think the cap should be, but be reasonable."

Sheldon Souray said the same thing to the Team 990 after that charity golf tournament. Steve Thomas has said it in the past as well, though he recanted after getting slapped down by the union.

One of the reasons I think an individual cap is a better idea than a team salary cap, is that I think it will be a lot easier to swallow for the players. When you try to apply a team salary cap, you go directly against a hockey player's sense of duty to his teammates - "We're all in this together, they're trying to break us all." A team cap is so abstract really, that for an individual player it doesn't really mean much.

But if you apply an individual salary cap, you make it personal. As I proposed in the other thread, make it a $7 million personal cap. Only 21 players made over that last year, and while that may seem like a lot, in a 700 player union its only about 3%. The vast majority of NHLPA members don't have a hope in heck of ever obtaining that amount, so I can't imagine they would feel all that good trying to argue against it. Can you see Sheldon Souray, or better yet, a guy like Jason Ward, saying "a $7 million cap is unacceptable, it would impede Jaromir Jagr's right to make a billion dollars?"

I think they would feel sick to their stomach if they even tried. It doesn't affect them, unless it becomes a sticking point in the negotiations, at which point they won't be making any money, because they are obstensibly holding out for a mere 3% of the union to continue to make more than they could ever hope for.

But then an individual salary cap would have a trickle down affect - no more Bobby Holik's at $9 million a year, and signing Martin Lapointe to $5.5 million would seem silly, if Marty Brodeur is only making $7 million. You'd have a glut of players in the $3-5 range, but so what?

but then what do I know, eh? I can't even balance my checkbook...

[Skilly]

MC said:

That's true about the building taxes, but I thought we needed to go deep into the third round to make money last year. They only got 4 games at home (1 less than we did) and yet even if you subtract the taxes they still made 14-16 million while we supposedly lost at least 3 million.

I believe Boivin was quoted as saying that Montreal had to make the third round to break even. Everyone on hear assumed that to mean that Montreal had to play 7 or 8 playoff games at home.

We played 5, so we were 2-3 million short. I agree with your 3 million figure (give or take a million - what's a million between friends right?)

But, I would have to think, that when Boivin was quoted as saying the Habs could break even going to the third round that he didn't included the building taxes. -3 + 9 or 11 million would have given Montreal a surplus of 6 to 8 million.

If Vancouver had to pay 9-11 million in municipal taxes then their 20 million becomes a 9-11 million surplus and on par with the Habs.

Vancouver and Montreal might both pay municipal taxes and went roughly the same distance last year in the playoffs, but the huge difference in taxes is what is keeping Montreal back from making money.

I look at it this way (sorry to drag this out). If a playoff games supposedly nets 1 million dollars, then I will consider it a fair guestimate that a regular season game nets $750,000.

41 x $750,000 = 30.75 million

30.75 million - 40 million (Habs payroll) = -9.25 Million

-9.25 million + 5 million (playoff revenue) = -4.25 Million

And I haven't yet considered municipal taxes!!!

[franko]

MC said:

A few years ago they were losing millions. If this is true then Burke is even better than I realised. How come they are doing so much better than we are? Vancouver's a smaller market, they have a smaller arena, a larger payroll, and don't have the tv deal that we have with RDS (though they have games on Pay-Per-View).

Could it be creative book-keeping shown to prospective buyers?

THe other owners must hate the timing of this: We're all losing money big time . . . um, most of us, anyway!

[PTH]

Blaise said:

I was going to visit Montréal and take in some preseason and early season games, but I've canceled.

Let's hope the hockey climate is different next autumn.

I cancelled my RDS substriction - why have a useless channel ?

[MC Habber]

Skilly, I think you're double counting the building taxes. Either add the 9-11 million to what the Habs netted or subtract it from what Vancouver made (25 million, not 20). Even if both teams payed the same level of tax the Canucks still come out about 18 million ahead.

[HabbaDasher]

Rookie cap.
Kostitsyn, who hasn't even played 1 game in the AHL, is going to make over $1million.
Hossa & Hainsey, who haven't made the NHL yet make over a million.
Crazy.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Flames prepared to miss entire season

Canadian Press
9/16/2004

CALGARY (CP) - Calgary Flames president Ken King says the lockout is the best chance the club has to recapture the magic that led the club to the Stanley Cup final this spring.

King said the Flames need a system that includes a salary cap, noting that the team has lost $36 US million over the last 11 years, much of that in the seven-year period when Calgary missed the post season.

The Flames' amazing playoff run, which took them to Game 7 of the league final before losing to the Tampa Bay Lightning, was enough to cover the last two years of losses: an estimated $13 million.

"That was a Stanley Cup run, with the maximum number of games we could have played,'' King told a news conference at the Pengrowth Saddledome.

- www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=98933

*

Oilers to lose $13 million in lockout

Canadian Press
9/16/2004

EDMONTON (CP) - The Edmonton Oilers stand to lose $13 million this season if the team doesn't take the ice as a result of the NHL lockout, says board chair Cal Nichols.

But Nichols, who also serves as team governor, said Thursday the club's 37 owners are willing to take that hit in a bid for a new collective bargaining agreement with players that will achieve economic certainty.

'We will do what we need to do,'' he told reporters. "If we don't fix this, we won't have a future, certainly in Edmonton.''

- www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=98926

[Bob]

This might have already been put forward as an idea but what about something like a $30 - $35 million dollar cap plus one marquee player who is exempted from the calculation.

For example, Yashin's salary wouldn't have to be included in the Islander's $30 million budget.

It would still give the owners and players who have big egos an opportunity to pay/earn what they believe is fair market value and at the same time provide some cost certainty.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Skilly said:

I believe Boivin was quoted as saying that Montreal had to make the third round to break even. Everyone on hear assumed that to mean that Montreal had to play 7 or 8 playoff games at home.

We played 5, so we were 2-3 million short. I agree with your 3 million figure (give or take a million - what's a million between friends right?)


But, I would have to think, that when Boivin was quoted as saying the Habs could break even going to the third round that he didn't included the building taxes. -3 + 9 or 11 million would have given Montreal a surplus of 6 to 8 million.

If Vancouver had to pay 9-11 million in municipal taxes then their 20 million becomes a 9-11 million surplus and on par with the Habs.

Vancouver and Montreal might both pay municipal taxes and went roughly the same distance last year in the playoffs, but the huge difference in taxes is what is keeping Montreal back from making money.

I look at it this way (sorry to drag this out). If a playoff games supposedly nets 1 million dollars, then I will consider it a fair guestimate that a regular season game nets $750,000.

41 x $750,000 = 30.75 million

30.75 million - 40 million (Habs payroll) = -9.25 Million

-9.25 million + 5 million (playoff revenue) = -4.25 Million

And I haven't yet considered municipal taxes!!!

Great math Skilly. It makes the argument for shortening the season look silly. How about a 162 game season and raises for everybody. Your wife won't complain if you watch 162 games a year from August till June, will she?
Of course we can all afford $200,000 for a pair of seasons tickets, can't we.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

PTH said:

I cancelled my RDS substriction - why have a useless channel ?

What? Not hopping on la Caravane?

[blaise]

Definitely. In the late 1940s, teams dressed 11 forwards, 5 defensemen, and 1 goaltender. That's enough. Eliminate 4 marginal players on each team by reducing rosters to 19. One of the players in reserve would be the backup goaltender, who would be permitted to dress only if the playing goaltender is injured or ejected from the game. Fans would get to see each team's better players on the ice more minutes per game, especially if the rules are changed so that 4-on-4 is the norm. Some of the bottom 5 players cut by the teams deeper in talent would wind up on the weaker teams, thereby improving the average quality. Of course, payrolls would be trimmed.

[Skilly]

Blaise said:

Definitely. In the late 1940s, teams dressed 11 forwards, 5 defensemen, and 1 goaltender. That's enough. Eliminate 4 marginal players on each team by reducing rosters to 19. One of the players in reserve would be the backup goaltender, who would be permitted to dress only if the playing goaltender is injured or ejected from the game. Fans would get to see each team's better players on the ice more minutes per game, especially if the rules are changed so that 4-on-4 is the norm. Some of the bottom 5 players cut by the teams deeper in talent would wind up on the weaker teams, thereby improving the average quality. Of course, payrolls would be trimmed.

I agree with this also. Make the league a three line league. The fourth line doesn't need to be there.

The beauty of it is if each team was only allowed to have 18 player (9 forwards, 7 defensemen, 2 goalies) that would be a reduction in the overall payroll expense of 21.7% (5/23). The NHL is arguing that they want a system where the payroll expenses are in par with all the other professional sports (somewhere around 55% and 60%).

If the league numbers are correct (and it would be easy to prove if they open the books), the payroll expense is about 75% right now. Eliminating the fourth line gets it down to 54%.

[blaise]

Skilly said:

I agree with this also. Make the league a three line league. The fourth line doesn't need to be there.

The beauty of it is if each team was only allowed to have 18 player (9 forwards, 7 defensemen, 2 goalies) that would be a reduction in the overall payroll expense of 21.7% (5/23). The NHL is arguing that they want a system where the payroll expenses are in par with all the other professional sports (somewhere around 55% and 60%).

If the league numbers are correct (and it would be easy to prove if they open the books), the payroll expense is about 75% right now. Eliminating the fourth line gets it down to 54%.

Fourth line players are generally the lowest paid, so I doubt whether the reduction would be that great.

[Skilly]

Yes it would.

Just think of it as averages. The average salary in the NHL is 1.8 million. Some make more, some make less, but we are talking about jobs here and potential future earnings .... not actual today dollars.

30 teams x 23 players x 1.8 million = $1.242 billion

30 teams x 5 players gone x 1.8 million = $270 million

270/1242 = 21.7%


For some teams obviously in won't reduce the payroll 21.7%, but on average across the league they can reduce their payrolls 20% instantly by reducing the number of players

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Skilly said:

30 teams x 23 players x 1.8 million = $1.242 billion

30 teams x 5 players gone x 1.8 million = $270 million

270/1242 = 21.7%

The flaw in that assumption is that the players who will lose their jobs will each be paid the NHL average of $1.8M. In fact the players who will be affected will be earning $500K or less. Let's be generous and pin the figure at $500K. So:

30 teams * 5 players gone * $500K = $75M

75/1242 = 6%

Savings may not seem dramatic, but they would be savings nonetheless. To paraphrase the Vulcan saying - "The health of the many outweighs the needs of the few."

Once rosters are (re)adjusted to a limit of 18 players per team salary scales per club league-wide would likely change. Whether this would mean merely redistributing the same size pie as before or shrinking it, the NHL and NHLPA don't know for sure.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Then again, the pie might well become a cupcake:

Got nuthin'

By ERIC FRANCIS -- Calgary Sun

While more than four million Canadians sat on the edge of their seat watching the World Cup of Hockey Tuesday night, American sports fans were captivated by something far more popular. The World Series of Poker.

Yep, south of the border, there's more interest in Texans with no teeth bluffing away thousands of dollars than, well, Canadians with no teeth who are about to bluff away millions.

Nielsen overnight ratings showed viewership of the World Series of Poker's two-hour finale came up aces, drawing four times as many viewers as the biggest hockey game of the fall. Guys with names like Moneymaker holding a pair of deuces was more interesting to Americans than any defensive pair Team Canada could come up with against Finland.

It's a fact that illustrates exactly what NHL owners and players need to remember as they squander portions of their $2-billion business with every passing day of the lockout: Nobody in the U.S. cares.

So what if one-fifth of the league's teams are housed in hockey-mad Canadians cities where Joe Fan can name the likes and dislikes of his team's sixth defenceman?

What matters most is the future of the NHL lies in the fate of the American fans who, in large part, couldn't list the Original Six teams.

Try as they might, the NHL is nowhere near the same league as any of the other major sports. Their TV deals and ratings mirror the interest level that puts hockey below drunken gamblers, fishing derbies and even pro bowling telecasts.

Don't believe it?

Last year ESPN's 20 NHL games drew an average rating of .50, while ESPN2's telecast hovered around .20. The PBA (10-pin) Tour on ESPN attracted an .83 audience (730,000 households), bassmaster fishing was watched in 450,000 homes (.49) and Major League Soccer even toppled the NHL. The College World Series blew hockey away.

Given the NHL's laughable ratings, it's important to point out the key to survival lies in attendance, which will surely dip when hockey returns. Given how long it took Americans to return to the dear ol' ballyard following MLB's most recent labour stoppage, the NHL may never be able to get lost fans back.

Hockey is obviously the last thing on the minds of Americans now, which was evidenced by the fact news of Canada's World Cup win and the lockout announcement were the last items mentioned on ESPN Radio's updates yesterday. Pennant races are heating up, the NBA is just around the corner and the NFL has taken centrestage.

An ESPN sports poll taken last year found only 6.8% of respondents 'avid' hockey fans and when asked who their favourite player was more than half didn't cite anyone. They couldn't.

A lockout will do nothing to improve that, which is all the more reason why both sides must be reminded that if they don't get NHL hockey back on the ice and the tube soon they might as well toss in their cards.

Is that a gamble the players and owners are really willing to take?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

OK, enough with the doom and gloom. Let's see what the American media are saying.

*

NHL not expected to be missed a great deal
Sept. 18, 2004

By Steve Wilstein
Associated Press

The essential question facing NHL owners and locked-out players is: Who cares?

If they think there will be a groundswell of support for either side, fans camping out and begging them to return, a stream of stories in newspapers or on television lamenting their absence, they're living in a fantasy.

- cbs.sportsline.com/nhl/story/7693987

*

The night hockey died
Darkness set to fall upon game that deserves much better fate

Updated: Wednesday September 15, 2004 12:34AM

The World Cup of Hockey trophy rested on a Canadian flag on the floor of Team Canada's dressing room late Tuesday night, a gewgaw that was designed by renowned architect Frank Gehry and looks so stunningly ugly that if you put it on a table at a yard sale you would get $5 for it -- $10 tops. The body of the trophy is some kind of glass thing with a smaller silver cup sitting in the middle, which makes it look like a vase that would fit in a room with a cathedral ceiling.

This certainly was not the sort of vessel made for drinking champagne like Lord Stanley's splendid mug. Of course on the night when hockey died, it would have been appropriate if someone had stuck a bunch of lilies in it.

- sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/michael_farber/09/15/cup.wrap/index.html

*

How will we ever survive?

By David Vecsey
Special to Page 2

I think we've learned enough about our world by now to know not to call an NHL work stoppage a tragedy. And I hope we've all been paying enough attention over the past two years to know that this didn't just suddenly happen last night. Like, Poof!, where'd the season go?

For months now, both sides, the NHL owners and the NHL Players' Association, have been squirreling away money and drawing their lines in the sand. And fans have had ample time to ready themselves for the possibility that there will be no season.

Yet now that it's actually here, now that the World Cup is over and the padlocks are officially on the doors to the rinks ... what next? How will the absence of NHL hockey affect us?

- sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=vecsey/040916

*

Treatment of lockout shows NHL's problems

Spector / Special to FOXSports.com
Posted: 21 hours ago

The announcement of the National Hockey League player lockout was treated as headline news in Canada, running as the top story throughout the Canadian media.

The same, however, cannot be said for the American media, where the lockout announcement was treated with indifference.

According to a recent report in the Calgary Sun, with the exception of a few cities where hockey still matters in the U.S. sports market ("Boston, Buffalo, Detroit, Philadelphia and the Twin Cities"), the announcement was buried in the back of the sports pages in most American newspapers. It barely got a mention at all in the broadcast media.

Those few U.S. newspapers who devoted more than a few paragraphs to the story noted the loss of an NHL season will pass unnoticed and unlamented by American sports fans, many of whom treated pro hockey as a curiosity.

- msn.foxsports.com/story/3019376

*

Posted 9/15/2004 12:55 PM
Updated 9/17/2004 4:52 PM

Hockey fans the biggest losers in NHL labor dispute

The irreparable damage that will be done to North American hockey starts now.

The league has made the exceedingly anticlimactic decision to lock the players out on the eve of training camp, and this will not be a week-long show of strength. It will stretch on indefinitely. The implacability of both sides requires that the lockout go on for a long, long time. Any other scenario just won't cut it.

But this should not be a surprise. This is the fate that was predetermined from the moment the games resumed on January 20, 1995, after the 104-day lockout that occurred the last time the two sides locked horns. Although the terms "soft cap" and "cost certainty" were then years away from entering the NHL lexicon, the seeds for a long impasse were sown the minute the new agreement was forged back in 1995.

- www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/columnist/montgomery/2004-09-15-montgomery_x.htm

*

Feh. CBSsportsline, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, FoxSports, USA Today- alarmists and sensationalists. To borrow a line from Steve Simmons (shudder), "He shoots! He snores..." Not nearly as bad an outlook as I expected. At least no-one is calling for the dissolution of the league.

This is a situation that two strong willed men seeking the common goal of improving and ensuring the health of the game of hockey can easily overcome. Why, they could even go down in history together...

[Skilly]

M. said:

The flaw in that assumption is that the players who will lose their jobs will each be paid the NHL average of $1.8M. In fact the players who will be affected will be earning $500K or less. Let's be generous and pin the figure at $500K. So:

30 teams * 5 players gone * $500K = $75M

75/1242 = 6%

Savings may not seem dramatic, but they would be savings nonetheless. To paraphrase the Vulcan saying - "The health of the many outweighs the needs of the few."

Once rosters are (re)adjusted to a limit of 18 players per team salary scales per club league-wide would likely change. Whether this would mean merely redistributing the same size pie as before or shrinking it, the NHL and NHLPA don't know for sure.

I understand what both you and Blaise ar etrying to say, but the flaw in both of your assumptions is that you automatically assume that the lowest paid players will be gone.

On Montreal, for example, if they were told today they could only have 18 players signed then who would they keep?

Goalies
Theo - yes
Huet - dunno. They might opt to have Danis on the bench. But for argument sake let's say they keep Huet.

Defensemen
Souray - yes
Markov - yes
Komisarek - yes
Rivet - yes
Hainsey - yes (iffy)
Boullion (iffy)
Brisebois - maybe they would want to finally shed that 4 million contract

The Habs really only have 7 defensemen, so in this analogy nothing changes.

Forwards:
Koivu - yes
Zednik - yes
Ribeiro - yes
Bonk - yes

Then it gets iffy. They'd really have to sign Kovalev and Ryder. So I will include them

Ryder - yes
Kovalev - yes

So who would the next three be?

Dagenais? Bulis? Sundstrom, Ward?, Begin?, Hossa?, prospects?,

Eliminating Dagenais, Bulis and Sundstrom (they would be my picks under this scenario, but that is just me) would save Montreal 3.05 Million. Double your scenario where we assume 3 players at $500,000.

Now that is Montreal. What about Toronto where the bottom 3 players are making 1.0 million plus. Would they keep Tie Domi and his 1.9 million in a three line league? Aki Berg and his 1.4 million on defense? an aging Brian Leetch at 6.4 million?

The deal is they are eliminating jobs. I guess I misspoke by saying eliminating the fourth line (which could easily be implied to mean fourth liners). The elimination of 5 players per team would say I would suspect between 15-20 %. For the Habs it would save about 12% or more.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Skilly said:

I understand what both you and Blaise ar etrying to say, but the flaw in both of your assumptions is that you automatically assume that the lowest paid players will be gone.

True that mileage will vary from team to team.

On Montreal, for example, if they were told today they could only have 18 players signed then who would they keep?

Goalies
Theo - yes
Huet - dunno. They might opt to have Danis on the bench. But for argument sake let's say they keep Huet.

6 + 0.6 = $6.6M

Defensemen
Souray - yes
Markov - yes
Komisarek - yes
Rivet - yes
Hainsey - yes

3 + 1.8 + 1.13 + 2.75 + 0.75 = $9.43M

My selection - M. B-E.

Forwards:
Zednik-Koivu-Kovalev
Bonk-Ribeiro-Ryder
Bulis-Bégin-Sundstrom
Plekanec, Ward

2.3 + 4.5 + 4.25 = $11.05M
3.15 + 1.55 + 0.85 = $5.55
1.35 + 0.7 + 1.2 = $3.25
0.75 + 0.8 = $1.55

All forwards = $21.4M

Entire roster: 6.6 + 9.43 + 21.4 = $37.43M

2003-04 payroll: $38.9M (http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=16)

% saved: 3.8%

Now that is Montreal. What about Toronto where the bottom 3 players are making 1.0 million plus. Would they keep Tie Domi and his 1.9 million in a three line league? Aki Berg and his 1.4 million on defense? an aging Brian Leetch at 6.4 million?

Actually these are the dead leaves at the foot of the tree:

Hedin $550,000.00
Pilar $525,000.00
Perrott $450,000.00
Wilm $450,000.00
Druken$400,000.00

To be fair Belak ($1M) and Kilger ($0.8M) should be on that list.

The deal is they are eliminating jobs.

I believe the proper euphemism should come from one of the following options:

• downsizing
• rightsizing
• delayering
• business process re-engineering
• performance related pay adjustment
• 360 degree appraisal

The elimination of 5 players per team would say I would suspect between 15-20 %. For the Habs it would save about 12% or more.

Nope, only 3.8% for the Habs (see above).

[blaise]

Skilly, I believe you've overlooked a critical point in my saying that reducing the roster would not cut payrolls as much as you think.

Any setup similar to the one I suggested, with a roster of 18 or 19, would not take effect immediately. By the time it does, several white elephant contracts (e.g., the one to Brisebois) will have expired. I doubt that those overpaid players would be re-signed, at least not on the former terms. There are a few useful depth players on every team who don't make a lot of money (comparatively speaking). There wouldn't be room for them on a smaller roster. Do you think Gainey would have signed Langdon or Dowd if the team were limited to only 18 or 19 players? Would Ward be around? Dagenais? Axing them would not produce huge savings.

[Skilly]

M. said:

True that mileage will vary from team to team.


6 + 0.6 = $6.6M


3 + 1.8 + 1.13 + 2.75 + 0.75 = $9.43M


2.3 + 4.5 + 4.25 = $11.05M
3.15 + 1.55 + 0.85 = $5.55
1.35 + 0.7 + 1.2 = $3.25
0.75 + 0.8 = $1.55

All forwards = $21.4M

Entire roster: 6.6 + 9.43 + 21.4 = $37.43M

2003-04 payroll: $38.9M (http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=16)

% saved: 3.8%


Actually these are the dead leaves at the foot of the tree:

Hedin $550,000.00
Pilar $525,000.00
Perrott $450,000.00
Wilm $450,000.00
Druken$400,000.00

To be fair Belak ($1M) and Kilger ($0.8M) should be on that list.


I believe the proper euphemism should come from one of the following options:

• downsizing
• rightsizing
• delayering
• business process re-engineering
• performance related pay adjustment
• 360 degree appraisal

Nope, only 3.8% for the Habs (see above).

It is interesting that on an 18 player team you would only have 5 defensemen, 11 forwards and 2 goalies. In essence you would always be double shifting a d-man. I would have went with 6 defensemen, 10 forwards and 2 goalies.

Komisarek, Hainsey, Rivet, Souray, Markov, Brisebois.

approx. value : 13.43 Million but the option to buy Brisebois out and get a younger cheaper d-man is there and we all suspect it will happen. So eliminating Brisbois and adding a 2 million dollar Witt type player = 11.43 million

Forwards:
Koivu, Zednik, Kostitsyn
Ribeiro, Bonk, Ryder
Hossa, Begin, Perezhogin
Plekanec.

I say run and gun them ..... it would be very difficult for Gainey to choose which 3 forwards to eliminate in 2006.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Skilly said:

It is interesting that on an 18 player team you would only have 5 defensemen, 11 forwards and 2 goalies. In essence you would always be double shifting a d-man. I would have went with 6 defensemen, 10 forwards and 2 goalies.

I remember that in the 50s and 60s teams played with 3 forward lines and 2 pairs of d-men. Of course men were men back then. Heck, I recall goalies playing without masks.

[Skilly]

M. said:

I remember that in the 50s and 60s teams played with 3 forward lines and 2 pairs of d-men. Of course men were men back then. Heck, I recall goalies playing without masks.

True but which of the 5 defensemen you listed for the Habs to you honestly think could double shift and not be a liability? Most of them are liabilities when they are rested (exception to Markov when he is on his A game, and Oct-Feb Souray from last year). I don't know. Gainey would have to hire Guy Lapointe in a hurry and teach at least 4 of them to forget about offence (and be strong stay at home defensemen) because they need to stay healthy and rested.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Skilly said:

True but which of the 5 defensemen you listed for the Habs to you honestly think could double shift and not be a liability? Most of them are liabilities when they are rested (exception to Markov when he is on his A game, and Oct-Feb Souray from last year). I don't know. Gainey would have to hire Guy Lapointe in a hurry and teach at least 4 of them to forget about offence (and be strong stay at home defensemen) because they need to stay healthy and rested.

Are you suggesting that the d-men from way back whose shoulder pads wouldn't do justice to contemporary woman's jacket had more stamina than today's supersized weenies?

I think Souray, Rivet, Komisarek and Markov are all capable of handling 25+ minutes per game. Don't forget that the 29 other teams in the Original 30 would be in the same boat as the Habs.