Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks
Jasoaks

2021 Playoffs Catch All

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, gotchabari said:

But you're comparing a fee that occured 12 years prior to a $39M Cap to a fee that's occurring in an era where that cap doubled in 15 years.  

Both teams paid appropriate value at the time for what they were getting.  Vegas and Seattle are owed nothing extra just because the league is more successful now.

The "more favorable terms" they are getting is TV contracts, endorsements, higher ticket prices, and generally increased popularity.

It's a handout because they paid for the above, and then got the ED structure for free.

The protection structure wasn't in place up front.

And I agree with the good draft.  That was the main point of my post, in fact.  Other teams didn't have the luxury of picking up picks with all the extra players.

I'm not sure I understand your point with the first bolded sentence. Vegas is the first team to be added to the NHL since the salary cap came into effect in 2005. Prior to that, teams could give bad contracts to anyone, but they just didn't. Mostly because unrestricted free agency didn't exist prior to 1995, and between 1995 and 2005 it didn't start until age 31. They also didn't have NMCs back then. But with the introduction of UFA, the drop in age to 27, and these other contract terms, we've seen GMs give out a lot of really terrible contracts in the past 15 years. IMO, Vegas just took advantage of the GMs that had those terrible contracts.

I do agree that Vegas had an advantage in that they were able to select more players. Anaheim took one player from 24 teams and then turned around and lost their 2nd and 10th picks in the Phase II draft to Ottawa and Tampa (which was totally unfair IMO). Vegas got to select 30 players, and with a 23-man roster limit that meant they could flip more players for assets. That's definitely a huge difference. But not enough to justify an entry fee that is 5.5x larger in real money IMO. So I still just disagree that Vegas didn't buy more favorable draft terms with their $500 million entry fee. Paying 5.5x as much in entry fees doesn't buy them only 6 more cast offs. That kind of money should and did also buy them a better pool of players to choose from. So agree to disagree here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dtsdlaw said:

I'm not sure I understand your point with the first bolded sentence.

My point is that you're trying to say the higher fee means they should get better players.  I'm saying the higher fee is justified for the non-player side of things as much as it was in 1993.  Owning an NHL in 2017 is 5-7x more valuable than owning a franchise in 1993, and paying that much more shouldn't mean even additional benefits.  

In fact, many mid-to-large market teams have a 10x factor over the same period.  Others sold recently and have already doubled.  So that extra money doesn't mean they need special treatment, it means they are paying the same as 1993 in 2020 hockey dollars.

Carolina Hurricanes on the Forbes The Business of Hockey List  You can use the back and forth to scan across all the teams, I just landed on Carolina because it was a good example.  Smaller market and had a 1994 sale price for reference, and was almost 10 fold in that period.  If you find other with similar sales of mid 90s, you see similar growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, gotchabari said:

My point is that you're trying to say the higher fee means they should get better players.  I'm saying the higher fee is justified for the non-player side of things as much as it was in 1993.  Owning an NHL in 2017 is 5-7x more valuable than owning a franchise in 1993, and paying that much more shouldn't mean even additional benefits.  

In fact, many mid-to-large market teams have a 10x factor over the same period.  Others sold recently and have already doubled.  So that extra money doesn't mean they need special treatment, it means they are paying the same as 1993 in 2020 hockey dollars.

Carolina Hurricanes on the Forbes The Business of Hockey List  You can use the back and forth to scan across all the teams, I just landed on Carolina because it was a good example.  Smaller market and had a 1994 sale price for reference, and was almost 10 fold in that period.  If you find other with similar sales of mid 90s, you see similar growth.

Yes, but....

In terms of value for franchises, the overall value has gone up for all the teams. What you could argue with Vegas is their value also isn't like Arizona, for example, because they've had success and have been a good story so people are interested in the team and their merch. Suppose Vegas came out and played as bad as we had this year, do you think that franchise would be as good to market?

There is also all the team owners. Don't you think they all sat down and discussed the terms? I'm sure when they heard what the amount was and what each team would get they were fine with the conditions. It is a business after all. 

I think Vegas should have had a player poached in the entry draft. The problem is though that Seattle was supposed to come into the league last year and due to the circumstances wasn't able to be ready for this past season in time. So that really benefited Vegas more than anyone else because they could get that much better without having to worry about the expansion draft. I think they'd have to of had a different approach to the season if that were eligible, but it is what it is. 

I do think they paid more for those terms than previous franchises but it was also in the league's best interest to start a franchise on a more favorable ground. There was also a lot of smart moves made by Vegas and I don't think anyone expected them to be as good as they have. Time will tell if Seattle will be in the same boat. 

Vegas was kind of a laughing stock before they even started. Who's laughing now? They've become a destination for free agents in only a few short years. 

Then we can also point out and say that their top players almost came out of nowhere. Who would have thought Karlsson would be a top line winger? Was Theodore a 1st paring defenceman? Was MAF a vezina caliber goalie. Stop trying to make it seem that Vegas bought themselves an all star dream team for 600 million. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, gotchabari said:

But you're comparing a fee that occured 12 years prior to a $39M Cap to a fee that's occurring in an era where that cap doubled in 15 years.  

Both teams paid appropriate value at the time for what they were getting.  Vegas and Seattle are owed nothing extra just because the league is more successful now.

The "more favorable terms" they are getting is TV contracts, endorsements, higher ticket prices, and generally increased popularity.

It's a handout because they paid for the above, and then got the ED structure for free.

The protection structure wasn't in place up front.

And I agree with the good draft.  That was the main point of my post, in fact.  Other teams didn't have the luxury of picking up picks with all the extra players.

lol.  if there's one thing that HASN'T contributed to the overall NHL franchise value in the past decade or more, it's the abysmal TV contracts they signed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gotchabari said:

My point is that you're trying to say the higher fee means they should get better players.  I'm saying the higher fee is justified for the non-player side of things as much as it was in 1993.  Owning an NHL in 2017 is 5-7x more valuable than owning a franchise in 1993, and paying that much more shouldn't mean even additional benefits.  

In fact, many mid-to-large market teams have a 10x factor over the same period.  Others sold recently and have already doubled.  So that extra money doesn't mean they need special treatment, it means they are paying the same as 1993 in 2020 hockey dollars.

Carolina Hurricanes on the Forbes The Business of Hockey List  You can use the back and forth to scan across all the teams, I just landed on Carolina because it was a good example.  Smaller market and had a 1994 sale price for reference, and was almost 10 fold in that period.  If you find other with similar sales of mid 90s, you see similar growth.

I don't think you can compare a franchise's value with the expansion fees that are required to get an expansion team in the first place. When you buy a franchise, you buy the existing value of the franchise, which includes everything from existing merchandising and concessions contracts to local TV and radio contracts to the value of the contract the team signed with Gatorade to put their logo on the boards in front of the home team's bench. There are about 20 teams that own their own AHL affiliate too. So when you value a team, all of that is included in the valuation. But the expansion fees are basically like admission tickets to the county fair. They get you in the door, but you still have to pay for every ride you go on, every corn dog and fried pickle you eat, and every cheap trinket your 6-year-old begs you to buy. Once Vegas paid its $500 million directly to the other NHL franchises for the right to start a team, they were essentially given the right to start a team and share in hockey-related revenue, but then they still had to actually build an NHL organization. So the amount their ownership group had to invest to get that team up and running far exceeds just the $500 million admission fees.

Also, if Vegas had gotten the same draft terms as its most recent predecessors, why wouldn't you correlate their expansion fees to the value of those similarly situated franchises? Using the Forbes tool to go back to 2017, the value of the Blue Jackets in 2017 was $315M. Nashville was $380M. Florida was $305M. Tampa $390M. Even the Ducks, coming off two WCFs in 3 years and with a Stanley Cup already in their trophy case, were valued at $440M. So why does Vegas, a new team in a non-traditional hockey market where ice doesn't stand a chance outside (and the 40th largest media market in the US), pay $500 million in expansion fees when comparable franchises who went through early suckage periods following their expansion were still worth $100M+ less than $500 million? I get your argument if the value of VGK's total investment (entry fees plus initial expenses to get the team up and running) had been correlated to the value of one of those recent expansion teams in non-traditional hockey markets. But they weren't. VGK's admission fees were significantly more than what any of those other franchises were worth in 2017. I'm sure we're just talking past each other at this point and neither of us will change each other's mind, but that's how I see it. Vegas paid more, so they got more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, g20topdogg said:

Yes, but....

In terms of value for franchises, the overall value has gone up for all the teams. What you could argue with Vegas is their value also isn't like Arizona, for example, because they've had success and have been a good story so people are interested in the team and their merch. Suppose Vegas came out and played as bad as we had this year, do you think that franchise would be as good to market?

No, same risk at the same price previous expansion teams have had to go through.  You pay TODAY'S value and grind it out a few years to get good.  It isn't just handed to you... at least not in the past.

Ducks played market value for a team in 1993.  Vegas played market value for a team in 2017.  Then you get a few Dehydrated Donkey Dung players and get going.  Shouldn't be any different just because of inflation, both generic and that built by the rest of the league in that time.

 

4 hours ago, g20topdogg said:

There is also all the team owners. Don't you think they all sat down and discussed the terms? I'm sure when they heard what the amount was and what each team would get they were fine with the conditions. It is a business after all.

I don't.  I remember lots of anger at the time that Bettman went off on his own concocting the way the draft was going to go, and/or did it when it was too late, with no ability to veto the expansion because that part was already long complete.

4 hours ago, g20topdogg said:

I think Vegas should have had a player poached in the entry draft. The problem is though that Seattle was supposed to come into the league last year and due to the circumstances wasn't able to be ready for this past season in time. So that really benefited Vegas more than anyone else because they could get that much better without having to worry about the expansion draft. I think they'd have to of had a different approach to the season if that were eligible, but it is what it is.

The fact that it was delayed should double the "Vegas should get poached" part, even though the case was strong even without it.

4 hours ago, g20topdogg said:

I do think they paid more for those terms than previous franchises but it was also in the league's best interest to start a franchise on a more favorable ground. There was also a lot of smart moves made by Vegas and I don't think anyone expected them to be as good as they have. Time will tell if Seattle will be in the same boat.

In the League's best interest to be entertaining, but this was too much.  

Seattle won't be in the same boat because everyone knew the rules before locking up certain contracts.  They'll probably end up being where Vegas SHOULD have been.  Decent, but not rolling 4 second lines. 

4 hours ago, g20topdogg said:

Vegas was kind of a laughing stock before they even started. Who's laughing now? They've become a destination for free agents in only a few short years.

They've become a destination because ED allowed for the coll3ection of picks and cap space to pay the men.  Give us that same overhead and bottomless picks and we'll suddenly become a mecca.  

They were a a laughing stock because they call themselves the Knights, but have a Spartan helmet as their logo.  Also because their fans think they should be compared to previous expansion teams.

4 hours ago, g20topdogg said:

Then we can also point out and say that their top players almost came out of nowhere. Who would have thought Karlsson would be a top line winger? Was Theodore a 1st paring defenceman? Was MAF a vezina caliber goalie. Stop trying to make it seem that Vegas bought themselves an all star dream team for 600 million. 

When put with other players that don't allow teams to match up, yes.  Yes I expected them to all be better.  Karlsson's one great season was probably the flukiest, but he still does well back to earth as a 2nd line quality guy because the whole team is a match-up difficulty.  And yes, MAF was still Vezina quality when he left.  He had worsening defense in front of him, as evidenced by Pitt's slow decline.

Theodore did have the makings of a first pairing D, and took a couple years to get there.  He is exactly the type of player that they got as a result of the ED rules.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gotchabari said:

No, same risk at the same price previous expansion teams have had to go through.  You pay TODAY'S value and grind it out a few years to get good.  It isn't just handed to you... at least not in the past.

I never said they got it handed to them. They drove the value of their franchise up by playing good smart hockey and making moves that were good for the team. 

Ducks played market value for a team in 1993.  Vegas played market value for a team in 2017.  Then you get a few Dehydrated Donkey Dung players and get going.  Shouldn't be any different just because of inflation, both generic and that built by the rest of the league in that time.

They were pretty generic players for the most part though. 

I don't.  I remember lots of anger at the time that Bettman went off on his own concocting the way the draft was going to go, and/or did it when it was too late, with no ability to veto the expansion because that part was already long complete.

The fact that it was delayed should double the "Vegas should get poached" part, even though the case was strong even without it.

I agree. Vegas should have had to give up a player to Seattle. 

In the League's best interest to be entertaining, but this was too much.  

Seattle won't be in the same boat because everyone knew the rules before locking up certain contracts.  They'll probably end up being where Vegas SHOULD have been.  Decent, but not rolling 4 second lines. 

They've become a destination because ED allowed for the coll3ection of picks and cap space to pay the men.  Give us that same overhead and bottomless picks and we'll suddenly become a mecca.  

They were a a laughing stock because they call themselves the Knights, but have a Spartan helmet as their logo.  Also because their fans think they should be compared to previous expansion teams.

When put with other players that don't allow teams to match up, yes.  Yes I expected them to all be better.  Karlsson's one great season was probably the flukiest, but he still does well back to earth as a 2nd line quality guy because the whole team is a match-up difficulty.  And yes, MAF was still Vezina quality when he left.  He had worsening defense in front of him, as evidenced by Pitt's slow decline.

Theodore did have the makings of a first pairing D, and took a couple years to get there.  He is exactly the type of player that they got as a result of the ED rules.

Ummmm... lol. If Theodore was a 1st pairing D we would have never gotten rid of him. He wasn't that great, but we let him go to early. But to say that he was going to be as good as he is now isn't really remembering it the way that it was. If MAF was playing vezina level, Pittsburgh would have never even entertained the idea of sending him off. Much less offering a pick to Vegas to choose him instead of someone else. Karlsson was NEVER the potential scorer that he is now. Again, you make it seem like they were just handed an all star quality team from everyone else. Teams should have evaluated their players better. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, g20topdogg said:

 

yeah, i mean...i challenge anyone to find an article a post or a tweet or anything before Vegas played their first game that said something to the extent of "wow! this vegas team is going to go far!! Soooo good!!" they were intended to be able to compete quicker than past expansion teams. That was Bettman's intent. He was clear about that. But no one thought it would be THIS quick. Even after the ED.

MAF is absolutely the biggest reason IMO. But I understand why MAF was given up. He had back to back playoffs where we basically choked and Murray had to come in to save the day. Pittsburgh doesn't win either cup if they stick with MAF. He's a great goalie. And he's now showing that he truly is one of the greatest goalies. I hope he doesn't retire any time soon. My respect for him as a goalie has definitely increased these past few seasons.

(except for that whole drama last year with the agent/tweet...... ugh.....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quotes got screwed up here somehow...

"I never said they got it handed to them. They drove the value of their franchise up by playing good smart hockey and making moves that were good for the team. "

I know.  I am saying they had it handed to them.  That's my argument.  There is no defense, monetarily, why they had the rules changed for them versus prior EDs.

"They were pretty generic players for the most part though."

I agree in the sense that they weren't flashy names (except Fleury, Reaves, and probably Marchessault), but disagree that they weren't contributors on their teams.  And, again, it is the plurality of them that made it so unfair.

"Ummmm... lol. If Theodore was a 1st pairing D we would have never gotten rid of him. He wasn't that great, but we let him go to early. But to say that he was going to be as good as he is now isn't really remembering it the way that it was. If MAF was playing vezina level, Pittsburgh would have never even entertained the idea of sending him off. Much less offering a pick to Vegas to choose him instead of someone else. Karlsson was NEVER the potential scorer that he is now. Again, you make it seem like they were just handed an all star quality team from everyone else. Teams should have evaluated their players better."

He was expected to rise over a few years, but it's also a bit unfair to call him top pairing.  Again, they play team hockey because they have multiple "solid/good" players.  Technically he is top pairing at 21 minutes average, but their bottom pairing averages 18-19 and middle pairing averages 20.  They're rolling 3 defensive pairings and he plays one minute longer than the others.  To call that a top D pairing in the traditional sense is a bit much.  Theodore was expected to be what he was.  We HAD to get rid of him or Silfverberg, who was doing way better at the time.  That's the entire point of calling out how unfair he ED was.  We shouldn't have had to be dealing with decisions like that.

As for Karlsson, exactly.  He never had that potential on a team with 1-2-3-4 lines.  Once you get 2-2-3-3, all of a sudden the match-ups open doors beyond player potential.  Again, he came back down to earth for the most part, but still doing better than what's allowed on a team that has to build over time.  I mean, look at Maroon.  He's been all over the map on stats, and mostly based on where he sat with linemates and in the depth chart.  Once he found a spot wehre he had decent linemates, but not enough to attract the top defenders, he's got a 27 goal season for Edmonton!        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...