Friday's news: the Chicago Blackhawks are still losers
by Dirk Hoag on Jul 30, 2010 7:43 AM EDT
Email
PrintLet's finish off the work week with some surprising news - while they may have won the Stanley Cup, the Chicago Blackhawks are still losers in a very important sense.
This, and a whole lot more after the jump...
Predators News
Brent Peterson coaches up the next generation of hockey players - Nashville Predators Examiner
Jim Diamond cuts through the facade, pointing out that while it appeared that he was merely help young kids learn the fundamentals of hockey, he was actually "scouring the ice looking for anyone to improve upon the woeful Predators penalty killing unit".
Off-season Losses & Gains (Part 3 of 4) - Predlines
Ah, Boyd & Grebeshkov, Preds fans hardly knew ye.
Rink Side Rants - Predlines
Nathan joins a podcast to talk Preds, among other things.
30 Goals In 30 Days: #5 vs. STL, Nov. 12 - PredsBlog
The goal here is nice, but the fan reaction is better!
Around the NHL
Blackhawks finances: Blackhawks win on the ice, lose off it - chicagotribune.com
The Blackhawks may have just won the Stanley Cup, but they're not turning a profit yet; that part of their turnaround is still a work in progress (thanks to @SLakePreds on Twitter for pointing this out).
Cover art for EA Sports' first Wii hockey game, "NHL Slap Shot" - ProHockeyTalk
Check out the cover for the new Wii game (NHL Slapshot
Blake Wheeler awarded $2.2 million in arbitration - Stanley Cup of Chowder
He's not an exact comparable to Patric Hornqvist, but with 39 goals in two NHL seasons, it was good to see his salary come in under the $2.5M mark. Now the question is whether the Bruins will accept the award or walk away from the deal.
Devin Setoguchi and San Jose looking for a one-year deal - Fear The Fin
A number of players are going with one-year contracts; could Patric Hornqvist also keep things short-term?
Eight NHL franchises that improved the most this offseason - SI.com
Allan Muir's list, inexplicably, includes St. Louis. Have they done anything significant other than swap out Chris Mason for Jaroslav Halak? I'm sorry, but that's not a huge improvement.
The 'Lidstrom in decline' arguments are wearing thin | MLive.com
George Malik reacts to a truly terrible hockey stats blogger's questioning of the Detroit captain. Is Lidstrom in decline? Certainly, but it's a slow, steady one, and he's still one of the elite blueliners in the league.
Restricted free agents still waiting on offers - NHL Free Agency 2010
There are a ton of good RFA's just sitting around, supposedly ripe for an offer sheet. It would still be surprising to see one happen, however.
NHL Head Coaching: No More Recycling! - View From My Seats
Matt celebrates the new blood coming into the NHL.
Who is the most hated team in the NHL today? - Puck Daddy
A wonderful question to consider here in late July...
To keep up with all of our coverage of the Nashville Predators, you can subscribe to the RSS feed, follow us on Twitter (@Forechecker & @predatweeter), or catch the site on Facebook. You can also email me at the.forechecker@gmail.com.
27 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
...
Who is the most hated team in the NHL today? – Puck Daddy
A wonderful question to consider here in late July…
Does this question really need to be asked?
On the Forecheck: preaching the Predators' gospel to the unwashed masses.
Given the constant vitriol spewed our way from Canada, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least to find out that we were one of the most hated teams in hockey. Can you imagine the rage once we win the Stanley Cup and they realize that the name “Nashville” will be engraved on it until the end of time? Lol.
Broad Street Bullies,Toronto's Sideshow Bob and Friends
were all SI’s all time list.
Can’t argue with the Bullies, or the Quinn/Corson/Tucker/Domi/Travis Green era Leafs.
Currently, I think the Flyers (Pronger and about 5 others) , the Canucks (Burrows/Kesler), and the Ducks (Perry and Wiz) stir up the most hatred due to the running around they employ, while the Red Wings, Pens, Sharks and Caps stir up anger based on their recent success (it ill only get worst if the Sharks and Caps ever do something in the playoffs).
I don’t think Nashville really registers on the mosted hated radar on a league wide scale.
Even on a team by team basis, our biggest current rivals, Detroit and Chicago, seem to have it in for each other, more than for us. Talking to visiting fans at the rink, it seems as though only Dallas (snubbing Modano? Robidas KO?) and C-bus (losing 90% of the games?) truly have some hate for the Preds.
by DontfeedtheBelak on Jul 30, 2010 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions
great gif
one of my favorite all-time Preds’ scraps… Lilja out for a year+… he shouldn’ta gone after Shea!
by Broadwaybully on Jul 30, 2010 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Muir
Lethargic also pointed out that he has Dallas and Calgary on that list even though he states that he doesn’t expect them to improve much in the standings this year.
It’s also another case of the Preds being overlooked. Losing Arnott and Hamhuis is addition by subtraction, something he gives Dallas credit for, but not the Preds. Lombardi was considered the best center free agent available, but I guess since he went to the Preds and not an original six, it’s not considered an improvement.
Chicago
I wonder if the amount they lost equates to the contracts of Campbell and Huet…….
I don’t think anybody should feel sorry for a team in a big city with the Cup and that sells out every game, and will likely be contenders for years to come with the young nucleus.
Still, it seems backwards that the revenue-sharing takes from the biggest absolute revenue generators, regardless if those teams are (perhaps only on accounting doctored paper) losing money, and will never be eligible for the handouts themselves. Maybe they should redo the equation and make it a percentage of profits. In any case, at least Wirtz is willing to lose money to put a good Chicago franchise on the ice. The league is better off with its marquee teams doing well.
by DontfeedtheBelak on Jul 30, 2010 11:39 AM EDT reply actions
If anybody can show me concrete proof that the Wirtz organization actually lost money because of the Blackhawks this year, I’ll buy a Patrick Kane jersey to be buried in.
I have no doubt that the story is just an excuse for them raising their prices. Forbes says they had a positive operating income of $20M in 2009 and the article says that they lost money then too. Since they’re a private corporation and don’t open their books, I don’t believe a word of this “we lost money” stuff.
If they redid the equation to make it a percentage of profits, every team would just hide their profits like movie companies do. Revenue sharing bothers the big clubs, but it’s not causing them to lose money.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jul 31, 2010 9:19 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree, if you made it a portion of the profits, big-market teams would have little incentive to control costs.
They’d rather build marble bathrooms for their hot dog vendors than send that money out of town.
On the Forecheck is SB Nation's blog covering the Nashville Predators. Catch me on Twitter at @Forechecker.
Good point
It seems like Forbes estimates that Chi had 100+ million in revenue, and 20+ M in profits. Not sure where 20 M in estimated profits becomes however many million in losses.
And revenue sharing does bother the ‘big clubs’, but the the Maple Leafs and Rangers still clear many, many millions net of revenue sharing. However, there have been middle of the pack, non ‘hockey hotbed’ teams guys (LA, Anaheim, Dallas, New Jersey, Ottawa, Edmonton, and I am sure others) since the lockout have made enough revenue pay into revenue sharing (either by being playoff teams and/or being top 10 revenue generators, and thus paying into Tier III or Tier IV revenue sharing)
that take teams that are either borderline profitable and then making then net money losers.
Some of these teams (NJ. Ahah
eim, LA, Dallas) will never be eligible to get revenue sharing (due to market size, 2.5 M TV households), and others (Ottawa, Edmonton) will be unlikely to ever get substantial amounts in the near future, since the bottom 15 revenue generating teams only benefit, with team 30 getting the biggest payout, 29 2nd biggest, etc.) .
Conversely, since the lockout, Nashville, Florida, Atlanta, Columbus, and Phoenix have been, every single year, at the top of the list of eligible (the Islanders are not eligible, but are always at the bottom of revenue generators) teams for payouts. It is very unlikely in the forseeable future that these teams will put into net revenue sharing, (in playoff years low income teams pay 30% of playoff gates into the pool, but that, to date, has never come close to the checks they get from other teams).
So, when teams are budgeting for the upcoming year, should Atlanta and Pheonix and Nashville and Columbus and Miami always assume they will be getting 10 M in payouts? Should Edmonton always err on the side of caution, and assume even in a good playoff year, they will only be paying several million into the pool?
J.J. from Kansas did correctly point out that revenue sharing bothers the big clubs but it doesn’t cause them to lose money. That doesn’t hold up to the ‘middle of the pack’ clubs though.
by DontfeedtheBelak on Jul 31, 2010 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Clarification
I stated that Florida will always get revenue sharing, but it seems that Miami is a 2.5+ million household market. I will have to check if they are even eligible.
I also stated that that the above teams that get docked, but will likely never benefit, were ‘non-hockey hotbeds’. Better to say small-market for The Oilers, one of the best hockey markets going. But with their current arena situation, and the past risk of being moved, they aren’t a guarantee to be profitable every year.
and No offense to LA, Ahaheim, and the Isle, and NJ, but even when they have had their share of empty seats, even when teams are winning. I don’t think that these teams should never be eligible for revenue sharing. the Islanders and Jersey will always be the weak sisters compared to nearby Philly, the Blueshirts, and upstate Buffalo.
by DontfeedtheBelak on Jul 31, 2010 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions
I know that only New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles(Anaheim included) were too big for revenue sharing when the CBA was signed. I don’t think Florida is disqualified based on being too big a market, but I don’t know.
They may be disqualified though because after 2007, additional requirements to bring in 75% capacity and to outpace average league growth came into affect, which if not met, does cut down on the amount of revenue sharing dollars a club can receive (on an increasing severity scale based on how many years of failing to meet these goals a team has). It’s kind of like “No Child Left Behind” there in where the most struggling teams get less money as if that’s somehow supposed to motivate them to spend enough to compete and fill their arenas.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jul 31, 2010 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions
New Jersey and Florida
I found online sources that say that NJ is ineligible for revenue sharing (I guess they are considered New York area), and Florida (according to articles in the Florida Sun Sentinel) alluding to the Panthers getting their ‘full share’.
In a market like Miami, do you think they sould be entitled to as much as Nashville? If so, why not Jersey? Its Newark, which isn’t exactly the nice part of that area.
by DontfeedtheBelak on Jul 31, 2010 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions
J.J. from Kansas did correctly point out that revenue sharing bothers the big clubs but it doesn’t cause them to lose money. That doesn’t hold up to the ‘middle of the pack’ clubs though.
That’s actually a part of the revenue sharing system they got right though (although I still think the system is too weak to make struggling teams competitive and uses too much of players’ escrow dollars to shield big teams from having to share more with small teams).
The amount a team has to put into the revenue-sharing pot for any given season is based directly on their revenues for that season and how much their revenues exceeded the league’s average revenue. Only the top-ten revenue-receiving clubs pay into a known pot and their percentage changes based on where they are in the top ten. This way, teams like the Rangers and Maple Leafs pay around 25% of the revenue sharing dollars (the money needed, not 25% of their revenues, mind you), while team #10 on that list usually kicks in somewhere in the low single-digits for percentage needed. The only time one of these middling clubs comes into the equation is when they’re having a fantastic year and pull in enough revenue so their small share doesn’t take them into the red.
The better part of this is one of the ways to disqualify yourself from the first tiers of revenue sharing is to voluntarily spend above the salary midpoint (figured to be the players’ share of the average club’s revenue). Middling teams get hurt here by hurting themselves taking a risk spending more than they should. The way the cap is set up ($8M above the players’ share of the average club’s revenue), a team that doesn’t expect to make more than the average club’s revenue should have less incentive to spend above the midpoint.
Of course, this is cyclic and it gives smaller teams much less incentive to spend enough to compete with the bigger teams, leaving the overall league parity argument in the dust.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jul 31, 2010 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
All that being said, there’s a lot more parity than there used to be. Pre-lockout, teams ranged in payroll from $70M+ down to the low $20M’s. Even with cap-gimmickry, the range for any given season now runs from $60M-40M.
As I noted during the Hawks/Preds series, thanks to Huet being benched and Campbell’s injury, during the early part of that round Nashville actually had the higher-paid team on the ice.
On the Forecheck is SB Nation's blog covering the Nashville Predators. Catch me on Twitter at @Forechecker.
That counts Kane & Toews at their entry-level salaries, right?
by J.J. from Kansas on Jul 31, 2010 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions
By “cap gimmickry” I mean the ability for actual salary to go a few million above the cap (or theoretically below the floor) due to bonuses or the whole yearly salary vs. contract average thing.
On the Forecheck is SB Nation's blog covering the Nashville Predators. Catch me on Twitter at @Forechecker.
Makes sense
but this ‘narrow cap’ (40 floor 58 ceiling) results in rich teams burying bad contracts to be under the ceiling and low end teams taking on bad contracts to get to the floor. I don’t know that Mike Commodore is worth what he’s getting, but many speculated at the time that C-bus was willing to overpay just to get to the floor. Or the year we picked bup Devreis and Bonk late to the tune of what, 5 M? Of course, why not overpay by a million or so when you are getting 10 M back from the NHL/ top ten teams/playoff teams?
Its hard for me to therefore buy this league parity stuff. I would like to think a mechanism that allows Nashville to borrow money to field a 45 M dollar team makes them more competitive, but so far, that hasn’t been the case. In fact, the only traditional low revenue team to make a run has been Carolina, twice. Atlanta, Nashville, Florida, Phoenix, Columbus, have yet to make it past the first round.
These teams also have had limited regular season success. I don’ think Nashville 2006-2010 is, in any way, quantifiably more competitive than that first playoff team in 2004.
The incentive for low end teams to remain low end is enticing to the bottom line in this system.
I wonder how people would feel about a slightly higher cap/slightly lower floor system………with all one way contracts counting fully against the cap, no matter what (unless bought out).
by DontfeedtheBelak on Jul 31, 2010 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
THIS^
Sorry, I don’t mean to keep hijacking the conversation back to parity and how it compares before the lockout, because I do think the cap has brought very good things for the NHL as a business. But, I agree with the idea that the range between floor and ceiling needs to be adjusted because it’s too narrow.
That Carolina team that made the Conference Finals in 2008 was spending above the salary midpoint and cost themselves money. They got swept by Pittsburgh and, through the magic of hindsight, were playing way above their level and probably didn’t have a realistic chance to win either of the two series they would have needed to in order to win the cup. Compare this to how Carolina was doing pre-lockout and how they did just after the lockout (before things got out of hand with the cap rising) and you see a team in Raleigh-Durham that’s in worse shape now than they ever have been. The CBA seems to have done more to save large teams from themselves than it’s done to save small teams from extinction.
I worry that the players are going to have to make themselves the bad guys when it comes to making sure there is a bottom of the league that can survive. Unfortunately, the NHLPA is so fractured right now that they’re not positioned to call the league out on implementing a system that would require them to do this. The players need the small teams in on this. I only hope the Chicago posturing about how much they have to kick into the revenue sharing pot ends up backfiring.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jul 31, 2010 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Floor Ceiling Gap
I think it would be good for the players, rich teams and poor teams, to have like you say, JJfromKansas, a bigger gap. Rich teams burying contracts in the minors circumvents the cap just as much as Zetterberg type deals do.
As well, having Columbus Atlanta and Nashville overpay guys like Commodore, Hainsey, Bonk and Devries (with revenue sharing dollars)just to artificially get to a floor does little for competitive balance.
When we kept Sullivan on the active roster just so we had his dollars count against the cap (while real world contract was paid by insurance), that’s a joke. But it had to be done, so we got our full revenue sharing share.
This current system encourages low revenue teams to play for the middle, because like in your Carolina example, playing for it all is risky and leads to problems.
by DontfeedtheBelak on Aug 1, 2010 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Can they hide the profits?
I thought both league and player-endorsed accountants go over the books, and agree to what counts as hockey related revenue. The profit calculation won’t change.
If they agreed to what counted as expenditures (player payroll is well-defined, but they can easily do the same for arena costs, travel costs, day to day expenses….which I think they did, to come up with the ’we can make profits if we keep players costs to 54% line from the CBA), than the % of profits can be done.
by DontfeedtheBelak on Jul 31, 2010 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions
You don’t need accounting tricks to get around this, though. A big-market team would much rather spend more on their own organization (luxurious travel, world-class training facilities, etc.) instead of sending money out the door via revenue sharing.
Basing contributions on net profits establishes a disincentive for big-market teams to rein in costs.
On the Forecheck is SB Nation's blog covering the Nashville Predators. Catch me on Twitter at @Forechecker.
Aren't the standards for travel
universal in the league? I would imagine the spectrum of training faciliities and traveling from team to team don’t vary too much. The Preds and Thrashers are put up in four star hotels with charter flights and have the same type of gym as the Maple Leafs.
Is there accessible info on what one team spends on this stuff versus the others?
The NHL and the NHLPA should have (and I believe they have) had some sort of standard that is universally held.
by DontfeedtheBelak on Jul 31, 2010 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions
One thing that came to light in the Phoenix situation was that Jerry Moyes spent a ton of extra money by having the Coyotes use a travel company that he owned. There was a specific point in the proceedings, if I recall, where the NHL had to appeal to the bankruptcy judge to let them tear that relationship up and use a more reasonable firm.
On the Forecheck is SB Nation's blog covering the Nashville Predators. Catch me on Twitter at @Forechecker.
I recall that, too
but there were accusations that Moyes was just trying to artifically put money back into his own pockets. I don’t think that his company was ‘higher quality’.
Plus, the desert dogs are the least profitable/revenue generating team in the league. Its not like there is a discrepancy between the Rangers/Leafs/Red Wings/Canadiens travel accomodations, flight quality, training facilities, etc.
and Phoenix. I think, in this instance, the most bankrupt team had more ‘luxurious’ (only on paper) travel accomodations than any of the other 29 teams, by a reasonable margin.
by DontfeedtheBelak on Jul 31, 2010 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Remember the original point
It doesn’t matter whether it’s luxury, or lining your own pockets, the point of the matter is that there are a zillion ways teams could (and would) avoid showing a profit. Thus, basing revenue sharing contributions on team profits is a non-starter.
On the Forecheck is SB Nation's blog covering the Nashville Predators. Catch me on Twitter at @Forechecker.
Why hate on us?
Other than the Canadian Media who hate us with Limbaugh like hate of liberals. The only team I know who hates us because we kick their butt every year is C-Bus!!! But that is understandable with our every year bullying of them. Detroit and now Chicago just seem to tolerate us.
Chicago spending exceeding income?
How easy would it be to make political parallels? Just sayin’…
NHL 10 for XBox 360 is like paying $60 for bipolar disorder...
Go Predators!!!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
About OTF
Dirk Hoag is the Forechecker, churner of NHL stats & analysis, and managing editor of On the Forecheck.
Follow @Forechecker
Got a question, a suggestion, or are interested in advertising here to reach thousands of Nashville Predators fans? Feel free to email the.forechecker@gmail.com.
Check us out on iTunes!
Featured Stories
Are you new here? Read this first!
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- An illustrated guide to the Minnesota Wild’s misery when Marek Zidlicky plays
- Kris Versteeg making good things happen for surprising Florida Panthers
- Puck Daddy’s NHL Valentine’s Day Candy Hearts Gallery; eat it up, hopeless romantics
- Wild prospect Justin Fontaine suspended for using gay slur on Twitter about Foo Fighters
- Monday’s Three Stars: Staal leads Hurricanes; Pavelski’s four-point night
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
