Toronto's Financial Picture...
nijjar
Quite rosy if you ask me. They didn't even make it out of the second round
of the playoffs, and still made a profit of $17.5 million (highest in the
NHL) on revenues of $84.4 million. Now who says we can't afford Blake AND
Lindros?
James Connolly
but who excactly are we going to give up to get two players of that calibur?
"nijjar" <nij...@internet.look.ca> wrote in message
news:ctCb6.4503$9v2.1...@quark.idirect.com...
Owl
Please post for yourself.
The Leafs cannot afford Lindros and Blake. Leafs payroll is around
5th or 6th in the League, and other contracts are coming up for
negotiations - Kaberle, Korolev, maybe Perreault, etc. and some other
contracts are coming up for some hefty hikes - Berezin goes from $2mil
to almost $3mil next year; Tucker gets a 50% raise ... and they still
have mortgages out on Diduck and Khristich.
Nijar sees a nice rosy number like $17.5mil profit - guess what?, it's
gone and then some if both these players are signed (Lindros $10mil
and Blake $9mil). Doubtful Blake's coming here, but it's pretty easy
to substitute some other Free Agents as "Gee, let's get-em" targets
like Sakic, LeClair, Selanne.
>but who excactly are we going to give up to get two players of that calibur?
If you're talking about netting out the diff - try a scenario where
Thomas retires and Lindros comes in - net diff $7.5, or Markov gets
traded and Blake comes in - net diff $8.4. Congrats, instant
non-profit organization. (Don't try to sell me on big ticket-price
increases okay?). If you think that these two marquee players makes
us a lock for better than second-round ... talk to Glenn Sather.
Leafs have two high-payroll guys - Joseph (who won't be taking a
pay-cut the year after next), and Sundin (can of worms to get down and
dirty about his value). Lindros won't give you a full season, Blake
is better, but still isn't as good as Sundin for durability. Swap him
out for a tender Lindros and watch the kettle boil.
My vote is in for chasing one (not more than one and not less than
one) marquee player from the Free Agent market, and if there's some
trades to be done do it later rather than sooner for a 1st or 2nd
round draft choice. Financially gutting the team and trading off the
roster is something you do when you're in the position of Colorado,
St. Louis or New Jersey - not with this year's Leafs.
>> Quite rosy if you ask me.
It's the tint in the glasses.
>> They didn't even make it out of the second round of the playoffs,
Check the way this year's standings are shaping up and it's not
looking as healthy.
>> and still made a profit of $17.5 million (highest in the NHL) on revenues of $84.4 million.
Whoop-de-doo. If you think that's a big impressive number, consider
that Khristich and Diduck were subsidized to play for another team
(just when we got off the Derek King show). A few more great
financial decisions like that should eat up that $17.5 like it was
chocolate-coated.
>> Now who says we can't afford Blake AND Lindros?
I do. Show me the payoff in a way the stock-holders will understand,
instead of making Al Strachan's latest Warp 9 adventure look
reasonable.
nijjar
Plus, revenues will also increase from increased ticket prices, TV deals,
and merchandizing....
Owl <o...@moonlite.com> wrote in message
news:ok9u6tcgeuu3uest5...@4ax.com...
Owl
wrote:
>More playoff home dates = More $$$...
Best case - all the extra way to a 7-game final - add maybe $8mil.
If you spend with that in mind and miss - you lose! If you sweep in
four and miss two extra playoff gates ... you still lose!
>Better players = More playoff success.
Phone Glenn Sather and tell him that.
>Plus, revenues will also increase from increased ticket prices, TV deals,
>and merchandizing....
Thanks for not mentioning increased ticket prices. TV deals - the get
the wad now. Merchandising they get a share of. ...
There's no case for instantly creating revenue to offset the
acquisition and contracts of both Blake and Lindros. Saying there is
just don't make it so.
Miki Kocic
Owl wrote:
> I do. Show me the payoff in a way the stock-holders will understand,
> instead of making Al Strachan's latest Warp 9 adventure look
> reasonable.
As a serious observer of hockey, do you think the NHL will go the way of the NBA - namely, players
not listening to the coach because they're making $10 mil a year and the coach only 2?
Miki
Owl
>not listening to the coach because they're making $10 mil a year and the coach only 2?
Miki, I'm not really sure how this fits into the thread about Blake
and Lindros, but no I don't think the NHL will go the way of the NBA
... and I think the NBA is going through a stretch right now that it
will shake off later. The team rosters are small, and the contracts
are big - it takes time to get a league where the role-models are the
heart-and-soul kind of player
There was a stretch in the NHL - 70s and 80s, when contracts spiraled
and players who were hooligan-partiers were more common than they are
now. There was a stretch in th 90s with suddenly-wealthy Europeans
(who didn't care about the Cup one way or another in their guts) came
and went.
If I made a guess, for the next decade the NHL looks like it will have
a small core of highly-paid marquee players; and mid-tier of troopers,
and every team will carry prospects and draft choices with entry-level
contracts.