Oilers a model franchise

[JiriHrdina]

This is not a "let's slame the Oil" thread. Rather I thought these were interesting comments by Moreau who is aiming to hold the Oilers up as a model franchise, pointing to their ability to maintain a budget and turn a profit.

All fine and dandy Ethan, but the Oilers are a perfect example of what ails the league. True - the Oilers are a franchise that has shown the discipline to stay on budget, however this has produced very little on-ice success. The system has to allow teams to be both competitive and profitable - not one of the two.

Anyhoo read for yourself:

Linky

[Bingo]

Exactly ...

The Oilers did a great job of walking that line between cost awareness and on ice success, but what a shame. Do everything right for five years and either miss the playoffs or get knocked out in five games.

Those teams in a more level playing field era would have likely had a good run or two.

[Oiltalk]

Your telling me things wouldn't change, and the "on-ice success" wouldn't be there if the better players in the league were affordable for much much longer?

The Oilers system of staying within the budget is set, but now it's time for the league to crack down on contracts.

[ChipOne]

Originally posted by Oiltalk@Sep 20 2004, 11:26 AM
Your telling me things wouldn't change, and the "on-ice success" wouldn't be there if the better players in the league were affordable for much much longer?

The Oilers system of staying within the budget is set, but now it's time for the league to crack down on contracts.

wow. i don't think you read those posts at all.

anyways, the point is that EDM did everything they were supposed to do as far as their end of the CBA and, under the current system, were unable to ice a competitive team that made it through the second round.

changes are needed because a 'model team', in moreau's eyes, is one that breaks even and can't make the playoffs.

[CrzyCanuck]

Model franchise, I keep thinking of the parity of the NFL. I cheer for the Broncos, they have a decent defence and a great offence in recent years, and I would call them competive. But they haven't had an all out great team, and they are playing against other teams that are in the same boat as themselves. ( a few bad teams, many mediocore teams, and a few good teams)

Point is that I would rather watch the NFL because there is so much parity, and taking chances on one/two players is the difference between a winner and loser. The oilers run a tight fiscal ship, but they don't come close to the on ice product of the elite teams. Boo Ethan.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by CrzyCanuck@Sep 20 2004, 06:01 PM
Model franchise, I keep thinking of the parity of the NFL. I cheer for the Broncos, they have a decent defence and a great offence in recent years, and I would call them competive. But they haven't had an all out great team, and they are playing against other teams that are in the same boat as themselves. ( a few bad teams, many mediocore teams, and a few good teams)

Point is that I would rather watch the NFL because there is so much parity, and taking chances on one/two players is the difference between a winner and loser. The oilers run a tight fiscal ship, but they don't come close to the on ice product of the elite teams. Boo Ethan.

There are some observors who say "parity" is simply another word for "mediocrity," that a league that denies dynasties also denies greatness.

I'm not in that camp, but that's one view.

Cowperson

[T@T]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 20 2004, 06:06 PM

There are some observors who say "parity" is simply another word for "mediocrity," that a league that denies dynasties also denies greatness.

I'm not in that camp, but that's one view.

Cowperson

What people fail to realize this "parity" or so called "mediocrity" in most cases make the game far more popular as a whole. i read the NFL's fan base has grown some 300% in the last few years and i suspect the NBA is about the same.

[daredevil]

What I cannot understand is this:

How is is that the players (as a group) each get to make 1.8 million avg. per year when the owners as a group make only 2 million TOTAL?
And this is his idea of a model franchaise...?
You would think that the owner of each team should be able to make as much as the players of that team as a collective group. A 50/50 share so to speak.
Since when do the individuals of an organization get to make as much as the president of the company, or the owner?
It's just assinine.

Do these players have any idea how the world really works outside their little happy bubbles?

[kn]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 20 2004, 12:06 PM
There are some observors who say "parity" is simply another word for "mediocrity," that a league that denies dynasties also denies greatness.

I'm not in that camp, but that's one view.

Part and parcel of free agency associated with a salary cap. Now, if you had restricted free agency akin to what exists now, along with a hard cap, there's a possibility for dynasties to be created. But I'd much prefer a CBA that sees the possibility of a Calgary/Buffalo final followed by an Edmonton/Pittsburgh final followed by a Minnesota/Atlanta final than see Detroit rattle off four consecutive Stanley Cups.

[looooob]

Originally posted by daredevil@Sep 20 2004, 12:20 PM
What I cannot understand is this:

How is is that the players (as a group) each get to make 1.8 million avg. per year when the owners as a group make only 2 million TOTAL?
And this is his idea of a model franchaise...?
You would think that the owner of each team should be able to make as much as the players of that team as a collective group. A 50/50 share so to speak.
Since when do the individuals of an organization get to make as much as the president of the company, or the owner?
It's just assinine.

Do these players have any idea how the world really works outside their little happy bubbles?

clap clap clap

exactly right my friend. it's funny that owners are supposed to be happy with a miraculous season that has 38 people making less than Tommy Salo

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by daredevil@Sep 20 2004, 12:20 PM

Do these players have any idea how the world really works outside their little happy bubbles?

No.

As to the "parity = mediocrity" argument, and the lack of dynasties, I think that is wrong. If everyone is competing with roughly the same payroll, long forgotten concepts like scouting and player development can create a dynasty. Moreau's beloved Oilers were what some might call a "decent" team for a long time in the 80's and into the 90's. I think their payroll was pretty much on par with everyone else, wasn't it? What about the Islanders or the Habs before them?

[dustygoon]

A balance needs to be struck between 1) ensuring teams are competitive where the underdogs could eventually be a champ and 2) avoiding mediocracy by allowing enough financial flexibility for champs to retain their core players that would likely demand a raise. I like the idea of having dynasties once in a while in sport.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally posted by ChipOne@Sep 20 2004, 05:56 PM
anyways, the point is that EDM did everything they were supposed to do as far as their end of the CBA and, under the current system, were unable to ice a competitive team that made it through the second round.

Did everything they were supposed to do?

Weren't they supposed to try drafting future NHL players instead of future ECHL journeymen?

The Oilers futility under the most recently expired CBA can be explained by their inability to draft worth a damn. Maybe if they hired a head scout that didn't live in Mexico they could have been a model franchise instead of one that just covered up their incompetence with excuses about the CBA.

[EddyBeers]

Originally posted by daredevil@Sep 20 2004, 06:20 PM
What I cannot understand is this:

How is is that the players (as a group) each get to make 1.8 million avg. per year when the owners as a group make only 2 million TOTAL?
And this is his idea of a model franchaise...?
You would think that the owner of each team should be able to make as much as the players of that team as a collective group. A 50/50 share so to speak.
Since when do the individuals of an organization get to make as much as the president of the company, or the owner?
It's just assinine.

Do these players have any idea how the world really works outside their little happy bubbles?

You actually think that the majority of businesses out there have a 50/50 split with the owners making as much as the payroll of the business? There is a huge difference between the risk based investment of owning any entity (ie NHL teams) and the idea of marketing your labour for monetary gain (ie players). Risk based investment means that sometimes (read any other time in the history of hockey except for the past 6-8 years) the owners have made out like bandits, accumulating profits well in excess of 50/50, try 90/10 for the owners, but that there are times when your business will not be profitable. You do not have an inherent right to a profitable business, fold the business at the point that it is not profitable, if the workforce finds it more appealing to lose jobs as opposed to taking a 33% paycut, so be it. The owners want to have cost certainty so that all teams make out like bandits, with teams like Calgary and Edmonton making out less so. Furthermore, if the utopian goal of a salary cap is ever realized, it is going to be closer to 40-45 million, the owners are going to have to give a little anways, so without revenue sharing it is going to be difficult for any small market team to benefit immensely from a cap anyways. All it will mean is that there will be a difference of 5-10 million in terms of salary between teams instead of 10-20 million.

But I agree, it is a shame that the NHL is the only business where workers earn as much as the owner, it should be much more common place.

[looooob]

Originally posted by EddyBeers+Sep 20 2004, 01:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (EddyBeers @ Sep 20 2004, 01:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-daredevil@Sep 20 2004, 06:20 PM
What I cannot understand is this:

How is is that the players (as a group) each get to make 1.8 million avg. per year when the owners as a group make only 2 million TOTAL?
And this is his idea of a model franchaise...?
You would think that the owner of each team should be able to make as much as the players of that team as a collective group. A 50/50 share so to speak.
Since when do the individuals of an organization get to make as much as the president of the company, or the owner?
It's just assinine.

Do these players have any idea how the world really works outside their little happy bubbles?

But I agree, it is a shame that the NHL is the only business where workers earn as much as the owner, it should be much more common place. [/b][/quote]
I agree for most of hockey history the owners have screwed the players and that the pendulum needed to swing

but the current reality is that almost every player makes more than the owner of most teams right now...not the collective players making more than an owner (that I could deal with)

you honestly think that in the average business every employee should out-earn the owner, or am I not following your argument?

[daredevil]

too lazy to quote......see above


EXACTLY, my point was not that 50/50 is a fair split, but that is INSANE to think that the employees should out earn the owners (who had all the cash to start the teams to begin with).

Beyond the fact that the players "put their bodies on the line" (which I'd venture to say most of us would do for free, JUST becuase playing is FUN or for the LOVE of the game anyways), where is the risk involved for the players?

So you get hurt playing hockey, boo hoo, suck it up junior...guess you'll have to enroll in college and write some papers and then after a few years of that crap, you have years of some crappy dead end job (doing the same thing OVER and OVER and OVER) where you'll try pay off your stupid student loans.

Meanwhile you might get to listen to some baby millionaire whine about how his salary might not stay high enough to allow him to feed his dog STEAK for dinner every day.

Wow....

[e-townchamps]

Originally posted by BlackRedGold25+Sep 20 2004, 06:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BlackRedGold25 @ Sep 20 2004, 06:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ChipOne@Sep 20 2004, 05:56 PM
anyways, the point is that EDM did everything they were supposed to do as far as their end of the CBA and, under the current system, were unable to ice a competitive team that made it through the second round.

Did everything they were supposed to do?

Weren't they supposed to try drafting future NHL players instead of future ECHL journeymen?

The Oilers futility under the most recently expired CBA can be explained by their inability to draft worth a damn. Maybe if they hired a head scout that didn't live in Mexico they could have been a model franchise instead of one that just covered up their incompetence with excuses about the CBA. [/b][/quote]
while I agree with you that their drafting hasnt been great, they've done a magnificant job with the budget they have....they dont have a 7million dollar player on the team so they do what they can...
btw, their scouting and drafting has been better since the "dark Sather" era of drafting Steve Kelly and Jason Bonsignore

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally posted by e-townchamps@Sep 21 2004, 12:53 AM
while I agree with you that their drafting hasnt been great, they've done a magnificant job with the budget they have....they dont have a 7million dollar player on the team so they do what they can...
btw, their scouting and drafting has been better since the "dark Sather" era of drafting Steve Kelly and Jason Bonsignore

They have done far from a magnificent job regardless of how low their budget was. Tampa has done a much better job. Ottawa has done a much better job. Vancouver has done a better job.

They've treaded water since their dynasty. Mediocrity is not magnificence. Mediocrity sucks.

Over the past 10 years, who have the Oilers been better then?

[amazing_oilers]

Originally posted by BlackRedGold25+Sep 20 2004, 06:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BlackRedGold25 @ Sep 20 2004, 06:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-ChipOne@Sep 20 2004, 05:56 PM
anyways, the point is that EDM did everything they were supposed to do as far as their end of the CBA and, under the current system, were unable to ice a competitive team that made it through the second round.

Did everything they were supposed to do?

Weren't they supposed to try drafting future NHL players instead of future ECHL journeymen?

The Oilers futility under the most recently expired CBA can be explained by their inability to draft worth a damn. Maybe if they hired a head scout that didn't live in Mexico they could have been a model franchise instead of one that just covered up their incompetence with excuses about the CBA.[/b][/quote]
I don't think the Oilers are that bad at drafting. Here's some of the notables since 1992 that were kept, panned out later on, or were dealt for other current Oilers. Some I didn't include like Bonsignore and Kelly didn't work out but were traded for assets like Hamrlik who was traded for Brewer. So even some of the bad ones, turned out good.

Kirk Maltby
Jason Arnott
Martin Rucinsky
Tyler Wright
David Vyborny
Miroslav Satan
Ryan Smyth
Georges Laraque
Boyd Devereaux
Tom Poti
Fernando Pisani
Jason Chimera
Shawn Horcoff
Jani Rita
Alexei Semenov
Mike Comrie
Tony Salmelainen
Ales Hemsky
Doug Lynch
Jussi Markkanen
Jeff Deslauriers
Jarett Stoll

Anyone want to compare that to the Flames?

[CaramonLS]

I'm sure Oil Fans are happy when the team can't keep players like Hamrlik, Arnott, Guerin, Weight, Marchant all because of money.

Good Job Moreau, when you start to get good and it comes up to contract time I guess we'll see you on the way out, because the oil are a model franchise...