[Trade] Hudler traded to Florida for 2016 2nd + 2018 4th round picks

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by dino7c

yet he has more points

This year. I'm referring to their careers in general.

Good point though. His renaissance probably had a lot to do with what Boston paid. If I was a betting man, I would pencil Stempniak in for 30 points next year and Hudler for around 50, depending on where they end up if course.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

To the bold: come on, you can do better than that.

Your sneer is noted and irrelevant.

1) do you have any evidence that their revenues are down in any meaningful way this season? I have heard no such thing.

No numbers, since those have not been released to the public. But I have anecdotal evidence from season-ticket holders who are spending less, and (what matters more) from businesses that hold season tickets and can't find anyone to use the seats. Empty seats spend nothing at the concessions, even if the tickets themselves are paid for.

2) regarding next year's season ticket sales: I guess we'll see. But that doesn't impact this year's budget (other than expecting tighter times ahead, which they have no gauge on yet with respect to ST sales)

If you think they have no way of forecasting the effect of the economy on next year's season ticket sales, then I question how much good you can be with hedging. You can't hedge anything without knowing what your risks are.

3) to your main point that alleged declining revenues will stop them from retaining salary: your initial claim was that revenues are down so they don't want to retain salary.

Right. That was and is my claim. I restated it in different words because you appeared not to understand it the first time. Now you appear not to understand that I was making the same claim both times.

At no point have you shown that revenues are actually down.

The numbers have not been released. But the visual evidence is that people are spending less, and we know as a hard economic fact that there is less money in the local economy to be spent. Not hard to put two and two together.

Add to that the fact that the team will get zero rounds of playoff revenue instead of two, and revenues will be very significantly down from last year.

And expenses are actually down. That was my point.

And the owners want expenses to be down, and don't want them to go back up unnecessarily. And that was my point. Why do you feel it so necessary to argue against that?

Hudler and Russell make $6.8M combined this year. Jones' salary washes with Backstrom's. So all they picked up was Jokipakka's $900K.

That's a drop of $5.9M x 40/186 which is approximately $1.27M.

Retaining half of Hudler's contract would have meant that they still saved about $840K USD.

So by not retaining half of Hudler's contract, they saved $430,000 in actual cash in a non-playoff year when the local economy is in the tank. Thanks for making my point for me.

That's a lot of beer sales you think they have lost.

Another sneer, based on cherrypicking one element of declining revenues (concession sales) and phrasing it in such a way as to make it sound as silly and picayune as possible. You know damned well that concessions sell more than just beer.

Meanwhile, I keep receiving email offers from the Flames to sell me game-day tickets at discount prices. So revenue from walkup sales is definitely down, and that's a bigger problem than concessions. If they could sell those tickets at full price, believe you me, they would not be offering them at a discount.

Add that to the aforementioned disappearance of playoff revenue, and yes, revenues are down. By how much, we will never know for certain, because the Flames are not a publicly traded firm and do not have to release their financial data. The best we can ever do is make informed guesses. The magnitude of the change, therefore, is a matter of speculation. The direction of the change is not.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

long post showing anecdotal evidence that revenues are marginally off (but no where near enough to bury the savings from reduced salaries)

We have already gone full circle here. I will finish by mentioning, once again, the large elephant in the room that you have not yet addressed, being that WPG and CAR retained salaries.

My point was simple and straight forward: expenses are down (more than revenues) and retaining salary was a possibility. One that would help the team in the long run.

You feel it wasn't. Great.

I'm done.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

We have already gone full circle here. I will finish by mentioning, once again, the large elephant in the room that you have not yet addressed, being that WPG and CAR retained salaries.

Winnipeg and Carolina are not markets currently undergoing a major economic crisis that directly affects their owners.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Winnipeg and Carolina are not markets currently undergoing a major economic crisis that directly affects their owners.

Thanks.

They are however, budget teams that are in pretty tough economic situations of their own.

Calgary's revenues will destroy both of theirs.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Thanks.

They are however, budget teams that are in pretty tough economic situations of their own.

Calgary's revenues will destroy both of theirs.

It's pretty clear that the owners of both the Jets and Hurricanes are willing to lose money indefinitely. The Thomson family appears to be bankrolling the Jets as a matter of civic pride; I don't know what motivates Peter Karmanos.

The Flames' owners have never been keen to sustain losses on their hockey operations, which led them, in the past, to penny-wise but pound-foolish decisions like hiring Craig Button as GM, or gutting the scouting department in the late 1990s. Right at this moment, their other businesses are suffering badly enough that they may not even be able to sustain any serious losses without selling off assets.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

We have already gone full circle here. I will finish by mentioning, once again, the large elephant in the room that you have not yet addressed, being that WPG and CAR retained salaries.

Winnipeg and Carolina retained salaries because they couldn't have made the deals without retaining some salary. Chicago and New York simply didn't have the cap space for Ladd or Staal otherwise.

Florida has an abundance of cap space (hell, they took on Marc Savard's contract in the summer because they have so much cap space), so they had no incentive to need the Flames to retain salary.

The Flames aren't going to retain salary for no reason, and Florida wasn't going to give up better assets to get the Flames to retain salary because they didn't need it.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by getbak

Winnipeg and Carolina retained salaries because they couldn't have made the deals without retaining some salary. Chicago and New York simply didn't have the cap space for Ladd or Staal otherwise.

Florida has an abundance of cap space (hell, they took on Marc Savard's contract in the summer because they have so much cap space), so they had no incentive to need the Flames to retain salary.

The Flames aren't going to retain salary for no reason, and Florida wasn't going to give up better assets to get the Flames to retain salary because they didn't need it.

Agreed. And I already stated that.

However (and this was the point) other teams may have valued salary retention.

Again, full circle.

[Fire in the disco]

@JayRandom you are absolutely correct that hedging has nil effect on revenue, but why would that matter? I would assume the Flames biggest USD expense is player salary which in theory may have had fx implications limited due to a hedge taken in the prior year. Revenue is in Canadian dollars and I would assume that most of the other expenses for the Flames organization are paid in Canadian dollars.

[heep223]

Weird.

Spoiler!

[sureLoss]

It sounds like the Panthers are going to try a line of Hudler-Barkov-Jagr to start.

[Gaudfather]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

It sounds like the Panthers are going to try a line of Hudler-Barkov-Jagr to start.

You could call that line The Warsaw Pact!

[getoverit]

Hustler played 13.56 tonight. Only player with a -2. Never saw the game

[Strange Brew]

The hedging discussion is kind of missing the point. Unless the Canadian dollar improves, Canadian teams are going to suffer financially. No practical hedging program fixes this problem.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

The hedging discussion is kind of missing the point. Unless the Canadian dollar improves, Canadian teams are going to suffer financially. No practical hedging program fixes this problem.

While that's true, you're actually missing the point.

Because the only reason hedging was brought up was due to a discussion about whether or not the Flames could have retained salary.

And they could have (because this year's salary expense would have been sufficiently hedged).

But yes, a continued weak dollar will impact Canadian teams negatively. Obviously.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Gaudfather

You could call that line The Warsaw Pact!

Finland wasn't in that pact though.

(Our neutrality in the cold war is kind of an important thing about our history, to us anyway.)

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Itse

Finland wasn't in that pact though.

(Our neutrality in the cold war is kind of an important thing about our history, to us anyway.)

He must have thought Barkov was Russian. Can't blame him, it sounds kinda Russian. Might even be a Russian name. But for those who don't know, Barkov is indeed Finnish.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

He must have thought Barkov was Russian. Can't blame him, it sounds kinda Russian. Might even be a Russian name. But for those who don't know, Barkov is indeed Finnish.

We have a sizeable Russian minority in Finland too, like all of Eastern Europe.

Yeah, Alexander Barkov is clearly a Russian name, not Finnish, and Sasha actually has a dual-citizenship. So technically you can call him a Russian too, so not much of a mistake. But he's lived his whole life in Finland and plays for Team Finland, so more a Finn.

(Barkov Jr is a son of a former Soviet player Alexander Barkov Sr. who moved to live and play Finland in the mid-nineties. )

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

While that's true, you're actually missing the point.

Because the only reason hedging was brought up was due to a discussion about whether or not the Flames could have retained salary.

And they could have (because this year's salary expense would have been sufficiently hedged).

But yes, a continued weak dollar will impact Canadian teams negatively. Obviously.

How were you able to come to the conclusion that the Flames hedging strategy was the sole variable in determining whether salary should have been retained?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

How were you able to come to the conclusion that the Flames hedging strategy was the sole variable in determining whether salary should have been retained?

How were you able to come to the conclusion that I ever said anything close to that?