Wow, whopper of a contract? Any thoughts hockey fans?

http://community.foxsports.com/blogs...008/01/10/Capitals_Resign_Ovechkin

YOWza

It's stupid. I'm a HUGE hockey fan, but no one deserves that much money simply for playing a sport. It's shit like this that makes it harder and harder for Joe hockey fan to be able to afford to take the fam to a game. At least hockey has a cap though.

Quoting Lobster (Reply 1): It's stupid. I'm a HUGE hockey fan, but no one deserves that much money simply for playing a sport. It's shit like this that makes it harder and harder for Joe hockey fan to be able to afford to take the fam to a game. At least hockey has a cap though.

What's crazy is that it averages out to $9M/season and Dany Heatley is getting $10M for next season with the Sens!

YOWza

Quoting Lobster (Reply 1): but no one deserves that much money simply for playing a sport.

Why? They generate the revenue and they should share in that revenue.

Quoting Lobster (Reply 1): It's shit like this that makes it harder and harder for Joe hockey fan to be able to afford to take the fam to a game

Dude, Hockey players make less now than they did several years ago. You can't blame rising prices on rising salaries at this point.

Quoting Lobster (Reply 1): At least hockey has a cap though.

3 of the 4 majors have a cap, and baseball has a luxury tax, revenue sharing and very cheap early career contracts to make up for the lack of one in that sport

Quoting YOWza (Reply 2): What's crazy is that it averages out to $9M/season

There was a good analysis in that article of how it could have easily been almost $1.5 million more

Quoting Lobster (Reply 1): It's stupid. I'm a HUGE hockey fan, but no one deserves that much money simply for playing a sport. It's shit like this that makes it harder and harder for Joe hockey fan to be able to afford to take the fam to a game. At least hockey has a cap though.

Yes they do because someone is willing to pay them and they have a talent that basically no one has and that is fortunate for them and they are using their god given skills.

As for ticket prices it is more supply and demand if people want to go to games tickets prices go up. Also if you live in a place like Toronto, the companies buy half the seats and leave very little for the casual fan. This is one reason I don't want the NFL here becasue the same thing that happens to the Leafs is going to happen if a team ever moves here. Its cheaper to go to Buffalo to see a game than it ever would be in Toronto.

Sports is a business and nothing more and if the owners could get away with paying players chump change and the demand for seats stayed the same what would be the incentive to dropping ticket prices and they would even make more money by not having to pay players what they do now. This is also why all four major North American sports leagues are unionized.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 4): This is one reason I don't want the NFL here becasue the same thing that happens to the Leafs is going to happen if a team ever moves here. Its cheaper to go to Buffalo to see a game than it ever would be in Toronto.

There is no doubt that ticket prices would soar but if it saves me driving to Buffalo and dealing with the blessed Homeland Security I'm game.

Then again, this would mean Sunday traffic would also be a dog's breakfast here and that's the LAST thing we need.

YOWza

I would have signed him to a 15 year $150 million contact.

Signed,

Garth Snow


That contract just upped the market value of a number of players even further. It's also going to make for some interesting free agent signings this summer. Someone like Marian Hossa might be able to get a 3-4 year deal worth an average of $8-9 million a season on the open market if he doesn't re-sign with the Thrashers before the end of the season or is signed by the team he could get traded to (the Hossa trade rumors are heating up).

Ilya Kovalchuk has two seasons left on his current deal (Which is a backloaded deal) and will be getting $7.5 million in 08-09 and 09-10. So when it comes to re-sign him, the Thrashers may be looking at least $10 million a year to retain him. He'll be an UFA after the 09-10 season and even if the Thrashers don't sign him, he'll easily command $10-12 million a season.

I'd be surprised if the Ovechkin deal is backloaded, considering the length of the deal. The players whose deals are frontloaded are guys who by the time the contract is up will be nearing the end of their careers. For example:

Daniel Briere:

07-08: 10 million
08-09: 8 million
09-10: 8 million
10-11: 7 million
11-12: 7 million
12-13: 7 million
13-14: 3 million
14-15: 2 million

Dany Heatley:

08-09: 10 million
09-10: 8 million
10-11: 8 million
11-12: 8 million
12-13: 6 million
13-14: 5 million

These numbers were found at the following site:

http://www.nhlnumbers.com/

He's worth it. Congrats to the Caps for locking up their franchise player!

Keep in mind that it's a 13 year contract.

Over a 13 year period, it's not that outrageous of a contract....

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 6): I would have signed him to a 15 year $150 million contact. Signed, Garth Snow

Awww...why do you have to pick on us with this one!!!!!!

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 6): Ilya Kovalchuk has two seasons left on his current deal (Which is a backloaded deal) and will be getting $7.5 million in 08-09 and 09-10. So when it comes to re-sign him, the Thrashers may be looking at least $10 million a year to retain him. He'll be an UFA after the 09-10 season and even if the Thrashers don't sign him, he'll easily command $10-12 million a season.

With the Ovechkin, and Richards contracts, don't be surprised if Kovalchuk gets at least a 10 yr contract. This is going to be the future with the CBA. The teams will steal a page from the football book and sign a player to "Franchise" status.
Ovechkin is the only draw in Washington and you have to keep him around for as long as possible.

Quoting AAce24 (Reply 8): Keep in mind that it's a 13 year contract. Over a 13 year period, it's not that outrageous of a contract....

Exactly, You sign him to a 5 year deal right now, and then when its time to re-up he could be fetching 20 mil. a year.

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 6): That contract just upped the market value of a number of players even further.

Maybe, but Ovechkin is a pretty special guy. He is on pace for 61 goals.

The Hossa rumor mill is pretty heated. I know, being a Minnesota Wild fan, that the rumors of the Wild trading for Hossa to partner him with his Olympic linemates of Gaborik and Demitra run pretty rampant around these parts. I have been dismissing those outright for the most part, but with Craig Leipold having just bought the majority stake in the Wild, that could potentially change, as he did all he could to put a good product on the ice in Nashville (what killed his chances there was a lack of corporate support for the Predators). There's no such issue in St Paul, as the Wild have sold every ticket to every game in their existence,and have great corporate support here, and the likelihood of that changing any time in the near future is slim and none.

Quoting Lobster (Reply 1): but no one deserves that much money simply for playing a sport

you would deny it if you got such an offer, I dont understand how so many people find it repulsive when atheletes get such contracts. I could care less what Kobe Bryant or Lebron James makes as long as I get my share of entertainment that I paid for to watch at the game, good for them that they're making such money, I hope their enjoy their hard earned money.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 3): Quoting Lobster (Reply 1): It's shit like this that makes it harder and harder for Joe hockey fan to be able to afford to take the fam to a game Dude, Hockey players make less now than they did several years ago. You can't blame rising prices on rising salaries at this point.

Mmmm, depends on how you look at it. Superstars generally are making more, which means the guys at the lower levels of the team are making less to fit salary caps.

Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 12): you would deny it if you got such an offer, I dont understand how so many people find it repulsive when atheletes get such contracts. I could care less what Kobe Bryant or Lebron James makes as long as I get my share of entertainment that I paid for to watch at the game, good for them that they're making such money, I hope their enjoy their hard earned money.

I think the average Joe finds it repulsive cause the high ticket prices are paying the athlete's salary.

Family of 4 at any sporting event can easily cost you $300-$500 nowadays.

This is a lot of money and sets a bad precedent for a sport that is barely out of a brutal strike/lockout and a sport that doesn't generate nearly the revenue that the other major sports do. Hockey as a whole needs to get itself on the right path before it starts handing out record contracts.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 13): Superstars generally are making more, which means the guys at the lower levels of the team are making less to fit salary caps.

Actually, no. Superstars were making the same or more 6 years ago.

Quoting JFK69 (Reply 14): I think the average Joe finds it repulsive cause the high ticket prices are paying the athlete's salary.

Yet Average Joe keeps paying the price, which means the ticket prices aren't actually high relative to what the market will bear. Further, ticket prices are not the only thing paying salaries.

Quoting JFK69 (Reply 14): Family of 4 at any sporting event can easily cost you $300-$500 nowadays.

If you make it cost you that. You can easily take a family of 4 to a Dodger game for $100-$150.

Quoting KROC (Reply 15): Hockey as a whole needs to get itself on the right path before it starts handing out record contracts.

This is only a record contract if you look at the total price of the deal. 10 players in the league were making this much per year, or more, back in 2002, with Jagr making almost 12 million a year. In a way, inking young players to this type of deal now for such a long term keeps salaries from growing quickly because it allows fewer chances at free agency.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 3): Dude, Hockey players make less now than they did several years ago. You can't blame rising prices on rising salaries at this point.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 16): This is only a record contract if you look at the total price of the deal. 10 players in the league were making this much per year, or more, back in 2002, with Jagr making almost 12 million a year.

And weren't those contracts one of the primary reasons that hockey got in so much financial trouble in the first place? Hockey doesn't produce anywhere near the revenue that the other major sports do, including golf.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 16): Yet Average Joe keeps paying the price, which means the ticket prices aren't actually high relative to what the market will bear. Further, ticket prices are not the only thing paying salaries

Not the only thing paying salaries, but that's where a lot of the money goes. This will affect going to a Caps game long-term for sure; I know already that a lot of families don't go to as many games in DC as they used to, it's simply not affordable except to go to 1 or 2 a year as a special occasion.

Quoting KROC (Reply 15): This is a lot of money and sets a bad precedent for a sport that is barely out of a brutal strike/lockout and a sport that doesn't generate nearly the revenue that the other major sports do. Hockey as a whole needs to get itself on the right path before it starts handing out record contracts.

  

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 17): And weren't those contracts one of the primary reasons that hockey got in so much financial trouble in the first place? Hockey doesn't produce anywhere near the revenue that the other major sports do, including golf.

The way the CBA that was signed in 2005 is set up, the salary cap is tied into league revenues, with the players getting 54% of the revenue. As an insurance policy, a portion of each players' check is put into escrow just in case the projected revenues fall short. If the projected revenue is met, the money put into escrow is returned to the players plus interest. If revenues exceed certain benchmarks, the percentage of the revenue given to the players is increased and the percentage of their paycheck that is put into escrow is lowered (this happened in the first season of the CBA, and the 12% held in escrow was reduced to 4% per paycheck) In short, players are a part of the program. If the league loses money, so do the players.

When you consider that the salary cap has gone up the first two seasons after the new CBA was signed, revenues are on an upswing. Many clubs have self-imposed salary caps that are lower than the league mandated one. Some teams have exceeded the salary cap and had the excess applied to the next season's cap number. Atlanta had this happen to them last season as the result of the bonus money they had to pay Peter Bondra, which put them over the cap (they were right up against it the first season under the new CBA because of some injury issues and signings and call ups that were the result of injuries.)..

There are rumors that ESPN may be making a bid for the TV rights currently held by NBC. One thing that has hurt the NHL revenue stream is their television contracts in the US. The NBC deal involves sharing the ad revenue with the NHL, as unlike in previous deals, there was no rights fee in the deal (The NHL was given the squeeze due to the lackluster ratings the games had when ABC had the rights.). The Versus deal is a little bit better than the NBC deal, but nothing like the deal they previously had with ESPN. The TV revenue may take some time to recover, but it will recover.

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 18): There are rumors that ESPN may be making a bid for the TV rights currently held by NBC. One thing that has hurt the NHL revenue stream is their television contracts in the US. The NBC deal involves sharing the ad revenue with the NHL, as unlike in previous deals, there was no rights fee in the deal (The NHL was given the squeeze due to the lackluster ratings the games had when ABC had the rights.). The Versus deal is a little bit better than the NBC deal, but nothing like the deal they previously had with ESPN. The TV revenue may take some time to recover, but it will recover.

The reason that the NHL is having issues with its TV contracts is that nobody's watching. Literally. The TV ratings that the NHL pulls, even for the Finals, are so bad that the networks will lose their shirt if they pay big bucks for the rights. Hockey would do itself a big favor by shortening the season and not playing until practically in July. By then, nobody except the super hardcore fans care a hoot, esp. as it competes against the NBA Playoffs and MLB.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 16): If you make it cost you that. You can easily take a family of 4 to a Dodger game for $100-$150.

That is for a baseball game in which 81 home games are played which translates into much lower ticket prices. If you look at Basketball and hockey, both sports which have 41 home games and both sports played in an arena with less than half the attendance capacity of a baseball game then suddenly all the prices go up again.

Quoting KROC (Reply 15): This is a lot of money and sets a bad precedent for a sport that is barely out of a brutal strike/lockout and a sport that doesn't generate nearly the revenue that the other major sports do. Hockey as a whole needs to get itself on the right path before it starts handing out record contracts.

I agree with this, The owners are only bending themselves over by giving away money like this and then claiming poverty. I despise baseball because they can give away 200 million dollar contracts.....I just wish one sport would have all the owners get together and say "Screw you, we are not paying these outrageous contracts"

But then that would be collusion and the union would be all over it.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 17): And weren't those contracts one of the primary reasons that hockey got in so much financial trouble in the first place?

And all those players took a hair cut. With the salaries tied to revenues, these problems should no longer happen.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 17): I know already that a lot of families don't go to as many games in DC as they used to, it's simply not affordable except to go to 1 or 2 a year as a special occasion.

The normal thing for sporting events is to either be a season ticket holder, hence getting a major discount, or to go once or twice a year, so nothing really changes.

Quoting JFK69 (Reply 20): If you look at Basketball and hockey, both sports which have 41 home games and both sports played in an arena with less than half the attendance capacity of a baseball game then suddenly all the prices go up again.

The teams are also smaller and the overhead much lower, which lowers costs. Anyway, if the market will bear the ticket prices, I don't see the problem.

Quoting JFK69 (Reply 20): That is for a baseball game in which 81 home games are played which translates into much lower ticket prices.

You said for ANY sporting event.

Quoting JFK69 (Reply 20): I just wish one sport would have all the owners get together and say "Screw you, we are not paying these outrageous contracts"

So, they should just pocket it?

Quoting JFK69 (Reply 20): The owners are only bending themselves over

Please. Don't think for a minute that any owner of a sports franchise has less money than any one of his players, even after endorsements.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21): You said for ANY sporting event.

Your right, I did. But you mentioned a dodgers game so I commented on Baseball.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21): So, they should just pocket it?

No way, they should pass it on for the fan to lower prices for the whole experience.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21): Please. Don't think for a minute that any owner of a sports franchise has less money than any one of his players, even after endorsements.

Trust me, I would never think that. I believe the owners are as big as scumbags as half these players are and they are just attempting to line their pockets with every penny possible. The owners have to stop throwing money players to stop the trend of outrageous contracts though.

Quoting JFK69 (Reply 22): Your right, I did. But you mentioned a dodgers game so I commented on Baseball.

The point remains, your original post wasn't true.

Quoting JFK69 (Reply 22): No way, they should pass it on for the fan to lower prices for the whole experience.

Which wont happen.

Quoting JFK69 (Reply 22): The owners have to stop throwing money players to stop the trend of outrageous contracts though.

Why, if we are throwing money at the owners?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21): The normal thing for sporting events is to either be a season ticket holder, hence getting a major discount, or to go once or twice a year, so nothing really changes.

Um, no. Easy to just gloss it over with a conclusory assertion that nothing really changes, but from people I've talked to that actually give two shits about hockey in DC (of which I am not one) have said that they will go to fewer games as ticket prices continue to rise. Most hockey fans I know in DC are not season ticket holders but go to more than 1-2 games a season.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 24): Um, no. Easy to just gloss it over with a conclusory assertion that nothing really changes, but from people I've talked to that actually give two shits about hockey in DC (of which I am not one) have said that they will go to fewer games as ticket prices continue to rise. Most hockey fans I know in DC are not season ticket holders but go to more than 1-2 games a season.

Here is the thing. Attendance has risen at Caps games this year, not fallen. So long as the Caps are bringing in an acceptable number of spectators to justify their expenditures, then prices aren't too high.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 25): Here is the thing. Attendance has risen at Caps games this year, not fallen. So long as the Caps are bringing in an acceptable number of spectators to justify their expenditures, then prices aren't too high.

So, from the standpoint of a fan, owners should continue to raise prices until they reach the point at which attendance begins to fall? All that does is actually push the fans who really care for the team out of the picture, and replace them with higher-paying corporate "fans" who just dole the tickets out to whomever wants to go for a night out. Eventually, the chickens will come home to roost in a big way, always does. Particularly in limited-interest markets like DC.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 26): So, from the standpoint of a fan, owners should continue to raise prices until they reach the point at which attendance begins to fall?

No, I don't think they should raise prices, but it is their decision to do so.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 27): No, I don't think they should raise prices, but it is their decision to do so.

LOL. Show me in this thread where anyone claimed owners CAN'T raise prices, versus SHOULDN'T raise prices. Why are you so afraid to offer an unvarnished opinion based on your own feelings and emotions instead of consistently shrouding them behind raw empirical data and law?

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 28): Why are you so afraid to offer an unvarnished opinion based on your own feelings and emotions

I do give my unvarnished opinions. My unvarnished opinion here is that if people are willing to pay a certain amount of revenue to pro sports teams, though whatever stream, the players should be getting the biggest piece of the pie, since it is their labor raising those funds.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 25): Attendance has risen at Caps games this year, not fallen.

Your figures must be different from the NHL's.

Washington:
2007 avg. home game attendance: 13,929 (only Islanders, Chicago and St. Louis were lower)
2008 avg, home game attendance (to date) 13,836 (only Islanders are lower)
2006 was 13,905
(2005 wasn't clickable)
2004 was 14,720

Source: http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 30): Your figures must be different from the NHL's.

Dude, try going season by season.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 31): Dude, try going season by season.

Those numbers 767lover quoted are season by season. The 2008 numbers are for the 2007-2008 season.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 31): Quoting 767Lover (Reply 30): Your figures must be different from the NHL's. Dude, try going season by season.

It is by season. The year denotes when the season ended. 2008 is the 2007-2008 season. Look at the total number of games shown having been played under 2008. It's only Jan 14th, "dude."

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 32): Those numbers 767lover quoted are season by season. The 2008 numbers are for the 2007-2008 season.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 33): It is by season. The year denotes when the season ended. 2008 is the 2007-2008 season. Look at the total number of games shown having been played under 2008

Try comparing apples to apples. At this point in the season, the average was 13,104, which is lower than it is now.

These big contracts are stupid... pure and simple.

Look at Miikka Kiprusoff... the money has distracted him from his play... it'll be the same with many of these players locked up with big dollar contracts. Rick DiPietro, Marty Turco, Jose Theodore are all suffering a similar fate. Alex Tanguay is another one that comes to mind when it comes to overpaid and overextended. Plenty of examples out there.

Franchise players are supposed to be established and grow through the support of the community at large, not by a handful of cash.

Lame. Unfortunately, the NHL has been on a pattern of lameness for the past few years and it's just getting worse.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 34): Try comparing apples to apples. At this point in the season, the average was 13,104, which is lower than it is now.

Well, prior to this you were yammering about comparing season to season, not YTDs.

But since you brought it up (this is entertaining me whilst dinner's in the oven):

If you're using averages, your "apples to apples comparison" is not really "apples to apples," since, as of Jan 13, 2007, the Capitals had had 24 home games, and only 21 home games as of Jan 13, 2008. I guess it depends which "point in the season" you want to average out...the first 21 home games, or YTD home games.

Well, one thing I can draw from all this is, if the Caps didn't want to see attendance fall any farther, they were probably right to sign Ovie.

As for ticket prices being raised, that just the simple law of supply and demand at work. As the ticket prices rise beyond what the paying public would perceive as the value of the product on the ice, demand for those tickets will fall. The only real ways to increase demand are to either lower prices, or to improve the quality of the on-ice product to a point where the public feels it is getting more value for their extra ticket dollars.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 26): So, from the standpoint of a fan, owners should continue to raise prices until they reach the point at which attendance begins to fall? All that does is actually push the fans who really care for the team out of the picture, and replace them with higher-paying corporate "fans" who just dole the tickets out to whomever wants to go for a night out. Eventually, the chickens will come home to roost in a big way, always does. Particularly in limited-interest markets like DC.

Yes, that is good business they are getting the peak attendance-revenue relationship and would be making more filling the seats at that price than dropping prices and filling more seats. Look the owners don't care about the fans who can't afford seats, they care about money which is the objective of a business and nothing more. It sucks for a lot of people but its reality.