Denis Grebeshkov Signs With Edmonton

Jonathan Willis
July 21 2009 01:20PM

According to TSN, it’s a one-year, 3.15 million dollar contract – a dollar figure in the same ballpark of what he likely would have received in arbitration.

This is a positive. The arbitration process is an adversarial one, and can frequently sour the relationship between a player and a team.

While it’s good to have Grebeshkov under contract, this also helps make the Oilers’ salary cap situation clearer. Here’s the likely roster as of right now, with RFA’s Brule and Smid excluded:

Forwards (13): Horcoff, Penner, Hemsky, O’Sullivan, Pisani, Nilsson, Moreau, Gagner, Cogliano, Pouliot, Stortini, MacIntyre, Jacques

Defensemen (6): Visnovsky, Souray, Gilbert, Grebeshkov, Staios, Strudwick

Goaltenders (2): Khabibulin, Deslauriers

Total Cap Space: 3, 269, 167 (courtesy of CapGeek.com)

That leaves a little over 3-million to sign Ladislav Smid and Gilbert Brule, meaning that as it stands the Oilers should be fine cap-wise. If, however, the Oilers decide to address some of their more obvious deficiencies (penalty-killers, third-line centre) it becomes clear that something will have to give.

Looking at contracts relative to performance and having listened to what the organization has hinted at over the summer, I’d say it's an interesting time to be Robert Nilsson.

74b7cedc5d8bfbe88cf071309e98d2c3
Jonathan Willis is a freelance writer. He currently works for Oilers Nation, the Edmonton Journal and Bleacher Report. He's co-written three books and worked for myriad websites, including Grantland, ESPN, The Score, and Hockey Prospectus. He was previously the founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue.
Avatar
#51 Archaeologuy
July 22 2009, 08:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Ogden Brother wrote:

the economy isn’t falling anymore

Now THATS the pipe dream. In Canada we dont have it nearly as bad as the US, but unemployment is at a 20 year high in most of the States. Sorry, it isnt over yet.

Avatar
#52 Ender the Dragon
July 22 2009, 09:28AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Wanye Gretz wrote:

My eyes are crying tears of actual blood . . .

Dude, we were feeling kind of bad for you last year as your team goat wasn't really looking like a solid pick for that slot and was playing quite well. We all looked politely away as you continued to rag on him even though he was a quality performer many nights.

But please tell me you're not thinking of slotting him in as your goat again this year just on principle? You stated that people had to stand by their hero/goat for the entire season to maintain their integrity, and I'm not arguing with that. But to pick him for the rest of his career? My friend, I really want to catch you bluffing at poker some day.

Avatar
#53 Ogden Brother
July 22 2009, 09:56AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Archaeologuy wrote:

Ogden Brother wrote: the economy isn’t falling anymore Now THATS the pipe dream. In Canada we dont have it nearly as bad as the US, but unemployment is at a 20 year high in most of the States. Sorry, it isnt over yet.

That's hardly a "be all end all" for tracking the health of the economy.

In 2000 the Unemployment rate bottomed out at 3.8% and ran to a high of 6.3% into 2003.

GDP growth in that time period

2000: 3.66% 2001: .75% 2002: 1.6% 2003: 2.5%

In 89 it bottomed at 5% and ran to a high of 7.8% in 92

GDP growth in that time period

1989: 3.54% 1990: 1.9% 1991: -.17% 1992: 3.33%

In 1980 it bottomed at 6.3% and ran to a high of 10.8% in 1983 (the time period alot feel resembles our current economic state)

GDP growth in that time period

1980: .23% 1981: 2.5% 1982: -.19% 1983: 4.5%

See a common trend? The economy tends to grow rapidly while unemployment is maxing out.

Avatar
#54 Archaeologuy
July 22 2009, 10:11AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Ogden Brother: Well I enjoy living in your imaginary world where everyone is financially sound and NHL franchises in US wont suffer dramatically. The Cap will magically jump because of all the tickets that arent being bought too i suppose. Are there snacks in this pretend world? I'm hungry.

Avatar
#55 Ogden Brother
July 22 2009, 10:13AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Archaeologuy wrote:

@ Ogden Brother: Well I enjoy living in your imaginary world where everyone is financially sound and NHL franchises in US wont suffer dramatically. The Cap will magically jump because of all the tickets that arent being bought too i suppose. Are there snacks in this pretend world? I’m hungry.

Are you kidding me? I just laid out the facts for the last 4 US reccesions and how they grew out of the recession BEFORE unemployment numbers changed.

Avatar
#56 Archaeologuy
July 22 2009, 10:26AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Ogden Brother: So you think that, despite reports from every major outlet saying the exact opposite, the NHL will thrive this year and the Cap wont fall because history says that the GDP of the US will be ok? Well, you're on record and I cant wait for this time next year to see if youre right. However the only reason the Cap went up THIS year, when the economy was peachy during season ticket renewal season, was due to a 5% inflator agreed upon by the players. The Cap actually dropped. Next year the Cap will go down even further, unless EVERYONE except Ogden Brother is wrong.

Are you seriously tring to tell me that the sky isnt blue or grass isnt green? What are you arguing here? I'm not saying the economy wont get better, but it isnt good right now and that has already affected the NHL and by all accounts will impact it even further this coming year.

Avatar
#57 Ogden Brother
July 22 2009, 11:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Archaeologuy wrote:

@ Ogden Brother: What are you arguing here?

Same thing I originally did:

"the economy isn’t falling anymore, it’s stabalizing quite nicely"

Avatar
#58 Wanye Gretz
July 22 2009, 11:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Ender the Dragon:

Ender you and I have been boys since way back so firstly know that I do not hold your inexplicable love of Grebs against you.

Having said that:

- Grebs is not a quality D man - He is CERTAINLY not a $3 million dollar player - Given the holes this team has and the Pentagon Defense Budget being spent on the back end, this signing is absurd.

I have been lying about in my own filth pondering goat and star for next year. I have to say Grebs is looking good to repeat as goat. I just don't see what everyone else sees in the guy.

Also - is Cole good for reupping as Star?

*bursts into tears*

Avatar
#59 David S
July 22 2009, 11:23AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Wanye, the pressure you put on Cole by calling him as your star probably ruined his season. No doubt he was tight every home game thinking about your beady eyes bearing down and watching his every move. No wonder he was relieved to be back in Carolina, away from the Gretz fishbowl.

So Optimus, whose career are you going to throw in the toilet this year?

Avatar
#60 GLoKz0r
July 22 2009, 12:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Dear Wanye,

You are wrong.

Sincerely, Reality :)

Avatar
#61 kingsblade
July 22 2009, 01:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Ogden Brother wrote:

the economy isn’t falling anymore, it’s stabalizing quite nicely

I'm still waiting for the part where you explain how GDP stabilization relates to Hockey revenues when it is very specific factors which cause the rise in GDP when the marketplace on the whole is still in disarray.

At the end of the day revenues that are generated by the NHL are still luxury based, which even during a turnaround are often one of the last things to recover.

In Detroit you can still buy a house for less than the cost of season tickets. Hell I know personally 9 Ducks season ticket holders who aren't going to renew because they are upside down hundreds of thousands of dollars in either investments or property. I realize 9 is a small sample but if I know 9 I'd bet there are many many more.

Things are just as bad in 3/4 of the US markets, and that was only the real estate market. Many to most other markets have been hit just as hard.

In other words, simply stating the GDP is stabilizing is in no way an indicator of NHL earnings.

Unless you have further explanation which you haven't shared with us (or the rest of the world).

Avatar
#62 Archaeologuy
July 22 2009, 01:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ kingsblade:

THANK YOU! A voice of reason.

Avatar
#63 Ogden Brother
July 22 2009, 01:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

kingsblade wrote:

Ogden Brother wrote: the economy isn’t falling anymore, it’s stabalizing quite nicely I’m still waiting for the part where you explain how GDP stabilization relates to Hockey revenues when it is very specific factors which cause the rise in GDP when the marketplace on the whole is still in disarray. At the end of the day revenues that are generated by the NHL are still luxury based, which even during a turnaround are often one of the last things to recover. In Detroit you can still buy a house for less than the cost of season tickets. Hell I know personally 9 Ducks season ticket holders who aren’t going to renew because they are upside down hundreds of thousands of dollars in either investments or property. I realize 9 is a small sample but if I know 9 I’d bet there are many many more. Things are just as bad in 3/4 of the US markets, and that was only the real estate market. Many to most other markets have been hit just as hard. In other words, simply stating the GDP is stabilizing is in no way an indicator of NHL earnings. Unless you have further explanation which you haven’t shared with us (or the rest of the world).

He said "in a falling economy"

I said "the economy is stablizing nicely"

pretty cut and dry.

Avatar
#64 Archaeologuy
July 22 2009, 01:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Ogden Brother:

You're just being ridiculous.

Avatar
#65 Ogden Brother
July 22 2009, 01:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Archaeologuy wrote:

@ Ogden Brother: You’re just being ridiculous.

Whatever man, I made a simply statement which you tried to take in 15 different directions.

Avatar
#66 David S
July 22 2009, 02:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Ogden Brother wrote:

I said “the economy is stablizing nicely” pretty cut and dry.

Stabilizing at levels far below what were observed a year ago. Thus even on the surface you would expect discretionary (i.e. entertainment) expenses to be reined in from what they were previously. Those expenditure levels, along with alot of others were unsustainable. Undoubtedly, the cap (based on based on team revenues) will decline as a result.

Avatar
#67 Tankit4Tavares
July 22 2009, 08:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

David S wrote:

Ogden Brother wrote: I said “the economy is stablizing nicely” pretty cut and dry. Stabilizing at levels far below what were observed a year ago. Thus even on the surface you would expect discretionary (i.e. entertainment) expenses to be reined in from what they were previously. Those expenditure levels, along with alot of others were unsustainable. Undoubtedly, the cap (based on based on team revenues) will decline as a result.

Me thinks this interweb site too smart for me... ME LIKE HOCKEY!

Avatar
#68 kingsblade
July 23 2009, 10:05AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Ogden Brother wrote:

He said “in a falling economy” I said “the economy is stablizing nicely” pretty cut and dry.

Actually, what you said was:

Ogden Brother wrote:

Also: the economy isn’t falling anymore, it’s stabalizing quite nicely. And the league is just now starting to earn their rev that will count for the 10/11

I love it when people take their own quote out of context. You statement wasn't about the GDP, you strongly implied that the "stabalizing" economy would benefit league revenues for the 10/11 season. So far you have failed to provide even the slightest evidence for that.

One more thing. Arch didn't say "falling" economy, he said "failing" economy. If you can't tell the difference between those two statements then I demand you end your superiority act immediately.

Avatar
#69 Ogden Brother
July 23 2009, 10:26AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

kingsblade wrote:

Ogden Brother wrote: He said “in a falling economy” I said “the economy is stablizing nicely” pretty cut and dry. Actually, what you said was: Ogden Brother wrote: Also: the economy isn’t falling anymore, it’s stabalizing quite nicely. And the league is just now starting to earn their rev that will count for the 10/11 I love it when people take their own quote out of context. You statement wasn’t about the GDP, you strongly implied that the “stabalizing” economy would benefit league revenues for the 10/11 season. So far you have failed to provide even the slightest evidence for that. One more thing. Arch didn’t say “falling” economy, he said “failing” economy. If you can’t tell the difference between those two statements then I demand you end your superiority act immediately.

So what exactly wasn't correct? Is the economy not stabilizing? or are the 2010/2011 revenues just now starting to be earned?

Falling/Failing, either way. Both are incorrect.

Avatar
#70 Ogden Brother
July 23 2009, 10:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Ogden Brother wrote:

kingsblade wrote: Ogden Brother wrote: He said “in a falling economy” I said “the economy is stablizing nicely” pretty cut and dry. Actually, what you said was: Ogden Brother wrote: Also: the economy isn’t falling anymore, it’s stabalizing quite nicely. And the league is just now starting to earn their rev that will count for the 10/11 I love it when people take their own quote out of context. You statement wasn’t about the GDP, you strongly implied that the “stabalizing” economy would benefit league revenues for the 10/11 season. So far you have failed to provide even the slightest evidence for that. One more thing. Arch didn’t say “falling” economy, he said “failing” economy. If you can’t tell the difference between those two statements then I demand you end your superiority act immediately. So what exactly wasn’t correct? Is the economy not stabilizing? or are the 2010/2011 revenues just now starting to be earned? Falling/Failing, either way. Both are incorrect.

*Revenues that make up the 2010/2011 cap not just now starting to be earned"

That's my whole point, they (media/message board junkies) have been going off for 12 months about how much the cap will go down in 10/11... it's 100% SPECULATION at this point.

The whole situation is blown way out of proportion, the econmy got hit... hard. Yes that is correct. But this is not the first time (nor will it be the last). Historically, the economy turns quickly the other way, and when it does it rebounds sharply (check out the financial markets (a key leading indicator), we are seeing that in spades right now) Corporate earns are firming up (and for the most part didn't go as deep as most expected... could that be the same case in the NHL??

Once the inflator is factored in I'm confident the cap will be somwhere between 52.5 and 54 million. Ya a drop, but hardly the disaster that everyone is looking for - and highly unlikely to shake out any top end talent (other then the odd name). In other words, "the 2010 cap disaster" will end up being the most over discussed, under impactful event in a long time.

One question - Of the articles concerning the 09/10 cap how many did you see that talked about it going down vs how many discussed the cap inflator?

Avatar
#71 kingsblade
July 23 2009, 11:29AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Ogden Brother wrote:

So what exactly wasn’t correct? Is the economy not stabilizing? or are the 2010/2011 revenues just now starting to be earned?

I see. So you are now claiming that the two statements were unrelated and that you were implying nothing by using them together?

Ogden Brother wrote:

could that be the same case in the NHL??

Yes eventually, but consumer based revenues are ALWAYS the last to recover because consumers are the last to recover.Ogden Brother wrote:

Once the inflator is factored in I’m confident the cap will be somwhere between 52.5 and 54 million. Ya a drop, but hardly the disaster that everyone is looking for - and highly unlikely to shake out any top end talent (other then the odd name). In other words, “the 2010 cap disaster” will end up being the most over discussed, under impactful event in a long time

I don't know what disaster you are talking about. You agree that the cap will go down. Do you really doubt that a drop of 2-4 million will not be extremely difficult for some teams to deal with? It sure will be a problem for the Oilers.

I haven't noticed anyone anywhere claiming the cap will be any lower than you expect it to be, so who are you disagreeing with? All I hear is people saying the cap will go down - a statement you evidently agree with. So who are the people claiming a "disaster" is coming?

Avatar
#72 Ogden Brother
July 23 2009, 11:33AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

kingsblade wrote:

I haven’t noticed anyone anywhere claiming the cap will be any lower than you expect it to be, so who are you disagreeing with? All I hear is people saying the cap will go down - a statement you evidently agree with. So who are the people claiming a “disaster” is coming?

I've seen multiple reports/posts talking about sub 50 million cap. And the overiding theme is that next year their will be lots of top end talent available (re: the Heatly remark from Arch orgininal post) With a 2-4 million dip in the cap guys like Nilsson lose their job, guys like Kovalchuk stay put.

Avatar
#73 Ogden Brother
July 23 2009, 11:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

kingsblade wrote:

Ogden Brother wrote: So what exactly wasn’t correct? Is the economy not stabilizing? or are the 2010/2011 revenues just now starting to be earned? I see. So you are now claiming that the two statements were unrelated and that you were implying nothing by using them together? blockquote> 6 months ago when the economy was still "failing" the impression was that 09/10 revunues would be hit very hard (because the economy/revenues would continue to fail)... which was obviously speculation because the rev hadn't even started to be earned yet. Fast forward to today, the economy is now stronger then it was 6 months ago... and the Rev are just now starting to be earned... so I think it's fair to conclude that seeing as how those Rev are only starting to be earned when the economy is firming up, they should be better then anticipated 6 months ago.
Avatar
#74 kingsblade
July 23 2009, 11:43AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Ogden Brother wrote:

I’ve seen multiple reports/posts talking about sub 50 million cap.

Where? I haven't.

Avatar
#75 Ogden Brother
July 23 2009, 12:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

kingsblade wrote:

Ogden Brother wrote: I’ve seen multiple reports/posts talking about sub 50 million cap. Where? I haven’t.

From the Globe and Mail:

"No one can accurately predict next season's salary cap, although the early indications are that the drop may not be as dramatic as some had feared. For much of this past season, the expectation was that the cap would remain flat for 2009-10 and then drop – some estimates put it as high as 20 per cent – for next year. Naturally, that would put most teams, operating at or near the cap for the coming year, at a competitive disadvantage, and forced into making all sorts of unpalatable choices next season, if that were to occur.

Now, however, there is a new emerging sense that the NHL has been spared the larger effects of the slumping economy and that next year's cap – if it shrinks at all – won't be nearly as bad as originally thought. The early indications of how the economy might affect the NHL have been mostly positive. Playoff ticket sales were good and season-ticket sales are reportedly going well in most of the traditional markets."

"Some estimates put it as high as 20%"

Luckly enough a quick google search also found a piece supporting my position.

Avatar
#76 kingsblade
July 23 2009, 02:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Ogden Brother wrote:

“Some estimates put it as high as 20%”

umm...which estimates are those? A writer who makes a statement as vague as that is usually trying to justify himself. Why wouldn't he mention where these reports are coming from?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I still haven't seen a real report of someone estimating a cap below 50. Just another writer who says that the reports exists.

I also don't have enough invested in this conversation to bother looking, so keep your snide "search google" comments to yourself.

You've done an admirable job of deflecting the point of the conversation, but let me see if I have it straight:

You essentially claimed hockey revenues are starting to stabilize, and we claimed hockey revenues have not yet, and even if the economy is showing signs of moving in the right directions hockey will be one of the last things to recover.

You responded by saying that hockey revenues will not go down as much as everyone thinks.

1) How is that even a relevant response? This is an entirely different conversation. 2) Even if such reports exist I have to believe that if I have not read them they are not exactly the prevailing wisdom, which seems to be your claim.

Avatar
#77 Ogden Brother
July 23 2009, 03:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

kingsblade wrote:

Ogden Brother wrote: “Some estimates put it as high as 20%” umm…which estimates are those? A writer who makes a statement as vague as that is usually trying to justify himself. Why wouldn’t he mention where these reports are coming from? I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying that I still haven’t seen a real report of someone estimating a cap below 50. Just another writer who says that the reports exists. I also don’t have enough invested in this conversation to bother looking, so keep your snide “search google” comments to yourself. You’ve done an admirable job of deflecting the point of the conversation, but let me see if I have it straight: You essentially claimed hockey revenues are starting to stabilize, and we claimed hockey revenues have not yet, and even if the economy is showing signs of moving in the right directions hockey will be one of the last things to recover. You responded by saying that hockey revenues will not go down as much as everyone thinks. 1) How is that even a relevant response? This is an entirely different conversation. 2) Even if such reports exist I have to believe that if I have not read them they are not exactly the prevailing wisdom, which seems to be your claim.

And now you know why I was trying to keep the convo centerd around the one key point:

Failing economy vs Stabilizing economy

As you (both of you) have taken it in about 10 different directions.

Also, I didn't tell you to search google. I said I searched google and luckly enough the first article that apeard both mentioned the 20% reduction that you were asking for proof of. But it also wrapped up my over riding point:

"No one can accurately predict next season’s salary cap, although the early indications are that the drop may not be as dramatic as some had feared"

Sums up my point.

"For much of this past season, the expectation was that the cap would remain flat for 2009-10 and then drop – some estimates put it as high as 20 per cent"

Sums up what I was debating against

Now, however, there is a new emerging sense that the NHL has been spared the larger effects of the slumping economy and that next year’s cap– if it shrinks at all –won’t be nearly as bad as originally thought -

Again, nicely sums up my point

"The early indications of how the economy might affect the NHL have been mostly positive. Playoff ticket sales were good and season-ticket sales are reportedly going well in most of the traditional markets."

Sums up part of the reason I believe what I believe

Avatar
#78 kingsblade
July 23 2009, 04:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Ogden Brother wrote:

And now you know why I was trying to keep the convo centerd around the one key point: Failing economy vs Stabilizing economy As you (both of you) have taken it in about 10 different directions.

Hardly.

You initial point was essentially that a recovering economy next year means a recovering NHL next year. I disputed that and you decided to go out to left field to look for a response.

Here is a nice little summary for you.

You: The economy is recovering.

Me: That does not mean the NHL will recover at the same time.

You: The cap will not fall as far as everyone thinks.

Me: WTF...how does that prove that the NHL is recovering??? Not only that but when did we even discuss how far the cap was going to fall????

Accuse me of tangents if you want, but I have done nothing but try and steer you back to you very first point, which was that the signs of nearing economic recovery = NHL economic recovery. I asked you for proof and you went off about how much the cap will fall.

I hate to tell you this, but stating that the NHL will lose less money than expected does not equate to your argument. Go ahead and say things aren't as bad as people think, but that IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT POINT THAN YOUR ORIGINAL POSITION.

Avatar
#79 kingsblade
July 23 2009, 04:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Ogden Brother: Oh, not to mention - none of your happily summed up points support your initial position in any way, considering all of them point to smaller losses than expected, not to recovery.

If my business is losing income and I thought I was going to lose 400k but only lost 200k should I claim that I am recovering because I didn't drop as much as expected?

Avatar
#80 Ogden Brother
July 23 2009, 04:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

kingsblade wrote:

Ogden Brother wrote: And now you know why I was trying to keep the convo centerd around the one key point: Failing economy vs Stabilizing economy As you (both of you) have taken it in about 10 different directions. Hardly. You initial point was essentially that a recovering economy next year means a recovering NHL next year. I disputed that and you decided to go out to left field to look for a response. Here is a nice little summary for you. You: The economy is recovering. Me: That does not mean the NHL will recover at the same time. You: The cap will not fall as far as everyone thinks. Me: WTF…how does that prove that the NHL is recovering??? Not only that but when did we even discuss how far the cap was going to fall???? Accuse me of tangents if you want, but I have done nothing but try and steer you back to you very first point, which was that the signs of nearing economic recovery = NHL economic recovery. I asked you for proof and you went off about how much the cap will fall. I hate to tell you this, but stating that the NHL will lose less money than expected does not equate to your argument. Go ahead and say things aren’t as bad as people think, but that IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT POINT THAN YOUR ORIGINAL POSITION.

Good grief man. I guess it all sums up to me thinking the NHL will recover along with the economy and you think it will be in a lag.

I'm supported by:

"Now, however, there is a new emerging sense that the NHL has been spared the larger effects of the slumping economy and that next year’s cap – if it shrinks at all – won’t be nearly as bad as originally thought. The early indications of how the economy might affect the NHL have been mostly positive. Playoff ticket sales were good and season-ticket sales are reportedly going well in most of the traditional markets.”

So I'm obviously not alone, and their are obviously signs that it might be the case.

Avatar
#81 Ogden Brother
July 23 2009, 04:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

kingsblade wrote:

@ Ogden Brother: Oh, not to mention - none of your happily summed up points support your initial position in any way, considering all of them point to smaller losses than expected, not to recovery. If my business is losing income and I thought I was going to lose 400k but only lost 200k should I claim that I am recovering because I didn’t drop as much as expected?

My initial point on the economy was STABILIZING not recovering. The economy is STABILIZING, their are multiple indicators pointing to this.

Avatar
#82 kingsblade
July 23 2009, 07:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Ogden Brother wrote:

kingsblade wrote: @ Ogden Brother: My initial point on the economy was STABILIZING not recovering. The economy is STABILIZING, their are multiple indicators pointing to this.

ummm - you do recognize that for the cap not to drop there would have to be a recovery, correct?

Revenues that stabilize at lower levels are no better than falling ones when calculating the cap for a single year.

The fact that it is not still getting worse does not mean things are good.

I should also mention that that was not your original point, or if it was then it was very poorly formulated. It was a single premise used to point to a conclusion, which appears to have been that the NHL is ready to begin recovering, but you claim it does not. This of course leaves me wondering what exactly your position was, because nothing else makes sense based on the premises you chose.

Ogden Brother wrote:

Good grief man. I guess it all sums up to me thinking the NHL will recover along with the economy and you think it will be in a lag.

No, I think it will recover too, just not in time to avoid some issues.

I don't recall questioning the presence of indicators. I questioned how much benefit the NHL would see.

Lets go back to my example of my business and see if your answer, the one where you are stabilizing rather than recovering, makes a difference.

I think I'm going to lose 400k but I stop losing at 200 and now I'm stabilized at a level 200k below the previous level.

Where is the benefit of stabilization terms of this years numbers? Is it just that it could have been worse? Is it that I at least know what the numbers are now and can plan?

As far as I can tell I'm still in trouble, and my revenues are still way down...but at least I'm stabilizing right? That has to magically help my revenue numbers this year right?

Nope...didn't matter much at all. Of course it matters long term, but we aren't talking long term. We're talking cap numbers for the next year or so.

Look I love to argue. It is one of my favorite things, but if you lack the basic logical skills to even formulate a valid argument it becomes tedious. Your premises never add up to your conclusion, yet you keep pressing on. You're a real trooper.

Avatar
#83 David S
July 23 2009, 10:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I think the issue at hand is that if the cap declines by half of that pessimistic projection of 20%, it will screw alot of teams who are currently sitting right on or over the existing cap.

As far as the economy goes, "stabilization" is the best near-term forecast. Things have fallen alot more than is generally spoken of in the MSM. Many think that this recession has been an economic purge, whereby even if the economy regains its footing, consumers may never in this generation return to their pre-recession consumption habits. I have to believe that discretionary purchases (of which hockey is one of) will be the most affected at the end of the day.

Its not even about season tickets as much as it is about all the other revenue streams a team has at its disposal. I'm talking TV rights, sponsorships and advertising. All of which are forecast to be in major realignment over the next few years.

Avatar
#84 Smokin' Ray
July 23 2009, 11:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Wow! That fight you guys are having is a little boring. Who friggin' cares? I was trying to read about the greatest goat of all time.

"Your stupid!"

"No. Your stupid!"

That was 10 minutes I'll never get back.

Avatar
#85 Smokin' Ray
July 23 2009, 11:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Oh and by the way... if you own stocks. The market is on it's way back to normal. So you better get in before it's too late. This is when the poor get rich.

Avatar
#86 Ogden Brother
July 23 2009, 11:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

kingsblade wrote:

Ogden Brother wrote: kingsblade wrote: @ Ogden Brother: My initial point on the economy was STABILIZING not recovering. The economy is STABILIZING, their are multiple indicators pointing to this. ummm - you do recognize that for the cap not to drop there would have to be a recovery, correct? Revenues that stabilize at lower levels are no better than falling ones when calculating the cap for a single year. The fact that it is not still getting worse does not mean things are good. I should also mention that that was not your original point, or if it was then it was very poorly formulated. It was a single premise used to point to a conclusion, which appears to have been that the NHL is ready to begin recovering, but you claim it does not. This of course leaves me wondering what exactly your position was, because nothing else makes sense based on the premises you chose. Ogden Brother wrote: Good grief man. I guess it all sums up to me thinking the NHL will recover along with the economy and you think it will be in a lag. No, I think it will recover too, just not in time to avoid some issues. I don’t recall questioning the presence of indicators. I questioned how much benefit the NHL would see. Lets go back to my example of my business and see if your answer, the one where you are stabilizing rather than recovering, makes a difference. I think I’m going to lose 400k but I stop losing at 200 and now I’m stabilized at a level 200k below the previous level. Where is the benefit of stabilization terms of this years numbers? Is it just that it could have been worse? Is it that I at least know what the numbers are now and can plan? As far as I can tell I’m still in trouble, and my revenues are still way down…but at least I’m stabilizing right? That has to magically help my revenue numbers this year right? Nope…didn’t matter much at all. Of course it matters long term, but we aren’t talking long term. We’re talking cap numbers for the next year or so. Look I love to argue. It is one of my favorite things, but if you lack the basic logical skills to even formulate a valid argument it becomes tedious. Your premises never add up to your conclusion, yet you keep pressing on. You’re a real trooper.

I'm honestly in shock as to how difficult this is for you.

See in the real world, revenues haven't fallen to a loss, they've fallen less then 5%... you know, seeing as 09/10 cap is5% below 08/09 (pre-inflator) so if they have "stablized" then the 09/10 revenues should be roughly 5% below 07/08 revenues.

For the 50th time my point is:

- We don't know what revenues will be yet, seeing as they are just now starting to be earned

- The economy is in a better position now then it was 6 months ago when the real doom and gloom for the league was beeing forcasted.

Unless you disagree with those two statements STFU, because that's all I've been trying to say since post 1.

Avatar
#87 Ogden Brother
July 23 2009, 11:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Smokin' Ray wrote:

Oh and by the way… if you own stocks. The market is on it’s way back to normal. So you better get in before it’s too late. This is when the poor get rich.

Ya, it's up 50% from it's low, a pretty good sign things are coming back to normal and that the economy wasn't in as tough a shape as earlier forcasts.

Avatar
#88 Ogden Brother
July 23 2009, 11:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

David S wrote:

I think the issue at hand is that if the cap declines by half of that pessimistic projection of 20%, it will screw alot of teams who are currently sitting right on or over the existing cap. As far as the economy goes, “stabilization” is the best near-term forecast. Things have fallen alot more than is generally spoken of in the MSM. Many think that this recession has been an economic purge, whereby even if the economy regains its footing, consumers may never in this generation return to their pre-recession consumption habits. I have to believe that discretionary purchases (of which hockey is one of) will be the most affected at the end of the day. Its not even about season tickets as much as it is about all the other revenue streams a team has at its disposal. I’m talking TV rights, sponsorships and advertising. All of which are forecast to be in major realignment over the next few years.

Would a 10% drop really hurt that much though? 6 - 10 teams might have to replace a Nilsson and a Staios from their roster with 600K guys, for all the hoopla it doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

Avatar
#89 kingsblade
July 24 2009, 12:18AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Ogden Brother wrote:

For the 50th time my point is: - We don’t know what revenues will be yet, seeing as they are just now starting to be earned - The economy is in a better position now then it was 6 months ago when the real doom and gloom for the league was beeing forcasted. (what?) Unless you disagree with those two statements STFU, because that’s all I’ve been trying to say since post 1.

OOH I love it when you talk tough. If you had said those two things in "Post 1" we wouldn't have had this conversation.

I'm going to try and make this clear one last time. You essentially equated the GDP with a stabilizing economy. Fine. I agreed that that is a strong indicator. Then you said:

Ogden Brother wrote:

The economy tends to grow rapidly while unemployment is maxing out.

followed by:

Ogden Brother wrote:

I just laid out the facts for the last 4 US reccesions and how they grew out of the recession BEFORE unemployment numbers changed.

Here is a bit of homework for you. Which do you think more closely mirrors discretionary spending, the GDP or unemployment? Do you want a hint?

Your conclusion does not follow your premises.

When I tried to point out that a stabilized economy does not necessarily add up to better NHL revenues you proceeded to continue to argue that the economy was stabilizing. I don't recall actually disputing that assertion, yet you went on and on as though I had. This is the source of my frustration.

All I wanted was some sort of answer from you about how the markers you discussed correlate to NHL revenues. Especially considering your own point about a stronger correlative, which is unemployment.

Regardless, I am done with this discussion because this is the point where Brownlee shows up and tells us in his delightfully vulgar way that we should end the conversation.

Smokin' Ray wrote:

Wow! That fight you guys are having is a little boring. Who friggin’ cares?

Wow! Imagine if I cared about your opinion. I would just be devastated.

Avatar
#90 David S
July 24 2009, 12:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I know this has nothing to do with Grebs re-signing, but its a whole lot more fun than economy talk on a hockey website...

hxxp://www.heavy.com/video/67247#/channel/247633

Avatar
#91 Ogden Brother
July 24 2009, 07:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

kingsblade wrote:

Here is a bit of homework for you. Which do you think more closely mirrors discretionary spending, the GDP or unemployment? Do you want a hint? Your conclusion does not follow your premises. When I tried to point out that a stabilized economy does not necessarily add up to better NHL revenues you proceeded to continue to argue that the economy was stabilizing. I don’t recall actually disputing that assertion, yet you went on and on as though I had. This is the source of my frustration. All I wanted was some sort of answer from you about how the markers you discussed correlate to NHL revenues. Especially considering your own point about a stronger correlative, which is unemployment.

You know what smart guy? We don't know how NHL revs are going to react, sure you can assume they are going to act like a typical discretionairy product... but we just don't know. I for one am confident that theirs still 20,000 people in 15 or so NHL cities that still have the expendable income to go to as many hockey games as they please.... And if the league is as gate driven as they say, that's all it will take.

Avatar
#92 kingsblade
July 24 2009, 10:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Ogden Brother wrote:

You know what smart guy? We don’t know how NHL revs are going to react, sure you can assume they are going to act like a typical discretionairy product… but we just don’t know

I agree with that. We don't know. That would be impossible. That is why we are discussing your prediction. I wanted to know why you believe what you believe...which after all this finally brought us to this:

Ogden Brother wrote:

I for one am confident that theirs still 20,000 people in 15 or so NHL cities that still have the expendable income to go to as many hockey games as they please

If so that would be great. I hope you're right. Wasn't that easier than lecturing us on the GDP?

Avatar
#93 Ogden Brother
July 24 2009, 11:07AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

kingsblade wrote:

Ogden Brother wrote: You know what smart guy? We don’t know how NHL revs are going to react, sure you can assume they are going to act like a typical discretionairy product… but we just don’t know I agree with that. We don’t know. That would be impossible. That is why we are discussing your prediction. I wanted to know why you believe what you believe…which after all this finally brought us to this: Ogden Brother wrote: I for one am confident that theirs still 20,000 people in 15 or so NHL cities that still have the expendable income to go to as many hockey games as they please If so that would be great. I hope you’re right. Wasn’t that easier than lecturing us on the GDP?

Couldn't keep your word that you are done eh?

And again, you took things out of contect. I brought GDP up and when it increases/decreases in contrast to umployment to show that the economy often recovers through rising unemployment.

The convo went:

Op: "in a failing economy"

Me: "the economy is stabilizing nicely"

OP: "unemployment is at 20 year highs"

Me: "Economies can grow through rising unemployment"

At that point I wasn't commenting on the NHL specifically, simply that the economy was stabilizing (remember how I kept trying to focus on those key points) but you came in swinging, twisting and turning the conversation.

Avatar
#94 kingsblade
July 24 2009, 12:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Ogden Brother: I concurred with your statement. That is a far cry from continuing the argument.

Ogden Brother wrote:

At that point I wasn’t commenting on the NHL specifically, simply that the economy was stabilizing

but if that's true then why did you add:

And the league is just now starting to earn their rev that will count for the 10/11 season

Who's taking things out of context again? You're even doing it with your own statements. If one isn't commenting on the NHL one usually doesn't refer to them directly.

There, now that's not keeping my word. (eh)

What can I say, I'm bored and I have an injury so I can't really leave my desk. I had to cancel a Tee time today and I'm even seeing clients in my office instead of the signing room. I need something to keep me amused.

Avatar
#95 Ogden Brother
July 24 2009, 12:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

kingsblade wrote:

@ Ogden Brother: I concurred with your statement. That is a far cry from continuing the argument. Ogden Brother wrote: At that point I wasn’t commenting on the NHL specifically, simply that the economy was stabilizing but if that’s true then why did you add: And the league is just now starting to earn their rev that will count for the 10/11 season Who’s taking things out of context again? You’re even doing it with your own statements. If one isn’t commenting on the NHL one usually doesn’t refer to them directly. There, now that’s not keeping my word. (eh) What can I say, I’m bored and I have an injury so I can’t really leave my desk. I had to cancel a Tee time today and I’m even seeing clients in my office instead of the signing room. I need something to keep me amused.

God you're obssesed. By the time I got to my GDP post, I wasn't commenting on the NHL directly, I was showing how the economy can grow through increases in unemployment. He strickly commented on the economy, I strickly commented on the economy back.

Avatar
#96 kingsblade
July 24 2009, 02:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Ogden Brother wrote:

God you’re obssesed. By the time I got to my GDP post, I wasn’t commenting on the NHL directly, I was showing how the economy can grow through increases in unemployment. He strickly commented on the economy, I strickly commented on the economy back.

If you say so.

So you're the one who was changing the focal point of his discussion but we are the ones who took it in 10 different directions?

Avatar
#97 Ogden Brother
July 24 2009, 02:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

kingsblade wrote:

Ogden Brother wrote: God you’re obssesed. By the time I got to my GDP post, I wasn’t commenting on the NHL directly, I was showing how the economy can grow through increases in unemployment. He strickly commented on the economy, I strickly commented on the economy back. If you say so. So you’re the one who was changing the focal point of his discussion but we are the ones who took it in 10 different directions?

He isolated the focal point when he brought up unemployment.

Comments are closed for this article.