2018 Pre-Season Thread

[SterioDesign]

ah godamnit i was in MTL last weekend for a music festival. Didn't even know the boys were playing. Maybe i would have stayed an extra day

interesting that they are starting the pre-season playing the 2 teams i hate the most on the same day

Edited September 17, 2018 by SterioDesign

[Daniel]

45 minutes ago, Triumph said:

The idea that the players share blame 50/50 with the owners is ridiculous, as is the idea that players should've taken less money because the owners weren't making a profit.  It is not incumbent upon players that the owners make money - that is the owner's job, and if he cannot, then he should sell the business to someone who thinks he can.  The fact that the stewards for these teams were usually ex-players or otherwise nepotistically chosen people (and still are) should've been more of a point of examination.  It sure seemed like about 15 teams were counting on making the Conference Finals to turn a profit (and the Devils were one of these teams)

The players got nothing out of the 2012 lockout except for 'more than what was offered by ownership at the outset'.  These lockouts are deliberate, owners make more money by doing it, and it's not going to stop until the players decertify the union or make a legitimate threat to do so.

Decertifying the union and making it stick would be the death of at least half the franchises after a few years when a handful of teams are able to go out and sign players for whatever they want.  It's also possible that decertification will lead to a court ruling that the amateur draft itself violates antitrust laws.  Then there will really be no point in watching Devils games for the remainder of the time the team exists in any recognizable form.

This is all about whether we want the North American pro sports model where all teams have a chance to compete at some point, or if we want the European soccer model where it's a few teams that have access to all of the best talent.  I don't know what the average European pro soccer player makes even if it's an apples to apples comparison with North American sports leagues, which it probably isn't since your comparing at least four leagues to one.  But my guess though is that eventually having 32 teams that have to spend at least a decent chunk of change on salaries is probably in the better interests of the 900 or so players that make up the union as opposed to the 300 or so that will make up the NHL if teams had to compete for talent on the same terms as hedge funds have to compete for investment bankers. 

[Aitchmack]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

Decertifying the union and making it stick would be the death of at least half the franchises after a few years when a handful of teams are able to go out and sign players for whatever they want.  It's also possible that decertification will lead to a court ruling that the amateur draft itself violates antitrust laws.  Then there will really be no point in watching Devils games for the remainder of the time the team exists in any recognizable form.

This is all about whether we want the North American pro sports model where all teams have a chance to compete at some point, or if we want the European soccer model where it's a few teams that have access to all of the best talent.  I don't know what the average European pro soccer player makes even if it's an apples to apples comparison with North American sports leagues, which it probably isn't since your comparing at least four leagues to one.  But my guess though is that eventually having 32 teams that have to spend at least a decent chunk of change on salaries is probably in the better interests of the 900 or so players that make up the union as opposed to the 300 or so that will make up the NHL if teams had to compete for talent on the same terms as hedge funds have to compete for investment bankers. 

One of the biggest reasons I gave up watching soccer here in the UK is this. It would, in my opinion, mean the total ruination of the NHL if they went down this route.

[Satans Hockey]

 

 

[DevsMan84]

14 minutes ago, Satans Hockey said:

 

 

Didn't he say that last year as well?

[CommonDreads]

6 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

Didn't he say that last year as well?

I remember a lot being mentioned on all the work he put in over the summer last year, not sure if he said this himself or not though. Either way, hope he really means this, because the kid can really rip it. He just shoots more he can pump his point totals a lot IMO

[DJ Eco]

1 hour ago, Aitchmack said:

One of the biggest reasons I gave up watching soccer here in the UK is this. It would, in my opinion, mean the total ruination of the NHL if they went down this route.

You mean to tell me that watching Juventus win for the next 5 decades doesn't make for absolutely enthralling Serie A action?!?!?! (I was going to make a Premier League joke, but at least you guys had Leicester City that one year, and are some degree removed from the stagnancy in, say, Bundesliga or Serie A.

Edited September 17, 2018 by DJ Eco

[Satans Hockey]

27 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

Didn't he say that last year as well?

I don't remember but I hope he follows through with it. 

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Aitchmack said:

One of the biggest reasons I gave up watching soccer here in the UK is this. It would, in my opinion, mean the total ruination of the NHL if they went down this route.

And I was just guessing that's how European soccer works based on the fact that I see all of the same jerseys. 

[Triumph]

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

Decertifying the union and making it stick would be the death of at least half the franchises after a few years when a handful of teams are able to go out and sign players for whatever they want.  It's also possible that decertification will lead to a court ruling that the amateur draft itself violates antitrust laws.  Then there will really be no point in watching Devils games for the remainder of the time the team exists in any recognizable form.

This is all about whether we want the North American pro sports model where all teams have a chance to compete at some point, or if we want the European soccer model where it's a few teams that have access to all of the best talent.  I don't know what the average European pro soccer player makes even if it's an apples to apples comparison with North American sports leagues, which it probably isn't since your comparing at least four leagues to one.  But my guess though is that eventually having 32 teams that have to spend at least a decent chunk of change on salaries is probably in the better interests of the 900 or so players that make up the union as opposed to the 300 or so that will make up the NHL if teams had to compete for talent on the same terms as hedge funds have to compete for investment bankers. 

I'm not in favor of union decertification nor am I in favor of the European system - I enjoy drafts even though they're inherently unfair and anti-labor - but I do think players would make more money in that system.  We already saw it in the NHL - with owners having absolutely no cap on spending, they will spend, or else collude to not spend.  From what little I've read, a much higher portion of revenues of soccer clubs goes towards player salaries in European soccer than it does here.

[NJDevils1214]

How does team and league revenue compare to the NHL? I would wager it isn't even close. 

[mfitz804]

1 hour ago, DevsMan84 said:

Didn't he say that last year as well?

He should have said "I really focused on not sucking as much as I did last year". 

[Daniel]

31 minutes ago, Triumph said:

I'm not in favor of union decertification nor am I in favor of the European system - I enjoy drafts even though they're inherently unfair and anti-labor - but I do think players would make more money in that system.  We already saw it in the NHL - with owners having absolutely no cap on spending, they will spend, or else collude to not spend.  From what little I've read, a much higher portion of revenues of soccer clubs goes towards player salaries in European soccer than it does here.

The pre-2005 system was unsustainable in the long run. I suppose you could have done something like a heavy luxury tax and revenue sharing like baseball does, but it all accomplishes pretty much the same thing.

Ultimately, I care more about me.  And I like having a system where all of the best players don't play for ten or fewer teams.  The players do just fine for themselves financially even with a hard salary cap.  That includes the ones on ELCs.  Will Butcher makes more money than a 25-26 year old that works at Wachtell Lipton. 

I also imagine that the system in place now is better for the Brian Boyles and Michael Grabners of the world that net more than $1 million a year instead of being essentially out of work if there weren't enough teams out there to employ them.  Those guys outnumber the superstars by a lot, which is why decertification is never going to happen.  And if memory serves me correctly, a court enjoined the NFLPA from doing it as a negotiating tactic, so it's harder to do or even threaten than you think.

Edited September 17, 2018 by Daniel

[Aitchmack]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

And I was just guessing that's how European soccer works based on the fact that I see all of the same jerseys. 

Well you're not wrong. In the UK prior to the Premiership money was split between all the teams in the league based on how their final league positions each year. The likes of Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, etc decided that they didn't like this so formed the Premiership whereby the Premier League teams got the overwhelming majority of the cash and everyone has had to live on the scraps that were left for them. Prior to the Premiership you almost never heard of a club going bankrupt. Since then there's been plenty.

[Triumph]

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

The pre-2005 system was unsustainable in the long run. I suppose you could have done something like a heavy luxury tax and revenue sharing like baseball does, but it all accomplishes pretty much the same thing.

I disagree.  I think it was more than sustainable.  Baseball's luxury tax is not heavy - the Yankees have paid the majority of luxury taxes ever paid, the Dodgers have paid most of the rest, and it's a miniscule amount of total league revenues.  What would've made the pre-2005 era sustainable is more teams realizing that signing 31 year old players is generally a bad idea.  That's what we're seeing in baseball now, the market for a lot of players has dried up because teams have realized it's much better to invest in young players and to not reward players for past performance.  It's been speculated that the players are going to ask for a salary cap with a salary floor in the next baseball CBA negotiation.

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

Ultimately, I care more about me.  And I like having a system where all of the best players don't play for ten or fewer teams.  The players do just fine for themselves financially even with a hard salary cap.  That includes the ones on ELCs.  Will Butcher makes more money than a 25-26 year old that works at Wachtell Lipton. 

I wouldn't consider law that free of a market either given how it works, but I suppose all labor markets have various constraints on them - that said, NHL players do well, but there's a reason why a lot of them go broke and fewer people who practice in Big Law don't, and that's the fact that players have to be socking away cash for when they're not playing, because many of them have quite limited earning potential once they leave professional sports.  

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

I also imagine that the system in place now is better for the Brian Boyles and Michael Grabners of the world that net more than $1 million a year instead of being essentially out of work if there weren't enough teams out there to employ them.  Those guys outnumber the superstars by a lot, which is why decertification is never going to happen.  And if memory serves me correctly, a court enjoined the NFLPA from doing it as a negotiating tactic, so it's harder to do or even threaten than you think.

A court enjoined the NFLPA from doing it because, as I recall, the court didn't think they were credibly trying to not negotiate as a union.  The idea that Boyle or Grabner would be out of work in a different system is an absurdity - there's clearly demand for hockey in all 31 NHL cities as well as overseas, but the question is how strong is the demand?   And again, I already said I'm not in favor of decertification and can't pretend it would help absolutely every player, but do I think it would help the majority - yes.

[Daniel]

2 minutes ago, Triumph said:

I disagree.  I think it was more than sustainable.  Baseball's luxury tax is not heavy - the Yankees have paid the majority of luxury taxes ever paid, the Dodgers have paid most of the rest, and it's a miniscule amount of total league revenues.  What would've made the pre-2005 era sustainable is more teams realizing that signing 31 year old players is generally a bad idea.  That's what we're seeing in baseball now, the market for a lot of players has dried up because teams have realized it's much better to invest in young players and to not reward players for past performance.  It's been speculated that the players are going to ask for a salary cap with a salary floor in the next baseball CBA negotiation.

I wouldn't consider law that free of a market either given how it works, but I suppose all labor markets have various constraints on them - that said, NHL players do well, but there's a reason why a lot of them go broke and fewer people who practice in Big Law don't, and that's the fact that players have to be socking away cash for when they're not playing, because many of them have quite limited earning potential once they leave professional sports.  

A court enjoined the NFLPA from doing it because, as I recall, the court didn't think they were credibly trying to not negotiate as a union.  The idea that Boyle or Grabner would be out of work in a different system is an absurdity - there's clearly demand for hockey in all 31 NHL cities as well as overseas, but the question is how strong is the demand?   And again, I already said I'm not in favor of decertification and can't pretend it would help absolutely every player, but do I think it would help the majority - yes.

There’s a demand for the sport in soon to be 32 markets because each team has some chance of being able to compete.  Without any sort of ability to place meaningful rules to divy up talent and make them stay with teams for a certain period of time, that would not exist the same way there are only a handful of soccer teams in Europe that draw crowds, which is especially illuminating since soccer is pretty much the only game in town over there.  How many Devils games are any of us watching if pretty much the top sixty 18 year olds in any given year were effectively off limits?  The answer is zero because the Devils would not exist.  

And it seems to me that there would be not much of a place for the so-so players in their late 20s early 30s, which is why I imagine a lot of the good European soccer players end up in the MLS instead of playing for one of those crappy non-qualifying teams.  Maybe there’s some analysis out there that shows what players would benefit the most from decertification.  It’s irrelevant to me, because I like watching the Devils who won’t last that long in such a system.

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, Aitchmack said:

Well you're not wrong. In the UK prior to the Premiership money was split between all the teams in the league based on how their final league positions each year. The likes of Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, etc decided that they didn't like this so formed the Premiership whereby the Premier League teams got the overwhelming majority of the cash and everyone has had to live on the scraps that were left for them. Prior to the Premiership you almost never heard of a club going bankrupt. Since then there's been plenty.

Am I correct that there’s no such thing as the draft in the Premier League and other European leagues, and that it’s basically the highest bidder that can go out and get the best talent.  Meaning, it would be the equivalent of the Leafs being able to have given Connor McDavid $15 million as a 16 year old to play for them for x amount of time?

Edited September 18, 2018 by Daniel

[devlman]

5 hours ago, Daniel said:

Am I correct that there’s no such thing as the draft in the Premier League and other European leagues, and that it’s basically the highest bidder that can go out and get the best talent.  Meaning, it would be the equivalent of the Leafs being able to have given Connor McDavid $15 million as a 16 year old to play for them for x amount of time?

Correct except that within the past decade there are new rules tying the amount you are allowed to spend on purchasing players to the revenue of the club. It’s one reason there is a wave of stadium expansions underway.

[Chimaira_Devil_#9]

9 hours ago, Aitchmack said:

Well you're not wrong. In the UK prior to the Premiership money was split between all the teams in the league based on how their final league positions each year. The likes of Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, etc decided that they didn't like this so formed the Premiership whereby the Premier League teams got the overwhelming majority of the cash and everyone has had to live on the scraps that were left for them. Prior to the Premiership you almost never heard of a club going bankrupt. Since then there's been plenty.

I don't think it is particularly accurate to link the creation of the Premier League to clubs going bankrupt. I would say that in recent years Financial Fair Play regulations have actually caused clubs more trouble than anything. That and terrible ownership. If you look at all the club's that have struggled and dropped through the division Portsmouth , Bolton , Blackpool, Leeds and Villa, they have had terrible ownership groups.  

Financial Fair Play was billed as something that would level the playing field between top clubs across Europe, but all it did was crush clubs lower down. Big clubs who can generate vast amounts of football related revenue are basically free to carry on as they did before. How are smaller clubs supposed to compete when Manchester United can get £75million a year just for their kit deal?

TV revenue has now actually become a lot more fair these days. 

[DJ Eco]

14 hours ago, Daniel said:

Am I correct that there’s no such thing as the draft in the Premier League and other European leagues, and that it’s basically the highest bidder that can go out and get the best talent.  Meaning, it would be the equivalent of the Leafs being able to have given Connor McDavid $15 million as a 16 year old to play for them for x amount of time?

It's a bit more complicated and layered, but you're generally right as it pertains to players in their prime. A few bullet-points in case you're interested (I'm interested because I love soccer, but recognize that Europe is operating on a failing model that will burst very soon):

• In place of the concept of drafting, the European leagues have a super extensive "academy" model, where they're scouting in other countries and plucking up young kids at 12-16 years of age as prospects. Messi's a good example: he was signed by Barcelona at 13; he had a growth hormone deficiency but was so talented that Barcelona signed him under the premise that they'd pay for all his medical bills.
  • To a much lesser extent New York Red Bulls have a similar system (signing kids 15-16+) and have invested pretty heavily into their facilities, so that they arguably have the best "academy"/farm in the league. It's a little different though because of child labor laws, I think, so I think there's a bit more red tape here.
• I don't think there are all that many restrictions on how much money you can pump into your academies, so I'm sure some teams have networks of hundreds of kids on their payroll that they're monitoring and have the rights to. I think until you're 18 or 19, you can terminate these kids' contracts with few restrictions.
  • For example, some teams have strong scouting networks in Senegal or Nigeria, others utilize their resources in Argentina or Brazil; having resident scouts, facilities, lawyers, medical staff, trainers, nutritionists etc. there.
• In more cases, I think teams buy the "rights" to some of these prospects and monitor them from afar until it's clear whether it's worth it or not for them to join the farm system.
• Teams with more money and resources can afford to put U23, U21, U18, U16, etc. teams together, so there are some U23, U21, etc. leagues that play against each other. The more of these age groups you can afford to outfit players for, I would imagine the advantage you have in getting them game-ready and seeing who is your next star.
• Strangely, there actually are some smaller teams with amazing scouting apparatuses and networks for some reason, who sign and develop so many young stars, but don't always have the finances or means to hold onto them in their prime, so they're always selling. I'm thinking of Parma, Atalanta, and Roma (in Italy) as examples.
  • They churn out talent, but once that talent has an explosive season, he's plucked by Juventus, Manchester City, Manchester United, or Real Madrid for what they think is a big fee.
  • They go on to be stars and be worth 3-4 times that fee.
  • It's depressing, but it's a business model that I guess works for them and is less of a risk than pouring a few hundred million into an elite team that may or may not win the championship. That sentiment right there is a glimpse into why this whole model in Europe is not sustainable. No one in Italy can outspend Juventus, so no one but Juventus win each and every year.

Edited September 18, 2018 by DJ Eco

[Daniel]

6 hours ago, Chimaira_Devil_#9 said:

 

How are smaller clubs supposed to compete when Manchester United can get £75million a year just for their kit deal?

 

A reverse order amateur draft and minimum service time with a club would do just that, just as the near bankrupt Penguins became one of the perrenially dominant teams in the league, and why the Maple Leafs were the embarrassment of the league for while. 

[Chimaira_Devil_#9]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

A reverse order amateur draft and minimum service time with a club would do just that, just as the near bankrupt Penguins became one of the perrenially dominant teams in the league, and why the Maple Leafs were the embarrassment of the league for while. 

A draft is simply not possible in football. Because there is no pool of amature tallent to draft players from. There isn't a minor league in football and there isn't an educational bases college or youth system to pluck players from. Clubs at all levels have thier own youth teams where they can develop their own players from as young as 6. 

If you made it so as the Premier League clubs could pluck the best tallent out of the lower leagues you are only widening the gap. 

[Daniel]

1 minute ago, Chimaira_Devil_#9 said:

A draft is simply not possible in football. Because there is no pool of amature tallent to draft players from. There isn't a minor league in football and there isn't an educational bases college or youth system to pluck players from. Clubs at all levels have thier own youth teams where they can develop their own players from as young as 6. 

If you made it so as the Premier League clubs could pluck the best tallent out of the lower leagues you are only widening the gap. 

Oh, I completely understand that.  And, I would venture a guess that it would probably be illegal under EU law and the laws of the various countries in which the major European teams operate.  That North American sports leagues are unionized and de facto exempt from antitrust laws as a result of that is an historical anomaly more than anything else.

Theoretically though, it is possible if enough teams throughout Europe wanted to change to something along the lines of the North American model.  Something like all UEFA clubs agree to a reverse order draft for players within their own countries and a salary cap for all amateur talent outside of Europe.  So, for instance, in England, the worst team in the league gets the first pick of all players at a minimum age that reside in England, second worst team picks second, and so forth.  Then you have the same system for Germany, France, Spain and Italy.  Each club then gets a set amount of money to pay for the best 16 year olds that live outside of places with a UEFA club, which is the way it works in baseball with Dominican and South American players.  While there may not be the same amateur youth system that exists in North America, it's not like these guys have literally never kicked a ball or have been scouted when they are recruited to play in those academies.

There's obviously no incentive for teams like Man U to agree to this unless there were massive expansion fees involved.   But still, there is a means to do it, legalities aside.

[NJDevils1214]

The general consensus seems to be that just about all the young kids has pretty good games last night wherever they were. They wont make the decisions for the coaching staff easy, that's a good thing.

[Chimaira_Devil_#9]

1 hour ago, DJ Eco said:

It's a bit more complicated and layered, but you're generally right as it pertains to players in their prime. A few bullet-points in case you're interested (I'm interested because I love soccer, but recognize that Europe is operating on a failing model that will burst very soon):

• In place of the concept of drafting, the European leagues have a super extensive "academy" model, where they're scouting in other countries and plucking up young kids at 12-16 years of age as prospects. Messi's a good example: he was signed by Barcelona at 13; he had a growth hormone deficiency but was so talented that Barcelona signed him under the premise that they'd pay for all his medical bills.
  • To a much lesser extent New York Red Bulls have a similar system (signing kids 15-16+) and have invested pretty heavily into their facilities, so that they arguably have the best "academy"/farm in the league. It's a little different though because of child labor laws, I think, so I think there's a bit more red tape here.
• I don't think there are all that many restrictions on how much money you can pump into your academies, so I'm sure some teams have networks of hundreds of kids on their payroll that they're monitoring and have the rights to. I think until you're 18 or 19, you can terminate these kids' contracts with few restrictions.
  • For example, some teams have strong scouting networks in Senegal or Nigeria, others utilize their resources in Argentina or Brazil; having resident scouts, facilities, lawyers, medical staff, trainers, nutritionists etc. there.
• In more cases, I think teams buy the "rights" to some of these prospects and monitor them from afar until it's clear whether it's worth it or not for them to join the farm system.
• Teams with more money and resources can afford to put U23, U21, U18, U16, etc. teams together, so there are some U23, U21, etc. leagues that play against each other. The more of these age groups you can afford to outfit players for, I would imagine the advantage you have in getting them game-ready and seeing who is your next star.
• Strangely, there actually are some smaller teams with amazing scouting apparatuses and networks for some reason, who sign and develop so many young stars, but don't always have the finances or means to hold onto them in their prime, so they're always selling. I'm thinking of Parma, Atalanta, and Roma (in Italy) as examples.
  • They churn out talent, but once that talent has an explosive season, he's plucked by Juventus, Manchester City, Manchester United, or Real Madrid for what they think is a big fee.
  • They go on to be stars and be worth 3-4 times that fee.
  • It's depressing, but it's a business model that I guess works for them and is less of a risk than pouring a few hundred million into an elite team that may or may not win the championship. That sentiment right there is a glimpse into why this whole model in Europe is not sustainable. No one in Italy can outspend Juventus, so no one but Juventus win each and every year.

Youth players can only sign a pro contract when they reach 17 years old. Before that they don't get paid, but clubs academies and schoolboy contracts will often be loaded with perks such as free education, travel expenses financial help for families etc. The schoolboy contracts are two years in lenght and the club will decide whether to renew them after each period. 

Once players get to 17 they can get paid. It's not unheard of for players at top teams to be clearing 20k a week. I used to love down the road from a guy who played as a youth player for Crystal Palace. They paid for him and his brother to attend one of the areas best schools in full , then when he turned 17 he signed a deal that was paying him 4k a week. 

The youth system is actually possibly the most regulated area of football in terms of transfers. That's why you often see teams getting transfer band for trying to sign youth players before they are eligible. Like with Athletico Madrid and Barca. 

A lot of protections have now bee. Put in place to safeguard smaller clubs from not receiving any financial reward for developing players. If a big club like Chelsea comes in a signs a youth player at 17 who has come through a smaller clubs youth academy then the smaller club will be due a fee from Chelsea which goes through arbitration. This also happens between big clubs. A good example of this is the recent move by Dominic Solanke from Chelsea to Liverpool. He was at Chelsea from the age of 8 and when his contract expired he signed for Liverpool. Chelsea are looking for 10million in compensation, Liverpool are arguing for £3million.