2015 NHL Offseason

Post by **brian** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:39 am

It's entirely possible the fee was literally designed to restrict bids. I wouldn't put that past the NHL.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:48 am

Its really too bad Silver isn't the NHL commish. I bet he could do some really cool, forward thinking shit with a league like that.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:52 am

mister d wrote:Its really too bad Silver isn't the NHL commish. I bet he could do some really cool, forward thinking shit with a league like that.

you're dealing with Canadians here.....

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 1:13 pm

I've got to believe they really wanted 3 or 4 bids, so they could pit them against each other, and turn up pressure for public money. But, Seattle and Toronto suburbs don't have slam dunk arena deals, so they weren't going to make those big bets. So, the NHL fucked themselves by making the deposit requirement too big and too nonrefundable.

Wouldn't be surprised to see expansion in Quebec and Las Vegas, and the Seattle Coyotes or Seattle Panthers.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:57 am

The NHL is so vague about everything. How have they not figured out a way to put another NHL team in Southern Ontario? They are vague about expansion and relocation rules. They are vague about if the Leafs would get a veto or compensation payments or what say Buffalo would have.

If you were a prospective owner in Southern Ontario, would you risk building an arena and applying for a team (and in this case losing 2 million dollars) based on all this vagueness?

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:19 am

So Leafs fans eager for a smart and slow rebuild had ... what? 3 months of hope?

rass · Post by **rass** » Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:25 am

LOU!!!!!

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:03 pm

Lou Lamiorello to Toronto? That is just weird. I don't know what to think. Maybe he just wants another chance to negotiate with David Clarkson. Maybe he'll trade for Ryane Clowe. Maybe he wanted to go to the house with the big bank so he doesn't lose the Ilya Kovalchuks and Zach Parises.

Post by **brian** » Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:12 pm

I've see smart journos I trust speculate that despite the title he's really just more of a consultant which makes more sense. Maybe not too different from Scotty Bowman's role in Chicago.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:08 pm

First trade or two should tell the story. I wonder if its as simple/stupid enough that they either don't want to name Dubas or don't think other GMs would be willing to deal with someone like Dubas.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:40 pm

mister d wrote:First trade or two should tell the story. I wonder if its as simple/stupid enough that they either don't want to name Dubas or don't think other GMs would be willing to deal with someone like Dubas.

Yeah, that could be it. More so than in baseball, in hockey there seems to be a lot of resentment from the old guard against the advanced stats advocates like Dubas.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:55 pm

repeat: Canadians aren't forward thinking.

Last season the Flames raison d'etre was to make the playoffs while being last in every advanced stat to prove a point.

rass · Post by **rass** » Wed Aug 05, 2015 5:58 am

Who's happy to be a Penguin? Who? Who?

Post by **Sabo** » Wed Aug 05, 2015 7:14 am

That dog has some serious crazy eyes.

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:19 am

Sabo wrote:That dog has some serious crazy eyes.

Probably an Australian Shepherd. They almost always have hertochromia.

Post by **Sabo** » Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:32 am

Actually, my comment was more to the fact that dog has his eyes wide open and seemingly looking in two different directions. The color difference doesn't help.

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:26 am

BSF21 wrote:
Sabo wrote:That dog has some serious crazy eyes.
Probably an Australian Shepherd. They almost always have hertochromia.

The Max Scherzer of dogs.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Wed Aug 05, 2015 11:22 am

That dog is just looking for a sheep to cross check in the neck.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Wed Aug 05, 2015 10:04 pm

If his name is Brandon Sutton, does he have this rep and get $4MM+ per?

SportsDoc · Post by **SportsDoc** » Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:42 am

Oh, oh. Is Kane beating up cabbies for 19 cents again?

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:21 pm

SportsDoc wrote:Oh, oh. Is Kane beating up cabbies for 19 cents again?

Oof, nope.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Sun Aug 09, 2015 9:54 am

No matter where this goes, the one person who has already assured they come out looking like a piece of shit is the bar owner.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Tue Aug 18, 2015 4:34 pm

Calgary's getting new toys!

Interesting that private money is going into a public facility!

Post by **brian** » Tue Aug 18, 2015 6:35 pm

I'm sure they'd be retaining some valuable portion of it like the naming rights or something like that.

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:14 pm

degenerasian wrote:Calgary's getting new toys!

Interesting that private money is going into a public facility!

That's an entirely different discussion, but how can anyone honestly buy the "public facility" idea anymore? The fact that taxpayers are on the hook for everything except what private money ends up on the side of the building is just baffling to me. Not calling out Calgary here, it's rampant.

Second point/question, is that the same river that regularly turns DT Calgary into a war zone or is that a different river?

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:58 pm

Seems better than Edmonton though where taxpayers are on the hook for a project on land that Katz owns!

Yes it's the same river but it floods further downstream. Where the arena is being proposed the banks are very high

rass · Post by **rass** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 5:43 am

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 8:25 am

degenerasian wrote:Seems better than Edmonton though where taxpayers are on the hook for a project on land that Katz owns!

Yes it's the same river but it floods further downstream. Where the arena is being proposed the banks are very high

Again, Calgary is certainly not any different in this regard than most other areas. Indianapolis taxpayers paid for 86% of LOS when it was built in 2010.

3% Marion County hotel tax increase
Indianapolis Colts 2% County car rental tax increase
1% County restaurant tax increase
1% County admissions tax increase
1% increases in restaurant taxes in 6 other surrounding counties
Sales of Colts license plates

And I'm positive the above is not the only source. Given the condition of our roads in the city and surrounding counties, one can only assume INDOT and DPW took a hit to budgets. We just had a fucking Summer of Sam of murders last year, not a whole lot of increased police presence (another matter entirely). Is it cool? Hell yea. Do the Colts run this town and create a ton of income for the city and it's residents? Absolutely. But I truly wish they'd drop the charade of a "public building". It's not. It's a taxpayer funded revenue center, very little of which gets funneled back to the people that paid into it.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 8:51 am

BSF21 wrote:
degenerasian wrote:Seems better than Edmonton though where taxpayers are on the hook for a project on land that Katz owns!

Yes it's the same river but it floods further downstream. Where the arena is being proposed the banks are very high
Again, Calgary is certainly not any different in this regard than most other areas. Indianapolis taxpayers paid for 86% of LOS when it was built in 2010.

3% Marion County hotel tax increase
Indianapolis Colts 2% County car rental tax increase
1% County restaurant tax increase
1% County admissions tax increase
1% increases in restaurant taxes in 6 other surrounding counties
Sales of Colts license plates
And I'm positive the above is not the only source. Given the condition of our roads in the city and surrounding counties, one can only assume INDOT and DPW took a hit to budgets. We just had a fucking Summer of Sam of murders last year, not a whole lot of increased police presence (another matter entirely). Is it cool? Hell yea. Do the Colts run this town and create a ton of income for the city and it's residents? Absolutely. But I truly wish they'd drop the charade of a "public building". It's not. It's a taxpayer funded revenue center, very little of which gets funneled back to the people that paid into it.

That's terrible. I don't doubt that Calgary is being suckered into this as well and in fact the mayor was taken off guard so not sure any of this will go through. That 200M share from the Flames might end up being more like 400M after negotiations are done.

A couple of things I see that actually benefit the city is that the piece of land proposed is currently worthless. It's a creosote-filled area that the city hasn't been able to resolve in the last 20 years. Needs a project like this as an excuse to clean up the area. Secondly, Talisman Center, the city's main fitness center, is getting really old and needs to be replaced anyways which would have cost the city money. Lumping everything together into a fieldhouse sounds like a good idea. Calgary is at that stage now where everything is old after the 88 Olympics.

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 9:09 am

degenerasian wrote:
BSF21 wrote:
degenerasian wrote:Seems better than Edmonton though where taxpayers are on the hook for a project on land that Katz owns!

Yes it's the same river but it floods further downstream. Where the arena is being proposed the banks are very high
Again, Calgary is certainly not any different in this regard than most other areas. Indianapolis taxpayers paid for 86% of LOS when it was built in 2010.

3% Marion County hotel tax increase
Indianapolis Colts 2% County car rental tax increase
1% County restaurant tax increase
1% County admissions tax increase
1% increases in restaurant taxes in 6 other surrounding counties
Sales of Colts license plates
And I'm positive the above is not the only source. Given the condition of our roads in the city and surrounding counties, one can only assume INDOT and DPW took a hit to budgets. We just had a fucking Summer of Sam of murders last year, not a whole lot of increased police presence (another matter entirely). Is it cool? Hell yea. Do the Colts run this town and create a ton of income for the city and it's residents? Absolutely. But I truly wish they'd drop the charade of a "public building". It's not. It's a taxpayer funded revenue center, very little of which gets funneled back to the people that paid into it.
That's terrible. I don't doubt that Calgary is being suckered into this as well and in fact the mayor was taken off guard so not sure any of this will go through. That 200M share from the Flames might end up being more like 400M after negotiations are done.

A couple of things I see that actually benefit the city is that the piece of land proposed is currently worthless. It's a creosote-filled area that the city hasn't been able to resolve in the last 20 years. Needs a project like this as an excuse to clean up the area. Secondly, Talisman Center, the city's main fitness center, is getting really old and needs to be replaced anyways which would have cost the city money. Lumping everything together into a fieldhouse sounds like a good idea. Calgary is at that stage now where everything is old after the 88 Olympics.

There is definitely the beautification of the area to be considered too. Sounds like it would be an overall good thing for Calgary, I just wish they'd be straight up about it. It obviously goes a longer way with NFL due to the absurd revenue, but it's not like the NHL owners aren't making money either. The primary team/ownership group should really be forced to finance a minimum of half of these stadium costs. I never really poured over the Indy data, but it's pretty clear how they sold it to people: "3% hotel tax and 2% car rental tax. We get the Super Bowl and people from out of state finance our stadium for us". Which is a great idea until you realize that that was one event and you're trying to cover 630MM of costs 5$ at a time from 3% on a stay at a holiday inn or 8$ on a rental car for a few days (not to mention associated upkeep, this was just to build the GD thing).

Minnesota's new stadium is around 55 Vikings/45 Taxpayers and Tourism for reference.

I'd also be interested in how the Canadian size of this works. Obviously it's not all apples to apples. Since I've been talking about Indy I have to ask, what is a "cities' main fitness center" and how is that relevant? Does nationalize healthcare bleed into the building of publicly run gyms/rec areas that you get to use because you are a taxpayer? Everything is privatized here and you'd never hear of the government needing to "update a public fitness center".

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 9:18 am

Everybody knows that it's weird that the common citizen usually ends up giving money to billionaires when public funding of stadiums occurs. Lots of examples of the folly in that. Here in the Bay Area, the Raiders extracted many millions from Oakland that will take further decades to repay, and they are most likely going to move the team away anyway, because the city/county won't pony up even more.

But, just to be contrary, I'll give an example to the counter. Before the San Jose Sharks came to town, downtown San Jose was a ghost town in the evening. But, the arena (commonly called The Shark Tank, locally) became the anchor and hub that regularly drew in thousands of people for games and concerts, drawing in lots of new restaurants, bars and other development downtown. I think one could make a strong argument that this was indeed one case where the use of public money for an arena led to significant public benefit.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 9:21 am

But those people were going to spend money anyway, just elsewhere. The money in / money out equation never works out for the common taxpayer.

Post by **brian** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 9:21 am

Most of the researchers who study these thing have literally never found an example where the public money outlay was "made back" by all of the varying ways that the team owners try to justify the deals. I doubt (without knowing too much about any of the specifics) San Jose was any different. Put another way, if that investment wasn't happening in downtown given the relative wealth of that area a) a lot of it would have been made anyway elsewhere in metro San Jose b) it's entirely possible there would have been an impetus to re-develop the downtown anyway given the health and wealth of the region.

Post by **brian** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 9:22 am

Or what Mr. D said.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 9:22 am

(I believe there are definitely fringe benefits, but those are outside the economic equation.)

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 9:29 am

How much of those fringe benefits involve people starting businesses than end up growing available capital to be spent as a whole?

I suppose there is the argument that you're just displacing spent income from one area to another but I don't necessarily buy that. I'm aware some people work off a budget, but I'm fortunate enough not to and if there is maybe a new restaurant or recreational thing in a part of town I haven't tried before, I might go spend money on that that I wouldn't have spent otherwise. Or would have spent on a tool a Lowe's, which doesn't exactly keep my money in my community.

Indianapolis is a strange example for this. This really has become a sports town, despite lack of an MLB or NHL team here. And far beyond the Colts and Pacers. The drawing of the NCAA Final Four, a few great minor league teams, a world class tennis center--all of these have made this city both a destination and vibrant again, regardless of how I feel about how the money was raised. I question the 1:? ratio of taxpayer money in to taxpayer benefit out, but I think in a city like this is is pretty clear Indianapolis would be a much different city without the Fieldhouse, LOS, Victory Field, and the Fairgrounds Coliseum.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 9:37 am

Prior to the resurgence of downtown, that disposable income was spent outside of the city of San Jose. I think it's clear that they've been successful at redirecting much spending to businesses inside their city limits, thereby significantly increasing tax revenue.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 11:04 am

Yes Canadian healthcare does bleed into a fitness center. I'm not 100% sure as I've never received such a subsidy straight from public healthcare but I believe there are subsidies for people with disabilities and/or people who are rehabilitating and therefore they need a center for these.

For me, I have fitness and health benefits through an employee plan on top of the general healthcare. For example it costs me nothing to see the doctor but I have to pay a little bit for drugs. The employee plan pays 80% of the drugs and I draw the other 20% from a $600/year bucket I can use for drugs, dentist, glasses etccc. I also have a fitness benefit of 50% upto $1000 per year for gym memberships, bicycles and even WiiFit!

Post by **brian** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 11:10 am

sancarlos wrote:Prior to the resurgence of downtown, that disposable income was spent outside of the city of San Jose. I think it's clear that they've been successful at redirecting much spending to businesses inside their city limits, thereby significantly increasing tax revenue.

Everyone says this and yet the studies show it is almost never true.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 11:21 am

This is where I wonder about the fringe benefits. Obviously 41 games of NHL hockey in California doesn't propel a city, but does the "importance" of the city lead to growth and investment and people moving in? Like as a horrible example, I decided I was going to college in a city that had some sort of major sports, so in 1996 Hartford made the cut. There's something to it, but its overstated and the numbers don't work and the loss is never as ruinous as its made out to be when fear-mongering. Atlanta, Seattle, etc ... all fine. The single biggest deal is Politician X not wanting to be forever known as the guy who lost the _______s.