Frozen-Man

Again how many Cups did we win in the 80's (just reading the facts). See you argue that the 80's were so much better as a Wings fan and that we are not near as tough as we used to be - however, we win cups (and contend when we don't win) now and didn't before. edit: clarify

Nobody here is trying to get rid of fighting in the NHL. Most of us really enjoy a great fight in a game. You act like because we don't dump all over our team, like you do, for not having an enforcer or being tough enough that we somehow want fights banned which is just ludicrous. I have not seen one post saying to take fighting out of the game, we just don't run around like chicken little after every loss hyperventilating and decrying the fact that the Wings are too soft/have no enforcer and therefore we suck, every player we have will get run at and injured, and other boards are making fun of us. By all means leave fighting in the game, I would be pissed if they took it out, but don't act as if just because everyone else doesn't dump on the Wings after every loss they want fighting taken out of the game.

That is pretty pathetic if other boards have nothing better to discuss than whether members of other boards are soft. That's just plain silly and I doubt it is really much of a discussion on other boards. As for your Red Wings friends from the 80's would that be back when we weren't annually contending for the Cup? Most fans here don't dislike fights or enforcers we just understand the reality of the situation that we are in and that we are not going to get a great enforcer right now and that those smart guys whose job it is to actually make these decisions don't want to lose pieces to bring up the guys we do have. That is ridiculous! Franzen even said the injury wasn't from a hit but rather he just strained a muscle. Guys get injured no matter what team they play on, amazingly the Sharks and the Ducks both have players that are injured even though they are "tough" teams. Finally, I never hear a peep out of you when the Wings beat the Sharks 6-0 or any of the other great games that we have had this year, you only seem to come out of the woodwork after a loss and then only to tell us that you are a better fan than everyone else and have been watching the game longer than everyone else, and all the true Red Wings fans like you are gone. The team is a really good one and unlike the teams in the 80's will contend for a Cup again this year.

What are you talking about we didn't get any draft picks for Quincy, we didn't get anything but a little cap relief and a roster spot.

Not saying it isn't true but why do you think the back issues are exaggerated?

I agree with you that its not a great idea to have Lilly fighting because he is such a good PK guy and that Kopecky should be doing it (in fact I think they made him take boxing lessons with Downey this summer). However, I'm just not convinced that toughness was what put the Sharks over the top Saturday, we had the lead a good portion of the game and it seemed to me that it was the shoddy defense (especially on the last two goals where the Sharks had breakaways) and poor goal tending (especially on the first couple of goals - just look at the threads about Ozzys poor play), our incredibly poor PK on the road (two PP goals on six chances for a PK of 66%), and giving up 21 shots in the 2nd period (which I don't think has much to do with the Sharks toughness because the Wings pretty much all of last year and this year greatly out-shoot their opponents). If our D could have stopped give up clear breakaways and we could PK better than 66% our toughness would not even be being discussed. I wish we had a guy like Lucic but we don't and aren't going to get one any time soon and I just don't Downey changes the outcome of that game one bit. Again like you said just my opinion, if I really knew what I was talking about I have a job with an NHL team rather than just watching from my home.

I'll give you a great reason - waivers - we bring him up we lose a guy, simple as that. You may say you don't care but that is what a lot of people were saying before it happened to Quincy and now lots of fans are pissed that we let someone go who is playing that great for nothing. It's not just a matter of bringing Downey up we have to send someone down and they would have to go through waivers.

Again there are just so many variables to be able to affirmatively state that the Wings lost because the Sharks were more physical. I have seem so many posters here downplay our 6-0 win against the Sharks because they had a long road trip and played 3 games in 4 nights capping it against the rested Wings. That was the exact same situation we have here, the Wings had a long road trip and played 3 games in 4 nights capping it against the rested Sharks. They had just been beaten by the Flames and were probably really wanting revenge for the 6-0 whipping they got. They had much more motivation, were much more rested, were playing at home, and Detroit's D especially on the last two goals were horrible, and yet they only won my one goal. They have 10 goals against us for the year and we have 13 against them (I know they have 2 wins to our one and that is what ultimately matters but each team that was rested and playing at home won and the only butt whipping was by the Wings. I do agree with the last part of your statement were you say a more rested team won and that has been the case in each game so far. To ask if it is a coincidence doesn't cover it all, the home team won - coincidence, the team that was not on a long road trip won - coincidence, the team with the better D won - coincidence, the team whose goalie made timely saves won - coincidence, the team that played 3 games in 4 nights lost - coincidence. The point is all, some, or none of these may be the reason for the wins/losses and all, some, or none of them may be coincidences but randomly picking one doesn't make it the reason for the loss.

But the time before it did not and resulted in a much more lopsided loss for the Sharks. What I don't understand is how it proves or shows that it is a better way or that it will result in the Sharks beating the Wings. The Sharks won this time, we won the time before that. The Sharks have won at home against us, we have won at home against the Sharks. The Sharks have beat us after we have had long road trips with tight schedules, we have beat the Sharks after they have had long road trips with tight schedules. I don't see how your statement can be used to extrapolate any "key" to winning just because they happened to win the last game - the same team, playing the same way, didn't do it the game before.

I am not sure that you point does stand. San Jose played physical in the previous meeting as well and we beat them 6-0. Why is it that they played physical and they won and that proves something but the game before they played physical and lost and that does not disprove the same thing?

I agree with all of your post except the bolded part. Pronger has been suspended 8 times in his 14 (15 including this year) years in the NHL. That doesn't happen if a guy isn't a cheapshot artist and/or a dirty player. The guy has a lot of talent but that doesn't change the fact that he is as bad as many here think and he has the suspensions to prove it.

Right or wrong, good goal or not, all the lines look really cool and make me want to believe that you are right.

I had thought it was $10M as well. I guess that I just thought that it was still $10M because that is what they offered him before the season. Anyway when I went to look up what the prorated amount would be I was surprised to see that the contract was only $8.6. The only reason that it really matters to me is that I am hoping it means that there is a general trend for all signings to be going down (although I read somewhere Sundin took less so they could sign/trade for someone else before the deadline. Anyway, great news about Z and I hope it means that we can keep more pieces than we thought.

No, they gave Sundin $8.6M not $10M which is prorated for the rest of the season out to about $5M and he only got a one year contract. Everything considered most GM's will probably be more wary to sign those big numbers for long term deals because of the concern with the cap going down. I think Z could get a lot on the open market but Sundin got $8.6M and only one year - I think (just my personal guess) Z will want longer terms even if it means the cash is a little lower.

Yeah I think we had two stubborn people (like most hockey fans) and were never on the same page from the start but no big deal. Whats funny is we ended up saying that we thought Z would be signed for roughly the same amount. Ah well, hope it wasn't too much torture for Doggy or anyone else who had to read it.

It's not that I care if we disagree, its that I made a comment that you disagreed with and then you told me I was wrong (which is fine) but then changed your disagreement from what I was talking about to what you wanted to talk about then told me that I was not talking about the subject you changed it to. Add to that the fact that you were dismissive of any point or reason that I brought up - not that my point was a wrong - but just that you didn't want to discuss it that aspect or facet of discussion, which is fine if you brought up the subject but you were responding to my statement and then changing what it was about. I am not on a high horse and have always enjoyed your posts before and topics that we have discussed. That is why I am out because it was just turning into (at least this is how it seemed to me) an argument for arguments sake and neither one of us wanted to or was willing to look at the others point. As I said I always enjoyed your posts in the past and it just seems like we were getting no where and no real discussion was taking place (and ultimately the entire conversation was based upon our opinions i.e. which cap date mattered for the Dats signing, thus we were talking past one another). Therefore, rather than get further into the discussion it seems best to drop it. Again, no hard feelings and nothing disparaging meant throughout this thread and look forward to your future posts on a different topic.

You just want to argue and I have no desire, I'm done.

:hysterical: :hysterical: But seriously I hope that Seanne will be ok he's a great player.

Again, his contract didn't start till the 2007-2008 season when the cap was $50.3M. The first year of Dat's contract the cap was $50.3M and the first year of Z's contract the cap will probably be somewhere between $52-$56M (though probably closer to the $56 mark) somewhere between $2M and $6M more. That is not as big a difference as people make it sound. I just don't think with the state of the economy, the league, and the uncertainty surrounding it all (and I'm not alone in this thought) Z will get a lot more than Pav because of the cap increase in the past. However, the part that I put in bold is a good reason for Z to make more than Dats. Z has a proven record that makes him less of a gamble (except for his health with his back). He is much less of an unknown, much less of a risk, a much hotter commodity, and much more accomplished than Dats was when he signed his contract. edit: clarify

But I was talking about the financial future in my comment which is the one that you originally responded to. I'm not looking to argue, this all started because I made a comment and you disagreed with it. I had no argument with you at all. I took the 15% from you. . . one page back you said " rather they're referring to the NHL's Salary Cap inflation which has skyrocketed in excess of 15% the past two seasons." Additionally, although the cap was officially at $44M for the 2006-2007 season, when Dats signed in April of 2007 the contract was for the 2007-2008 season which had a cap of $50.3M which is only an 11.287% cap increase which is $7.456M. I think Z will get closer to that number than $8.2M. But that is what I was talking about. I wrote a post commenting on the fact that inflation nationwide was stagnated and would possibly go in to negative growth, if you don't agree that is fine but its ok for me to bring it up and mention that I think it will play a big part in the future contracts.

Of course I'm making an assumption - as are you. That is ridiculous, everyone here is making assumptions concerning contracts, cap space, cap limit, player intentions, length of contracts. But WOW yeah I'm (and here's a secret so is everyone else in this thread) making and assumption - what a novel idea in a discussion thread. Oh wait is that general consensus an assumption. Actually, now, I'm embarrassed, that's not even an assumption its just made up. For example here are a few article from just in the last few weeks: NHLPA Executive Director Paul Kelly doesn’t expect the salary cap to increase next season. Kelly even suggested that the salary cap may be decreased by $1-2 million dollars in 2010-2011. The salary cap’s slowing growth is a direct result of the sagging economy, which is already beginning to hurt the NHL. Kelly also said that he doesn’t anticipate players earning back their escrow money this season, which means that players will end up with between 85 and 92 percent of their actual contract worth. I'm betting the 2009-10 cap is no higher than $54 million and could be as low as $52 million. Remember, this season's $56.7 million cap was based on a projected five-percent increase in league revenues. The economic news that came out of the recent NHL board of governors meeting was bleak, and for the first time since the salary cap set the league's financial landscape in 2005, the upper limit could drop next season. And finally an article with the caption "Future free agents like the Red Wings’ Henrik Zetterberg might suffer if the salary cap tumbles." The cap will either stay stagnant or go down a few million next summer. The only reason it's not more is because most teams already sold their season tickets before the world's economy took a turn for the worse . . . With that in mind, the timing couldn't be worse for Gaborik, the Sedin twins, Alex Kovalev, Henrik Zetterberg, Johan Franzen and other elite players who could become free agents this summer. That is true the went up dramatically in the last couple of years. It is also true that everyone expects the cap to go down dramatically over the next few years and so your comparison is not valid. Holland is too good to not consider what everyone knows, that this year's revenues will be bad and so the cap will likely go down a bit but the real problem is the 2010 cap because season tickets and suites have not been sold yet. I have agreed that contracts and the cap went up but they are going to go down and most economists are predicting several bad years of even or negative growth in the economy and a dramatic impact on many more frivolous items such as hockey tickets. Holland is going to consider what he thinks the cap hit and impact will be for years to come (you know those after the contract is signed) much more heavily than those before the contract was signed. Z will get more than Dats but I just don't think it will be the $8M+ range anymore, if he had signed 9-12 months ago yeah probably so, the economy looked great, revenues were up, the cap had been continuing to rise, and people expected more of the same. That is no longer the case. Yeah a bit but look at the projections. The cap for the 2007-2008 season (right before Pav signed) was $50.3M, while it is up since then many projections have it going down to somewhere between $52-54M next year and then in 2010 (when it could get really bad) probably at or significantly below $50M. Holland is a smart man and knows these projections. That means that next year the cap could be 1-2% higher than when Dats signed and after the first year of Z's contract will likely be actually lower than it was when Pav signed, and projections for the economy (especially with the year lag in ticket sales) could drive it lower the next couple of years. That is a valid comparison and while I still think Z will get more than Pav and your juvenile comments about assumptions and valid comparisons aside, the reality is that at least for the first several years of Z's contract there will not be a significant difference in the salary cap between the two signings.

I do understand, I just disagree with the premise that the two are not related. Inflation of the whole U.S.A. (and world) will have a direct and dramatic impact on the NHL and its cap/salaries. However, even if you take the 15% NHL contract inflations over the last two years (and totally disregard the present economic realities) a 15% increase over Dats is $7.705M not the $8-9.5M that is being bandied about. I still say that Z will have to take less when he signs his contract this winter than he would have last winter because the economic climate outside the NHL is so bad and has an impact on the NHL's bottom line. But yes you (and now finally NFM) are the only one who understands.

I fully understand what is meant by inflation, but the problem is the NHL's Salary Cap inflation has been spurred to it's 15% based upon a flourishing economy and economic outlook based upon late 2002 through early 2007. If you look at real inflation and economic growth charts that was a high time where the price of everything wheat, corn, gas, and even NHL contracts and salary cap. That is no longer the reality. The price of wheat, corn, gas, and even the NHL salary cap and thus contracts will be going down. Contracts were never going to be able to sustain a 7-8% increase every year. That would have them doubling roughly every 12 years. My point what that the inflation in the Salary Cap is loosely tied to real inflation. Gas prices sky rocketed earlier in the year but are down to a 5 year low because there is less demand and not near as much money in the economy to purchase it. NHL salary caps and contracts are not immune to this phenomenon, there is going to be less money to throw around next year and probably for several years after that. NHL salaries cannot maintain an inflation clip that is 2-3 times the rate of everything else in the country. The system will collapse on itself (which incidentally was a major part of the problem that led to the last lockout). The owners and management know that the NHL salary cap/contract levels are directly related to US inflation and economic outlook.

I agree the inflation argument doesn't make much sense based upon the current circumstances. Everything is down drastically from two years ago. Furthermore, if Z should get $8M (which many have stated he should get because of inflation) that is 16.25% more than Dats got less than 2 years ago, in April of 2007. Based upon the inflation argument that makes the inflation rate roughly 8.125% per year (assuming Z doesn't sign until April of 2009 and he should be signed well before that). The inflation rate in 2007 was 2.85% and will probably be about 3.61% for 2008. That is a two year inflation total of 6.46% but people are trying to argue that inflation is the reason for a 16.25% increase in salary, which is off by about 10% (and is still not entirely accurate because inflation matters differently to different industries and when revenue is going down like it is this year there is often negative inflation within a specific market). However, if Z gets his price based off Dats contract plus inflation he gets $7.13M. I think Z will get a little more than that and maybe even closer to $8M but it won't be because of inflation it will either be because 1) management thinks he is more valuable; or 2) he won't take as big a home discount.

Great post and very true. I personally don't think that this Sharks team can be compared to the past few that much. I think they are a much better team and I think they will bounce back just fine. I agree that it is probably good for the Sharks - they were winning too many games too easy and that can be difficult for a team in the long run. In the end they still only lost the two points in the standing for losing the game and it gives them something to remember and to work for and to help motivate as they go through a long 82 game season. If you have won as many games as the Sharks have so far a few good whippings can really help you stay hungry and aggressive. I have little doubt that barring injuries we will see a Sharks v. Wings Western Conference Finals - and what a WCF it should be.