Buppy

Bolland? Dave Bolland? Not saying he's a bad player or anything, but you must really dislike Cleary and Flip to be that enthusiastic about it.

Um... Niemi was a rookie, he only played 3 games prior to this season. Also, he played pretty much his worst hockey of the season in the playoffs. Finals at least.

Well, iff you really want to get technical, industry is a term usually applied to broad categories of business, for instance Professional Hockey. The NHL buing a brand or business entity operating in that industry. You could consider NHL Hockey an industry, and the teams to be brands, but regardless, as I said orginally, I think we both meant essentially the same thing. And I admitted that the cap could potentially impact a teams bottom line. However, the evidence from earnings in the cap era suggest rather strongly that it does not have any negative impact, but rather a positive one. We can't of course say for certain that it is the salary cap leading to the increased popularity and earnings around the league, but we can at least surmise that the cap does not appear to be harmful from a business perspective. And you can not possibly deny the benefit the Wings reap from playing in the NHL. They need opponents to play against or they don't have a product to sell. They need a championship to play for or there's little to draw the interest of the fans. We need to make some collaborative effort much more than they need any individual team. Any collective agreement between teams is bound to produce some rules that an individual team might not agree with, that could potentially be harmful to said team. But considering that without an agreement, a team would be left with absolutely nothing I don't think there's any basis for complaint. It's just something that has to be accepted. It impacts our bottom line that we can't schedule 180 games a year, but it is not in any sense socialist that the league doesn't allow us to do that. A limited schedule is just part of the framework under which the league operates. The salary cap is no different. So I guess then it is only the involvement of money that makes you call it socialist. But you're still ignoring the fact that it's a game. The cap is a rule governing only what can be spent on player salaries. It is a competition rule, nothing more. You're acting as though there is some great infringement on Ilitch's ability to spend his money or reinvest in his product. It is a small restriction, on only one aspect where an owner could decide to spend their money. It is no different at all than the many rules governing how organizations need to comply to the agreed-upon standards of operation in NHL. You say Ilitch is getting 'f***ed'. How is that? By making more money? Because he is making more now than pre-cap. Or is he getting screwed by not being able to win as often as he might like? If it's the latter, then you are admitting the priority of the game aspect of the NHL, and should not have any problem admitting the validity of a rule governing competition in that game. Admitting that within the context of something as ultimately meaningless as a game, calling something socialist is a bit silly. Pretty much every game ever invented restricts the assets that can be devoted to competition. That is all the salary cap does. It's fundementally no different than a chess game allowing only one queen, no matter how many you can afford to buy. If, on the other hand, you insist on emphasizing the socialist nature of the rule as it pertains to the business aspect of hockey, then you need to remember that Ilitch is perfectly free to own an operate a team that is not restricted by a salary cap. It just wouldn't be in the NHL. The cap is nothing more than a concession Ilitch needs to make in order to gain the benefits of competing in the world's top hockey league. I think you might also be having trouble separating the cap from revenue sharing, as that's the only context in which Ilitch is 'carrying' anything. But the two are not really related. You could easily have either one without the other.

Forgive me if I'm being unclear. I'll try to clarify. I don't want to argue semantics, so I think we can agree that industry and business entity are similar enough terms. Both of us I think, were referring to the fact that the NHL and its member franchises generate significant revenue, and generally operate in a businesslike manner, having employees, customers, products, et al. I inferred that your comment on the NHL industry was a counter to my own assertion of the fact that we're talking about a game. The intent seemingly to suggest that the salary cap restricts the ability of the Wings to operate as a business. But you followed that up with an example only of how the cap restricts the Wings in respect to the sporting competition. I then took each aspect of NHL/team operation separately to try to illustrate that the cap is not really a socialist policy in respect to either aspect. I then commented later in the post that you can't totally separate the two. In case you missed it: "...you can't totally separate the game aspect from the business either. So the cap must be considered in the complete terms. An arbitrary rule governing competition in a sporting league, which does not appear to impact the earning power of member franchises, nor restrict in any way outside of league competition the freedom of those franchises to 'reap their fruits'. I contend that the cap is a 'competition' rule, in that it's sole restriction is on the amount of money that can be spent on player salaries. The salary cap places no limits on what the Wings can do otherwise to promote, increase the value of, or generate revenue from, their product. Nor does it restrict any other ways in which Illitch or the Wings organization can spend their profits. And while I admit the cap can have an adverse effect on the quality of the on ice product and thus potentially be impactful from a business perspective, that effect is outweighed by the positive benefits gained from membership in the NHL. Therefore, I conclude that there is nothing 'socialist' about it. It is simply a rule, very much like all the others, governing the manner in which teams are to compete in the NHL. You seem to be laboring under the pretense that all rules are socialist. But without those rules, we wouldn't have a game. There would be no product for the NHL and its members to promote and sell. We obviously need some rules. The primary purpose being to regulate fair competition. But the existance of another rule designed to increase the number of viable competitors is not unfair at all. Everyone has the same limit, it is a fair rule of competition. The draft is a better example of a socialist rule, since it is not a fair practice. But personally, I dislike the idea of luck being such a factor in draft position, though it would be more fair. I enjoy the parity and level of competition in the league, and thus I think the draft as it is is good for the league.

Well, that's just it. The Kovy deal was worse in every way than any of the others. Longer, took him to a later age, more 'garbage' years, less money in those years, greater cap reduction as a result...like someone said in another discussion: pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. A line has apparently been drawn, and it's somewhere between Luongo's deal and Kovy's. Or maybe Hossa's and Kovy's since goalies often have separate standards. Probably should have done it sooner, even with Lecavalier (I think he was the first to get a deal like this), but better late than never.

Now your saying two different things. You want to consider the NHL a business entity, whose primary focus is to make money, but consider the franchises to be game entities whose primary focus building the most competetive team. You can't have it both ways. If we consider just the sporting apect, then an arbitrary limitation on the resources that can be devoted to player salaries is no different than any of the other arbitrary rules governing competition. If you consider just the business aspect, then you could to an extent consider it socialist. But if the primary motivation for the operation of a franchise is to make money as a business, there is strong evidence suggesting that the salary cap in those best interests. No hockey team could make any money without opponents to play against nor a championship to play for, so membership in a league is vital to the success of any franchise. Furthermore, whatever is in the best interests of the league to which the franchise belongs is also in the best interests of the franchise. Evidence suggests that parity is a benefit to the league, and that the salary cap promotes parity. Ergo, the salary cap appears to be beneficial to the franchises in the NHL, from a business perspective. Current revenue trends support that conclusion. While 'being in your best interests' does not mean that it isn't socialist, you can't totally separate the game aspect from the business either. So the cap must be considered in the complete terms. An arbitrary rule governing competition in a sporting league, which does not appear to impact the earning power of member franchises, nor restrict in any way outside of league competition the freedom of those franchises to 'reap their fruits'. It's similar in many ways to any other franchise-based business. There's a million different burger joints out there, but if you want to own a McDonald's (and all the associated benefits that come with the franchise) you have to abide by their rules. There's a lot of hockey leagues out there, but if you want to be in the NHL, you have to abide by their rules. In regards to the legality of the contract, it is true that the contract as written is most likely within the rules as stated. But we are only assuming there is no unwritten agreement and only assuming that both parties entered the deal in good faith that all the terms would be fulfilled as written. If either of those assumptions is false, then one or both of the parties is guilty of violating the terms of the CBA. Furthermore, the section of the CBA I quoted earlier seems a clear attempt to preserve the integrity of the CBA against exactly these types of violations of the 'spirit'. We are basically a judgement call from an abritrator away from NJ and/or Kovy being guilty of circumvention even without proof of any violations, as the CBA at least had the forsight to try and protect itself from these types of loopholes.

What a ridiculous post. It is hardly socialist to expect NJ to comly with the rules that all teams have agreed to operate under. But even further, I question the assertion that the cap itself is socialist. Remember that we are talking about a game here. A sport, nothing more. A competition between teams conducted within a very specific set of standards and regulations. The cap is no more socialist than practice restrictions, PED regulations, roster limits, rink standards, scheduling rules, game length, player aquisition, or any of the myriad rules governing play and operation of the competing teams. It is simply a rule governing the resources that can be spent on players. While an argument could be made that the cap (and moreso, revenue sharing) is socialist in the business aspect of the NHL, it is not a limit on how much money or profit a team can make. Furthermore, an argument could be made that belonging to the league (as opposed to operating independently) provides more benefit to any single team than any single team provides to the league, so operating under league rules is a small price to pay for membership. And also that increased parity in the league, and the associated rise in popularity, allows a well-managed team operating under a cap to do just as well or even better financially than one without a cap. The fact that league revenues are at all-time highs, and that the Wings'revenues have increased by over $30 million from 03-04 to 08-09 (and I think that's even after revenue sharing) makes that a pretty strong argument. I don't like the cap, but I freely admit that it's only because otherwise the Wings would have an advantage over almost all other teams. I would prefer a soft cap with a tax system to replace revenue sharing. But I have to admit that the cap is by all appearances good for the league. Two things here. One, you nor anyone else here knows if he followed the letter of the law or not. If there was an unwritten agreement (probably not) or (more likely) a predetermined plan to somehow dispose of Kovy before the contract is fulfilled in its entirety, then he has in fact broken the letter of the law, which strictly forbids both actions. Also this: 26.3 (a) from the CBA Is a rather neat way of saying that violating the 'spirit of the law' is, in itself, against the rules.

Not really. The league can reject (or nullify at a later time, even if the deal is initially approved) any contract deemed to be a circumvention of the cap. But there isn't any specific definition of what constitutes circumvention. There is this, Section 26.13 (b) from the CBA: That would seem to provide all the latitude necessary for the league to decide that a 17-year deal for a player who would be 44 at its conclusion can not be explained reasonably without considering it an attempt to avoid the Upper Limit, and/or an unwritten agreement (both of which are specifically prohibited). A line has to be drawn somewhere. Exactly where is somewhat arbitrary. Could be length of the deal, degree of front-loading, age of the player, etc. There's nothing that specifically prevents 50 or 60 year deals either, but I think we'd all agree that offering a player a contract until they're 84 would be a clear case of circumvention. 84 is just an arbitrary number, there isn't any absolute guarantee that Kovy couldn't play that long. In all the history of the NHL there have been only 7 fewer 84 year-olds as there have been 44 year-olds. Pretty small difference, relatively speaking. No matter where the arbitrary number is (if age was the factor) there would be a line where age X is ok, but age X+1 isn't. They could easily, just for the sake of simplicity, say 43 is far enough. It's a matter of degrees. See my 50-60 year example above. Also look at the effect of the 'garbage' years. All three deal are structured similar. Front loaded to pay out over 95% of the salary in the first 11, 10, and 9 years respectively for Kovy, Hank, and Mule. Coincidentally, that is when all three players turn 38. After that, all three see their salary drop to $1 million or less. For Franzen and Zetterberg, each has two years at $1M, reducing their cap hits by around $650k for Frazen, and slightly over $1M for Hank. Kovy has 6 years paying a total of $3.5M, reducing his cap hit by nearly $3 million! That said, I wouldn't really care if they did nullify our deal, provided we get a period of exclusivity in which to renegotiate. If it meant stopping the nonsense I'd be ok with it. If they let this one go, what are they going to do next year when Parise gets the 22 year deal NJ would need in order to afford him. There's really not that much risk. If he starts to suck, NJ could just send him to the minors. He'd already have 95% of the salary, so he probably wouldn't care and would just go to Russia anyway, but even if he didn't NJ is still off the hook for the cap hit.

When your takling about a contract that extends 8-10 years after players normally start to decline, you're banking heavily on potential. Not saying it's as mind-boggling as DiPietro's deal. That one just can't be fathomed. Everyone knows why this deal was made.

According to my figures, it's 58 players who have hit 40 (59 if you count Draper, who will be 40 before his contract expires...and with luck we'll still be playing next May 24th. But not counting a handful of players who played fewer than 10 games after 40 [with a re-exception for Brett Hull, who probably would have played a full season at 40 if not for the lockout]). 5 more (Modano, Selanne, Guerin, Lang, Weight) could hit 40 this year if they play somewhere. Of the 10 potentially active, I'd say only Recchi has a chance of hitting 44. Maybe a couple others could make it to 42. Of the 54 retired players, 24 played their final season at 40, 13 at 41, 6 at 42, 4 at 43, and 7 at 44 or higher.

Half our forwards are natural centers. Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Filppula, Franzen, Hudler, Helm, Abdelkader, Draper, and I think Ritola. It's something we've always prioritized, and also a position that tends to draw more of the better players. I'd bet more than half of all NHL forwards have played center at some point in junior/midget at least. What we really need is more scoring wingers, so we can actually spread our centers out. I'm not convinced that Modano would be all that great. Huds-Modano-Cleary looks great on paper, but I think it would depend a lot more on Hudler and Cleary than it would Modano. Put Helm, Abs, or Ritola in there and I still think it would still be pretty good. Maybe not quite as good, but some of you are acting like it would be terrible. I'd rather Helm, Abs, and Ritola get decent playing time and responsibility, see how they can develop.

A silent agreement is not 'exploiting a loophole', it is outright cheating. Front-loading a contract that you expect to be fulfilled is exploiting a loophole. Historically and factoring in recent trends, 40 is on the order of 10-20 TIMES more likely than 44. You may think it's unlikely that Hank or Franzen will play out their contracts, but both cases are for more reasonable than expecting Kovy to play until 44. Bottom line is a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Contracts to 50 or higher aren't far behind. Hell, the next 35 years might give us some major advancements in sports medicine...why not just tack on 15-20-30 extra years at $550k, get that cap hit nice and low. They can't just keep letting these deals get worse.

I don't think you quite appreciate just how unlikely it is for a player to play until they are 44. Chelios is the only one to do so in the past 30 years. 7 players in the entire history of the NHL have done it. Recchi may get there, but it's still exceedingly rare. Much more so than 40, which is becoming more common.

Historically speaking, it is on the order of 10x as likely for a player to play until 40 than it is 44. Recent history is nearly double even that huge difference. Add to that the Wings history of having a good deal of success with aging vets, it is hardly a stretch to imagine both Hank and Mule playing out their contracts. It's only 'playing within the rules' if Lou expects Kovy to play out the full duration of the contract. If he suspects that Kovy will retire before then, he is circumventing the salary cap. That's called cheating. I doubt someone as generally smart as Lamoriello has any illusion that Kovy will fulfill that contract. No reasonable person would expect that. Therefore, I believe he is knowlingly and deliberately cheating. Gaming a loophole is one thing, this is flat out abuse.

Zetterberg will be 40 in his final year (as will Franzen and Lecavalier). Hossa and Pronger will each be 42. Luongo will turn 43. Kovy will turn 44 in his final year. These deals keep getting more and more ridiculous. It's pretty rare for players to reach 40, with only around 60-70 players in history doing so. (It is getting a bit more common though, about 20 of those from the past decade.) I think it's under 20 have played at 42. Only like 7 players in history have made it to 44. And 6 garbage years tacked on at basically league minimum. It's such a clear attempt at circumvention they should remove Lamoriello from the HHOF. If the league doesn't step in here and deny this deal, they should just get rid of the cap altogether. I'd expect a 20+ year deal for Parise next year.

Multi-year contracts for players over 35 already count towards the cap for the duration of the deal. Modifying that rule to extend to these long-term deals wouldn't hurt anyone besides the GMs trying to circumvent the cap.

I think the point your missing is that Chicago may have to move Sharp regardless. Without Huet, they currently have about 4.5 million to get 2 goalies, 2 forwards, and 2 defensemen. If they want to keep Niemi or get someone like Turco, it will cost a big chunk of that free space. They might be able to get something cheap enough, and/or shorten the roster to 21, but it would be tight. Getting three players for the price of one would at least help them fill their roster. Not saying it could happen. NTC and the rivalry being the obvious barriers. It's also certainly possible that Chicago could get a better deal in terms of immediate returns. But it really wouldn't be a bad deal for them, all things considered. Going back to Cleary, Meech + Ritola, it would give them a capable top 6 forward, a potentially decent 3rd/4th-line forward, and a somewhat versatile plug 7th D/13-14 Forward. Though they still might need someone cheaper than Cleary depending on what they spend on their goalies. But to summarize, they basically need to choose between gambling on cheap goaltending, or moving Sharp. Neither is a particularly great option, and I'd probably risk the goalies. I'd maybe even see what I had to give away to get someone to take Campbell. But there are certainly worse things they could do.

Debateable. Irrelevant though, since we aren't limited to league minimum. Depending on what Abs and Helm sign for, how much reserve we want to keep, and if we want to risk going with only 13 forwards, we could potentially go as high as $2-2.5 million. $1.5 is more realistic, but that could still get us something better. Few decent ones left though, so there's a good chance we just have ride what we have, at least for a while to build up some cap for a trade.

I was digging through some stats earlier and was pretty surprised at how well Vokoun has done. Guess that's what you get playing in Nashville and Florida.

The best thing you could say about Meech or Janik is that they'd be fighting for a very limited, rather unimportant role, and so couldn't do much damage. I'd prefer we find someone decent, but failing that I'm ok with standing pat with what we have, and saving some cap space for the deadline. Hey, you never know. Maybe Weber and Nashville management will start a big feud... dreaming's allowed, right?

Well, I'm not going to dig through all your old posts to nail down your every opinion. Your comments (and the other comments from other posters) that I was responding to in this thread strike me as biased and bitter. I'm sorry if that offends you. I guess I expect someone accumstomed to the internet to show a little thicker skin. Oh well. And to clarify some points: You mentioned that Hossa had only once scored more than .5 gpg in the playoffs. My repsonse was that that is an unfair standard. It is unfair because for one .5 gpg is significantly higher than his career regular-season average of .436, and also because it completely ignores his other contributions. My comment on Datsyuk's assists was an example of how you were unfairly judging Hossa. Hossa, like Datsyuk, is an elite all-around player. He does more, much more, than just score goals. And I didn't ignore your comment on Datsyuk performance in '09. I only bothered to address it indirectly because you also added an excuse for it immediately after the comment. It seems you cannot say anything bad about Datsyuk without immediately following up with a mitigating compliment or excuse, and cannot say anything good about Hossa without a follow-up criticism. Now that it seems that isn't working out, you take the argument further afield by bringing up Franzen...for what purpose beyond criticizing Hossa? 'Bitterness' does not necessarily mean you wanted him to stay. That can also stem from blaming him for our loss in the Finals. Or it could just mean an extra bias against him for choosing Chicago, or just being a former Wing, even if you accept that it wasn't feasible to keep him. I think there is plenty of evidence that you an others in this thread are judging Hossa by a notably specific standard in order to purposefully paint him as negatively as you can. To me, it seems a bit more than simple bias. Motivated bias I would say. Again, sorry if that offends you. And one more time I'll say that I was not comparing Datsyuk and Hossa. I agree that Datsyuk is a better player. The point was that Datsyuk does not score as well in the playoffs as he does in the regular season. Someone was suggesting that Hossa was not a very valuable player because his scoring drops in the playoffs. I contend that that is no more true than it is in regards to Datsyuk, who ,statistically, struggles even more in the scoring department. So someone did indeed dispute Hossa's value, stating something to effect of 'Kane-Toews and not much else' and dismissing Hossa's value pretty much entirely. That's how this debate got started in the first place. But I do notice once again your inability to allow something that might reflect favorably on Hossa to pass without an associated criticism. Yeah, you obviously don't have anything against the guy.

Raycroft! But seriously, it certainly is exaggerated. I think it's more a case of just about every year brings a new crop of 'next big thing' goalies, and most of them end up either flaring out or never taking that next step to being a clear top goalie. Raycroft, Lalime, Mason, DiPietro, Theodore, Huet, Ellis, Roloson, Ward... just a few off the top of my head. Not always rookies or even young guys, and some have had pretty solid careers. They just get over-hyped during a particularly good year or playoff run. And players can have good years and bad years. One season just isn't enough for most people to consider a player among the elite. They have to prove it wasn't a fluke. Howard probably deserves to be considered one of the top 10 goalies from last year, but that doesn't mean much for next year, nor make him one of the ten best goalies currently playing. Just like Thomas's Vezina two years ago didn't make him one of the ten best last year.

Wait...I'm attacking someone's character by suggesting they are bitter over Hossa leaving or claiming they have a homer bias? And now for Hossa to have a successful playoff he has to score goals at a significantly better rate than he has in his career regular season? Seems a little unfair of a standard. Pav has averaged 0.65 apg in his career regular season. He's never once managed that rate in the playoffs, much less exceeded it. Why doesn't that matter to you? You're full of excuses to explain away Pav's scoring troubles. I'm sure someone who cared could do the same for Hossa. But they won't give you a Cup for having a good enough excuse. Neither player scores as well in the playoffs as they do in the regular season. That is an indisputable fact. That you can't make that simple admission without couching it in excuses, while simultaneously refusing to even consider the possibility that Hossa is anything other than a playoff choker is just plain biased. I'm sorry if that offends your character, but that's what it is. My original assertion was that Hossa is one piece giving chicago a very good top 6 forward unit. I stand by that. I don't remember anyone criticizing Hossa for being a leech or mercenary when he came to Detroit. Well, except Penguin fans. Wonder why that is...

This is what I'm talking about. You'll all make any excuse in the world to explain Datsyuk's scoring troubles in the playoffs, but in Hossa's case the only possible explanation you'll consider is 'lazy and sucks'. You even deny him credit for his best season, attributing all his success to Crosby. The bitterness is obvious, even a little funny.

I can't even come up with a top 10, especially without Nabokov. Miller Bryzgalov Lundqvist Broduer Vokoun Luongo Kipprusoff Backstrom After that are players like Rask, Halak, Rinne, Anderson, Quick, Ward, Fluery, Howard, Price, Hiller, Chris Mason, and probably a host of others I can't think of atm who are either too young, too old, too inconsistent, or too something to really stand out from the pack. If I had to add two more, I guess I'd go with Rinne and Hiller for now.