mmamolo

I have to admit, I actually go to that idiot's site from time to time because it's flat out hilarious. Eklund has a secret mini hard on for the Leafs and ever since they signed Lebda he's been preaching about how it's going to turn out to be some sort of steal at $1.45M/yr for 2 years. I swear, this guy has written that over a dozen times over the course of the summer so there's no wondering why he'd now write that it's actually a bad thing the Wings let him walk. The fact that anyone can see the Wings losing Lebda as a worse thing than losing Lilja blows my mind. Then on top of it Eklund, the ol' mighty hockey genius, doesnt mention the addition of Salei. The guy is a joke and when reading his stuff everyone should remember that.

yeah, as I said I agree in principle with your idea (as I normally do) I just think the two points I mentioned would need to be ironed out. We see it every day in the NHL. So many teams are poorly managed - just look at the terrible contracts handed out every year even under the current hard cap system. If teams had 'free' money from the luxury tax pool to play with spending would be easier and it doesnt mean the money would be spent responsibly. Salaries could very easily escalate similarly to how they did pre-cap.

When you condescendingly tell someone to re-read your OP as if they didn't understand it when all they did was point out what they believe to be it's short comings, to me that seems like you were being defensive. If not, no harm no foul. The bolded part is exactly what the current salary cap does. The NHL implemented the system to restrain teams because of the situation they were in prior to the lockout. It's true, each individual team needs to be accountable for their actions but when a fair number of them are not being run well enough the league steps in. The salary cap was their answer to limit over spending and to put constraints on the majority to appease the minority. Again, I personally think a luxury tax system would be an improvement on the current cap system but just like the circumvention aspect of the current CBA needed to be addressed, what I see as deficiencies in your proposal, would also need to be addressed for it to work.

First and foremost you need to take a breath and not take any post that isn't 100% in agreement with your idea personally. In actuality I in fact agree with your idea and think a luxury tax system is a good idea and for the most part you've hit the nail on the head. But if you think that the two points I mentioned wouldn't happen, well I just think you're wrong. The NHL has more teams than good management personel available to run them. There will always be some teams/GMs who will over spend when they have the ability. Take Clarke McArthur for example. If Atlanta had been granted luxury tax pool money it's very possible that they would have accepted his arbitrator's awarded salary and grossly overpaid him this season as opposed to letting him walk while they get nothing in return. This then has a ripple effect because then next summer when another team's RFA goes to arbitration they'll use McArthur's contract as a basis for their hearing. Unfortunately teams are still mismanaged and the entire purpose of the salary cap TODAY is to try and put some form of limitations and control on teams. Obviously when you say mismanagement of a team is a 'team issue' it is but only in part. Poor management of a team doesn't only affect that team, it affects the entire league. Every bad contract a team gives out has an effect league wide. The NHL has a whole has an interest in the success and failures, the good and bad decisions of each team (ideally anyways). So, take a breath, realize I'm not saying your idea is crap. I think it's good but not perfect. I dont need to re-read your initial post so you can get off your high horse and stop preaching to everyone bud.

I see 2 major problems with this: 1. Teams within the luxury tax pool who will receive the pool have to spend the money but how can anyone dictate just how that money is spent? Say they have contract negotiations with Player X (RFA) and initially were to sign him for $3M/yr but now that they've gotten their luxury tax money they agree to sign him for $4M/yr to avoid a potential hold out situation. They haven't improved their team because 99% that RFA was going to be back anyways but they've just spent more money. This luxury tax money could potentially just escalate RFA salaries. 2. The biggest potential problem is say the Lightning (for example) are due luxury tax money this season (just barely) and they receive $4M from the pool. They then go out stupidly and sign Player Y for $4M/y for 3 years but next season because of this new contract they no longer fall into range to be owed luxury tax pool money. Now in year two they have to come up with the funds to pay that contract. Throw in the distinct possibility that they lost a bunch of money in operating revenue in year one and suddenly they're in trouble. It just creates a cycle

http://detnews.com/article/20100924/SPORTS0103/9240386/1128/rss16

It's just funny to see Boynton get dropped in the fight and then get up, do the throat slash gesture and mouth those words. I'll never understand why ppl think at those moments it's the time to try and look your toughest when we all just saw you get worked.

I think both of these nicknames (Souse, Tatar Tots) are hilarious. I'm in for the fan club

I'll try to find the link but McDonald is kicking around because Babcock said that he'd be the first goaltender called up in case of injury (before McCollum and obviously Pierce). GR will have McDonald and McCollum as their goaltenders and Pearce will probably be in Toledo(I guess)

If I ever see 'Heroes of Hockeytown' topless I may just vomit

Whether ppl agree with how badly Jersey was penalized or not it does make sense that they were penalized in some fashion. Jersey can claim innocence (just like other teams who signed similar deals) but the intent to circumvent the cap was always there. When the arbitrator ruled in favour of the NHL there was now a third party who agreed and made it legally binding. For those who are confused as to the difference between the first Kovalchuk contract and the second take a look at the salary breakdown and you'll see how big a difference there truly is. The NHL had the right to penalize the Devils because once the arbitrator ruled in their favor it was clear that the Devils attempted to break the rules but they got caught before they got away with it. It's no different than an Olympian being got doping before competing in an event. They'd still be punished. It's not like someone gets caught trying to cheat but because they didn't actually go through the physical act of cheating yet that there's no harm/no foul yet. In the minds of the NHL AND the arbitrator the New Jersey Devis attempted to circumvent the cap and essentially 'cheat' and therefore could be punished. We can all sit here and debate the severity of the punishment, just like we do anytime a suspension is dished out in this league, but we'll never all agree. All I'll say on the matter is that I don't think it's logical to take draft picks away when what jersey did was try to manipulate the cap. If a team tries to gain an advantage in a game you penalize them in the game. A trip in a game causes a two minute penalty in a game. So if Jersey tries to gain an advantage in the cap, you penalize them in the cap. I would have rather seen a cap penalty of an arbitrary amount of money.

I didnt look it up but if my memory serves me correctly I beleive he even started game 5, let in a couple soft goals, then Osgood came in and at some point the game was tied and then the Wings ended up winning. I know Osgood ended up with 14 wins in that Cup run but Im almost positve Hasek started game 5. I think that was the Arnott goal where Radulov piled on top of him and gave him a concussion.

Im from Toronto and still live here and for the most part you're absolutely right. No matter how grim the upcoming season actually is for the Leafs the Toronto media hypes the team as if they're a lock for the Stanley Cup. That being said, I have to say that there are a handful of broadcasters that actually give the Red Wings a good/fair amount of respect. Entering the season and entering the playoffs over the last 2-3 years the Wings have finally knocked the B.S 'too old', 'Osgood is shakey' type comments most media personnel still give them from this handfull of reporters.

that was the most overt attempt at trolling this board I've seen in a long time. Pumping both the Hawks and Pens over the Wings with barely a shred of logic is just funny. Personally, I think Pittsburgh will be really good again this year and they very well may make it to the finals. Michalek and Martin are great additions but if you think their PP will be as good without Gonchar you have another thing coming. Comrie is soft but he'll get you 15 goals or so - hopefully 20 for your sake. Chicago will still be good and normally I don't really buy the whole Cup Hangover crap but with such a young core of players (who love to party) it's actually a distinct possibility with this team. They'll get going though. But if you want to spit out teams in the West that will make it tough for the Wings (at this juncture of the year) you should be talking about Vancouver as on paper they're the team who looks to have improved the most significantly. They actually added to their roster - not subtracted (as the Hawks have).

Although I see the OP's point (in a way) about the Bertuzzi - Filppula - Franzen line I think there's the potential for big things from this line because Franzen will garner so much attention from the opposing team. This will create time and space for both Bertuzzi and Filppula. I honestly think we start to see the playoff type point production from Franzen burst into the regular season. Filppula is now surrounded by two big bodies that can crash and bang and create room for him to operate. This line really has the potential to score in bunches. Not to mention they'll be facing the opposing team's secondary defense tandems while Datsyuk - Zetterberg - Holmstrom occupy their first pairing.

Wait...no love for the Panthers?

Is it me or despite saying Detroit may be the team to beat in the West were there a whole bunch of subtle insults scattered in that article? ha typical Vancouver style

Personally, as a Wings fan I have nothing against the Hawks. Actually, I've always kind of liked them. I'll probably catch some heat from the rest of the Wings fans here for saying that but whatever. That being said, ppl underrate depth at times and for anyone to think Chicago will be as dominant this year I think they'll be in for a rude awakening. I've always liked Turco and yeah Chicago's D is still strong but it's no where as deep as last year. Chicago will definitely still be a good team and they'll be near the top of the Central but with the lack of depth up front guys like Toews, Kane, and Hossa will not only be relied on more for scoring but other teams will be able to focur more heavily upon them. It'll be a tough year for Chicago but I do think they'll have a solid season.

Although I do agree there are times when I hate to see certain numbers taken by new or young players I definitely would never want to see numbers retired when they are not of the same calibre as the rest of the names in the rafters. Retiring a player's number that is not of the same calibre as the rest already up there dimishes the honour and some how takes away from the prestige of the whole thing. As much as I love a lot of these former wings having your number retired it slotted for the absolute best of the best (in all aspects of the sport)

A two-way contract is important because of the money that's paid to the player. It's important because of the waiver status of that player throughout the season. A player on a two-way contract only has to clear waivers once and then is free to being called up and being sent down freely as many times as you'd like throughout the season without having to expose him to waivers again and again where as players on one-way contracts would have to clear waivers and re-entry waivers each and every time. Holland doesn't care about the few hundred k difference in salary he'd have to give Maltby but having to go through the waiver process each time he wants to bring him up or send him down and risk losing him kind of defeats the purpose of the signing. On top of that a signing like this, where the player is all but guaranteed to start the year in the AHL, is almost always guaranteed to work because almost every single team starts the year off with an abundance of players on their roster. As each team trims their roster down and sends their own players down to the AHL no one really has the room to claim someone on a two-way deal you're sending down (Maltby) which means he's cleared waivers for the one and only time he needs to for the year. Now you can bring him up and send him down a thousand times if you want and no one can touch him.

If the money was more evenly spread it over the duration of the contract it would have been MORE attractive to New Jersey (they get the same player for the same duration while paying out less money up front - time value of money) and less attractive to Kovalchuk (money in hand up front is more valuable than money down the road - plus he wouldnt be able to retire early with 95% of the money earned).

Personally I was suprised at the draft picks that went back to Chicago in those deals but at the end of the day it's subejctive. Different people rate the value of players differently. I personally don't value the Byfuglien package high enough to include a first and a second to go back to Chicago but Dudley, and Im sure a lot of fans, would. There's nothing wrong with those deals and even if there was some help on Dudley's part in sending those picks back to Chicago you could never prove it. Besides, if the NHL were to investigate those deals you'd have to wonder why they never investigated some of the insanely lopsided deals of the past - i.e Mike Milbury anyone?

Agreed. Despite our ridiculous back log of forwards and some of them being on the older side if it was for league min I'd gladly sign him this season.

Torres is overrated in my book. He put up good enough numbers last year but I really wouldnt care to have him on my team. I think ppl overrate what he brings to a team. Plus, I don't really feel like he fits all that great into Vancouver's team. If they are in fact going to go with a 3rd line of Hodgson - Malholtra - Torres I think that's wasting Hodgson. But maybe Im being biased because I think it was dumb to bring in Malholtra and bump Hodgson over anyways depiste how good on the draw Malholtra may be. But for Vancouver, at $1M it's not a big risk so it's nto a bad signing I guess

That is a bit strange. I'm not surprised he was having a hard time finding a contract but I figured ultimately he'd land somewhere with a team this season on a 1 yr 500k deal as a 6/7 guy. Maybe he just didn't care to go through that. Or maybe he just had fun on TSN and figured he could do that. Either way, it seems strange as it seems like he has some hockey left in him.