kliq

I guess this is what happens when Toews and Kane have a caphit of 21 million. I'm very curious to see how the Hawks do this year. Lets see how good Toews truely is.

Damn I was close! In guessed 5 years, 4.75 million a year. 1 year off! Great deal! Good job Holland!

People keeping thinking of Tatar in 2015. If you want to compare Nyquist to Tatar in the context of what type of deal should Nyquist get, you need to compare 2015 Nyquist to 2014 Tatar.

Frank, at the end of the day you are just guessing, who knows what Buffalo would have offered Kane. Even if they were under the cap floor, that was for 1 season. If we are talking long term contract year, being under the floor one year means nothing. The fact that you are bringing up that the Winnipeg owner has deep pockets just reinforces to me that you don't get it. Its not about how much money an owner has, its about managing a team in a salary cap system for the short term, and the long term. Giving one player 13 million for a long time could absolutely screw a team over if that player doesn't produce, or even if he does produce, handicap that team. I still don't get your "pay-cut" logic. You are saying that because he is allowed to get paid 13mil, if he signs for anything less its a "pay-cut". He is literally the highest paid player in the league, and his salary is constantly rising, not a pay-cut. If he signed for 13mil x 8 it would do Chicago more harm then good, hence he is not worth it.

Do you know what a "pay-cut" is? A pay-cut is when you take less money then what you used to get. Jonathan Toews NEVER took a pay-cut. http://www.spotrac.com/nhl/chicago-blackhawks/jonathan-toews/ You say Winnipeg & Buffalo were prepared to pay Towes 13.3 million a year? Please post a link to someone from either organization verifying or even hinting to this. Or are you just making up things as if they are facts because it helps your argument? I don't think Towes is a top 3 player, I think he has been lucky enough to play with great players for the last 6 years, but that is irrelevant to this argument. I'm starting to see your philosophy Frank, you are pissed at the NHL/owners and anytime a player can get as much as they can out of them, you consider it a small "win". Nyquist is the perfect example, you seem to want him to get paid as much as possible even though if he does get a ridicoulas O'Rielly type contract, it hurts the Wings. No one is disputing with you that these players CAN ask for the moon, what people including myself are saying is that in a team game where the team can only spend so much money with the cap, for a player to take a huge percentage of that money especially when the player is not worth it (ie. O'Rielly) it can and will hurt the team. Players that only look out for themselves are then perceived as selfish and entitled. There is a reason why guys like Lidstrom & Datsyuk are so well respected around here, they never put themselves first and even though they COULD get more money, they are/were willing to take a slight decrease in salary for the good of the team. They are still paid well, but not to the point where it hurts the team.

So the highest paid player in the league is "taking a paycut" because he isn’t making 20% of the salary cap??? Nobody in their right mind would pay Towes an average annual salary of 13.8 million. I truly don’t know if you are trolling, or if you really believe this.

Who was the source when it happened? Was it Fedorov himself? Holland? Illitch? Detroit Free Press? ESPN? TSN? I'm not saying you are wrong, but just because a story is out there doesn't make it 100% fact.

Sergei???? Kidding aside, you seem to be very specific on what happened. What is the source?

There is no way he gets the same deal as Tatar. Tatar had basically 1 season under his belt where he got 39 points in in 73 games. Nyquist got 48 points in 57 games 2 years ago, and 54 points in 82 games last year. Not the same.

Where can you find out who is waiver eligible and who is exempt?

Agreed. But its still the closest situation I can think of.

If I had to guess, I would say he gets along the lines of 4.75mil over 5 years.

Outside of Frank, I don't think anybody is speculating 6million. I dont think you have to worry.

Frank, you are just wrong. Pavel never made "a ton" of money in hockey terms prior to 2005, Pavel Datsyuk made the following per year prior to 2005: 2001-02 - $700,000 2002-03 - $625,000 2003-04 - $1,500,000 I can keep going: 2005-06 - $3,900,000 2006-07 - $3,900,000 2007-08 - $6,700,000 2008-09 - $6,700,000 2009-10 - $6,700,000 2010-11 - $6,700,000 2011-12 - $6,700,000 2012-13 - $6,700,000 2013-14 - $6,700,000 Datsyuk is a team guy unlike Ryan O'Rielly. If you think 7.5 mil per year for 7 years is fair market value for him, that tells me you have no idea what fair market value is. I really do feel bad for Buffalo fans for having to be stuck with this horrible contract.

Its not irrelevant how much revenue the league is bringing in, especially in a system where player salaries are literally connected to it. Colorado fans have every right to be upset with Ryan O'Reilly. How is it different then fans in Detroit being upset with Fedorov back in 2003? When you are a fan of a team and you spend your hard earned money on that team, you want to see players doing their best to help that team win. When you see a player who is more interested in making as much money as possible and doesn't care about helping the team they are playing for ice the best roster possible, it irritates the fans. Its one thing if the player is truly one of the best players in the world, but in the case of O'Reilly it just comes across as greed and a false sense of entitlement. Now don't get me wrong, O'Reilly has every right to want what he wants, but he can't expect the fans to be happy with him. Just as O'Reilly has the right to do what he wants, the fans have a right to not be happy with him. Personally I respect guys who have a team first mentality (ie. Lidstrom, Datsyuk etc.)

Depends who you are listening to.

NHL players make less then players in other sports because the NHL brings in less revenue then sports such as the NBA, NFL, and MLB. I'ts not about what sport you or I like, or about what sport takes more athleticism to play. Hockey is my favourite sport in the world, but that's irrelevant. You seemed to have missed my point. My point is that just taking the players side because its a player is as ridicoulas as just taking an owners side just because its an owner. If a player is asking for a ridicoulas amount of money, you cant fault the fans for being upset with the player.

I guess anything can happen after that contract Ryan O'Reilly got. The money is irrelevant to my point though. What if Nyquist wanted 10 million/year? My point is that always taking the side of a player regardless of the facts is ridicoulas.

I mentioned this before as well, but when I tried to find it I came up empty. I remember they were talking about this on 97.1 a few months back, I remember because it surprised me.

Frank, do you not see the huge problem in this way of thinking? You should never always side with anyone, player or team. You should look at the situation objectively, hear the argument from both sides and then pick the side that you agree with. What if Nyquist wanted 8 million a year for 8 years? Do you automatically side with him because he is a player?

Very interesting perspective. Nice post. Lindros is actually a pretty good comparison. I wonder if Philly will every retire his jersey.

That is a very tough question to answer as its based on a hypothetical premise. If he turned his career around became an elite goaltender and led the Wings to 3 cups, then I would say yes. But there are a ton of other questions that would need to be answered. Did he play good in the playoffs? Did he play good in the regular season? How many wins does he end up with? What’s his career GAA & Save %? Does he win a Conn Smythe? Does he carry the wings on his back during any of these runs? etc. If the playoff runs of 2008 and 2009 didn’t happen, I would say Osgood does not deserve to be in the HOF. However IMO, those are the two years that changed things. But, this is not a clear cut answer, I definitely see the other side of the coin.

There is no question that when Osgood was bad, he was really bad. But, at the end of the day he did what he needed to do and IMO did enough to warrant a HOF induction. What he lacked in skill set, he made up in accomplishments. Its too bad he didn't win game 7 in '09 as if he did this would not even me a conversation that needs to be had.

If come the trade deadline we are out of the playoff picture, of course. However having a quality d-man playing on our third pairing can be a HUGE asset come playoff time. Plus, there is not a chance in hell that our d-men all stay healthy all year round. He's a good player, who played well last year. Also, if you read my comment I didn't say getting rid of him would be the end of the world, I was saying I don't get why people always act like we "need" to get rid of him. I personally would like to keep him, but at the same time if the right deal came around I wouldn't be opposed to trading him as he is obviously not apart of our young core moving forward.

I used to really like St.Louis, but the way his stint on Tampa ended leaves a bad taste in my mouth.