egroen

One thing about Franzen: Obviously the level of success he has had as an offensive player has been a pleasant surprise, but the fact he is talented offensively came as no surprise to Red Wings management. After only his first season in the NHL Babcock had Franzen playing on a top line in pre-season with Datsyuk -- unfortunately he was injured shortly after. Hakan Andersson has commented on Franzen's shot as a big reason he was high on him. Franzen was also an offensive star as a teenager, playing with adults, but had the bad luck of ending up on the worst team in the SEL (Linkoping) and pulling mostly defensive duties on a severaly outmatched team.

I had no idea Pittsburgh has been more successful than the Red Wings (I can't believe how ga-ga over Pittsburgh some of you are), and that reason was because of Laraque and Godard. Lilja is a top 4 defenseman? You say the Wings are fine in the regular season and get buried in the playoffs, ok, we'll ignore that the Wings have actually been the most successful post-season team since the lockout, but Laraque and Godard only really played in the regular season - how did they help the Pens in the playoffs? I wouldn't mind an enforcer at all - but so many of you go overboard. I have a feeling we might see one on the team after Maltby retires.

Maltby was shining his 4 Stanley Cup Rings and World Cup while reminiscing about actually playing in the post-season those years (unlike Godard).

45 goals -- corrected now.

Sweet! Now we can trade Filppula! EAVES 242 GP 45 G 45 A 90 PTS FILPPULA 235 GP 41 G 53 A 94 PTS I kid, I kid...

Nice post! I'm just hoping Maltby plays this year like it's his last (which I am also guilty of hoping it is), and has a great year -- he seemed to respond well to pressure and always looked better after a benching and Babcock lit a fire under his ass.

Did he? I keep reading quotes from Holland that they would prefer him getting top minutes in GR next year. ... or maybe more of a "He's ready, he just would not get much playing time on the Wings next year."? Ultimately, he will have the chance to prove himself at camp, and already has a good leg up with his decent play in the playoffs -- but he'll need to show he is ready for more than the 4th line, or he will assuredly find himself in GR for the greater minutes.

Sheesh - I'm just saying that if the NHL makes its arbitrary cut-off age for long-term contracts at 40, there really is very little downside to it and that 40 is better than 42. I agree that Zetterberg's and Franzen's contracts are obvious "cap circumventions" but that Hossa's was even more obvious... and if additional info came forward that a pre-arranged retirement date was talked about, even worse. If you bring it down to 35 I think you are handcuffing not only GMs, but the players as well. It's not a bad thing to see players sign with a team long-term, or for the rest of their careers, and there needs to be some flexibility afforded. I don't think this is a terrible way of going about it. Sure, 40 is pushing it - 42 is getting ridiculous and I certainly think any years beyond that is a complete joke.

Right -- if Zetterberg at that time is simply a shell of himself, no other team wants him, and he refuses to retire -- send him to the minors. it's a one-way contract, so Ilitch still has to fork over his full salary amount for those individual years (which is not that much in context), but his cap hit does come completely off the books, which is clearly a better option than buying him out. This probably would not happen - as we are talking about our most likely future captain, and fortunately in 10 years his $6m cap hit is more likely the equivelent of a $3-4m cap hit in today's dollars, so not nearly as bad as it looks now. These contracts have very little down points, except for the teams not doing them... IE. all their stars are in their early 20s (like Pittsburgh).

Zetterberg's cap hit is pretty much $6m for the next 12 years. Let's say the wings decided to buy him out after 8 seasons and before his final 4 seasons: His contract was originally valued at $73,000,000 with an annual cap hit of $6,083,333 beginning in 2009 and ending in 2021. The total buyout cost at $8,233,333 spread over 8 years (this is nice). But they figure the cap hit real wonky, and it turns out to be almost detrimental, and really not worth it. The cap hit would work out like this: 2017-2018: $112,500 2018-2019: $3,762,500 2019-2020: $6,112,500 2020-2021: $6,112,500 2021-2022: $1,029,167 2022-2023: $1,029,167 2023-2024: $1,029,167 2024-2025: $1,029,167 So you would buy yourself two years of cap savings, before you start losing cap space in the final two years of his contract, and then have 4 more years beyond his contract where you are on the hook for over $1m in cap space. Front-loaded contracts are not a good option to buy out - best to trade them or bury them in the minors.

Buying out a declining salary is the last move you want to make -- you're basically extending only a slightly less cap hit for more years in that case. http://www.nhlscap.com/cap_faq.htm#buyouts Best to trade him or send him down to the minors if he is not producing.

Holmstrom on a 4th line is utterly useless -- I hope he has not fallen that much and he can make a decent recovery from his injuries. In that scenario, you are literally talking about $5.25 million in dead weight of a 4th line that hardly ever plays. That is huge. Every championship team Detroit has seen has rolled 4 effective lines, even in the playoffs. If not, you better pray to the hockey gods you do not get any significant injuries.

As Maltby and Draper become less and less effective (and Holmstrom), it would make me a bit uneasy to have someone like Downey on the team. In 2008 he played 56 games and averaged 4 minutes a game with 3 points and 10 fights. I liked him there, no question - but I expressed my horror earlier at the possibility of a Maltby Draper Downey line and I think you agreed, suggesting carrying Downey as the 13th forward, alternating between Maltby and Draper as needed. That's better... but I'm not sure it is the best option. Maltby and Draper are both now officially overpaid, and you are suggesting essentially adding on a $500k cap hit to the already bloated $2.4m cap hit for these two players. Now you would have almost $3m going towards essentially 'two' (with Downey alternating in) 4th line players. It's too much. Especially for a team that struggled defensively last year and saw 1/3 of its offense walk out the door. I am absolutely not against the idea of signing him in GR and calling him up at times, as he passes through waivers pretty easily, but am strongly against carrying him on the active roster this year. Once Maltby is off the books, I think you have a much better case.

Pretty much, except that they continue counting against the cap, you just are allowed to 'exceed' the cap by that amount (assuming you are at it). So team against the cap in the above situation would be allowed to exceed the cap by the 1.065m.

Games in the 80s were entertaining, no question about it, with Probert and Co. running around busting people up and Yzerman wowing on a nightly basis... but I would never trade a winning team for that. 90s were a nice hybrid that was great - but I just see the lack of Shanahan-type power forwards and goons as simply the price to be paid for remaining competitive for so long. Detroit has had to do it without high draft picks for 15 years now (and pretty much every single big, rough, skilled canadian goes in the first round) and Detroit no longer has the luxury of just buying whatever holes they are missing like they did in the past. They have to look to Europe and mine little-known talents in order to remain at the type of the league - and they don't fight in Europe. Loyalty has also played a role in that, as I am sure Holland would love to bring in some tough 4th liners, but he currently has Draper and Maltby down there and is not about to trade them before their salaries are out. I guarantee he uses them as examples of "Detroit taking care of their own" to free agents.

Helm is an energy player who put up what, 4 points in the playoffs? Valuable but he's not going to be putting up double-digit points like Hudler and Samuelsson in the playoffs.

Sort of a Mike Silinger, good player but not central to any team he is on. He clearly is not worth $3.5m at this point.

Williams and Eaves are both guys who can fill in on the top 2 lines during an injury (both have wicked shots, especially Williams), but I wouldn't expect to see them there long (with Williams staying in GR and Eaves on the bottom lines for depth).

Holland is simply adding to his supply of black aces with a lot of these signings this year. Instead of calling up prospects, he'll be calling up vets now that our prospect pool is now a bit more green. Assuming these guys can solve the defensive and goaltending woes from last year (without the offense to bury them), Holland is equipping them for another long playoff run.

A team should never be 'forced' to sign someone - honor a contract, yes, but not sign any player. Restricted free agency exists to ensure those teams that spent the money and time in developing their drafted players have first crack at signing him, while arbitration helps ensure they are not 'taking advantage' of him.

http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/ccustance.tsn http://www.hendrickshockey.com/

What non-star players are GMs trying to sign to long term deals like we have been seeing? There are none. You do not need to discriminate, because GMs are only going to offer long-term deals like this to stars anyways... they're the ones they need the lower cap hits for; they're the only ones this will ever really apply to. In fact, the abilty to still financially compensate a star player but at a lower cap hit helps GMs compensate the non-star players more -- instead of cutting them off every year in favor of cheaper entry-level players. It allows the NHL to better retain its veteran players, instead of seeing them jump overseas.

And we all know Maltby is playing another year (and hopefully not more)... so watchoo gonna do? A bottom line of Malby Draper Goon is well, awful. Give it a rest for one more year and then you'll have much more of an argument.

I'd be all over trading Filppula+ for Kessel. Sign whichever scorer will take $2.5m or less Prospal/Bertuzzi/Tanguay/Sundin/Zherdev + whatever grinder you can get for $1m or less Malhotra/Grier/Peca

Yeah, but originally you stated well over 5 times. So at least you admit you were skewing the numbers and mine were closer. And how many on a message board ever admit to being wrong? Well, since I stated "skaters" like 2 pages ago, I think "common sense" as you like to call it would have made it an easy call. So no, we don't need to eliminate dmen as they would be considered skaters/non goalies. I hope that isn't to obtuse for you. You blow a gasket over throwing out "non-star" players (which i never suggested) but want to throw out goalies? Nobody is debating that are they? The issue is a matter of using solid statistical data. You want to cherry pick, ARBITRARILY, which players to use in the pool. If we do it your way, who represents the data pool? Who are the "STAR" players that only get counted in this analysis? Who threw them out? Certainly not me... I just agreed with a post stating "star" players tended to have longer careers. Comparing Hossa to the rest of the league is not exactly comparing apples to apples. f***, by your illogical way of doing things you could say Nick Lidstrom is truly the only star and therefore, since he will be 40, that 100% of players will play to age 40 as he is the only one in the data pool. Seriously, how the f*** would you decide who to count and who not to count? That my friend, is seriously flawed Where is this coming from? I never excluded any players (not even goalies) - my numbers were from the entirety of the NHL. Now let's look at it your way: If somebody asked you what percentage of NHL "STAR" players play until age 40 or 42, how exactly are you going to answer that? Players elected to a First or Second All Star Team, record breakers and winners of individual trophies would be my starting point - take some time, but definitely possible. I guarandamntee you that your analysis is flawed, completely arbitrary and far more difficult to ascertain. Would take longer - but would be more accurate towards answering: "What is Hossa's life expectancy (in the NHL)" You also need to look at the age and history of injuries of the "star" at the time of signing. I would argue Hossa has a much greater chance of playing until 40 than DiPietro or even Lecavalier. Actuaries love this crap, and it would not cost the NHL much to actually develop a model and ideal cut-off point, just like insurance companies have been doing for decades. They could do it that way if they wanted to be as exact as possible, on an individual basis - or they could just pick an arbitrary line like they have appeared to with 40. I have a feeling they will just pick an arbitrary line. So therefore, I don't care how many Yzermans, Hulls etcc... there are. Because you haven't even established what constitutes a star player. And therefore, you have no statistical foundation to even begin to determine the likelihood that a "star" player will play to any given age. I could also simply look at that list and quickly determine "star" players make up the vast majority of it - and assume star players (league leaders) are more likely to have a longer career than standard players. Would you agree Yzerman, the Hulls, Howes, Chelios, Oates, Messier, Recchi, Bourque, Francis, M. Lemieux (heck, even C. Lemieux), Niewendyk, Larionov, MacInnis, Shanahan are "stars"? ... that's well over half of them already. This comment actually makes sense. Although irrelevant. It's relevant, just not the whole slice of the pie. So I guess 4 dollars is alot more to you than 1 dollar. Like I said, if these numbers are your idea of a "significant difference", then I suggest you avoid anything with big numbers, like calculators, it'll ******* blow your mind. I'll take the $4, thank you. We are talking exponential differences, not linear. 40 vs. 10 instead of 13 vs. 10. Nope. I'll buy that MORE players play to 40 than 42. But not "significantly" more. Significantly to me means more than a percentage. What's the raw number? Last year it was 7 to 4. WOW! That's ******* mind-blowing!!!! NOT Then I'll assume 26 to 7 does not blow you away either. 54 to 26? 108 to 54? 19, 28 and 54 are not large numbers either, out of a body of close to 1,000. So now we are talking not allowing long-term contracts past the age of 34 because the number does not impress you? I agree with this. Far more realistic and worthwhile to begin this discussion with a rationale age like 35. My entire argument is that 40 isn't a rational age to determine any of this based on the sheer insignificant amount of players who have attained that age as an active NHL player. If we assume all players are created equal, 35 is a great starting point. If we recognize top players tend to have longer careers and that careers in general seem to be lengthening, maybe we can up that a bit. If we also recognize these long-term contracts appeal to GMs, owners, players and fans - maybe we can up it a bit more. IE. Who is being hurt by an arbitrary line of 40, vs. 35?