toby91_ca

I have no issues with this, gotta promote the city in attempt to bring the tournament. That said, looking at the potential cities, I'm guessing it should really only be a PIT and DET as options. Didn't Buffalo just have it a few years ago? TB or Glendale? No way. PIT probably has an edge on DET due to Arena.

How much of pay-cut did Toews and Kane really take? List of highest paid players in the NHL: - Toews - $10.5 - Kane - $10.5 - Ovechkin - $9.538 - Malkin - $9.5 - Subban - $9.0 - Crosby - $8.7 - Perry - $8.625 - Giroux - $8.275 - Getzlaf - $8.25

I guess I'm in the minority, but I'd prefer to see consistent performance before handing out a huge contract like this. Very good chance the contract ends up being a bargain for the Blues, but I still scratch my head a bit.

Kipwinger...you're wrong about Crosby's impact on Kunitz. If you check the numbers, his goal scoring is 33% higher with Crosby than it is without. If that isn't significant, I'm not sure what is. Anything over 10% i'd consider significant. Dupuis is 28% better with Crosby than without (points wise it's 45%)

It's entirely possible that some of the guys won't be around to be protected or not (e.g. Datsyuk). Not saying he'll retire by then, but It's a possibility.

Harold, I totally agree with you in terms of the writers having lost their minds a bit over the past several years. They do seem to totally ignore everything until the last 3rd of the season or so. Another great example for me was a couple years ago 12-13 season. Ovechkin wins the Hart. He had 56 points in 48 games and Crosby had 56 points in 36 games. Both players missed significant chunks of the season, but with Crosby, it was due to injury (which happened to be at the end of the season I believe), with Ovechkin, he didn't miss any games, he just sucked in several of them and didn't really show up until the second half of the season. Now, I wouldn't have voted for Crosby either because I do have a hard time awarding an MVP award to someone who's missed a lot of time (he did win the Lindsay, which makes sense). However, I think Ovechkin won mostly because he was very hot at the end of the year and was key in squeaking his team into the players.....but the voters seemed to ignore the fact that he sucked for the first half of the year and was a big reason why his team almost missed the playoffs.

I think the big problem is that after they got rid of ties, you really can't go back to it. They really, really want to reduce the number of games going to a shootout. Extending 4 on 4 OT would have really helped, but extending game time really isn't an option (PA won't agree to that). It's not like baseball where you are in a particular city for a number of days in a row and going into extra innings isn't a big deal. So, going to 3 on 3 will reduce the number of games going into shootout. That's good I guess. I hate the idea of 3 on 3, but I must admit, I prefer that to a shootout.

Jimmyemeryhunter - Sharp hasn't noticeably declined the last few years, he had a career year just a year ago (34 goals and 78 points). Other than that, I do agree with you. 25 goals is not a stretch for him, but certainly not a guarantee. Even if you could get him at a reasonable trading price (which doesn't seem possible at this point) - you still have to pay him $6M a year....which I think is a lot for what he's likely to bring.

The asking price on Sharp is obviously leaked out there to tell everyone that they only want serious offers. I mean, I could see him going for one of those three (a 1st, a top prospect or a young top 6 forward), but all 3? That is the most ridiculous asking price I've probably ever seen...seriously.

The part that I found funny is where he suggested the creation of a "character" - one that he'd play when he left for the rink and one that'd he'd shut off when he got home. Is he trying to say that he appeared to be a a-hole, but that was really just a made up character? If so, he's full of it. He's shown to still be pretty classless to this day based on various things I have seen. I didn't see the other article on money, but just read it now. What he's laid out is plain wrong and not even close to reality. He talks about how they don't really have as much money as you think, but also suggests he blew so much money on different things ($750 for pants). So, they would actually have a lot of money if they didn't throw it away? Let's look at the numbers. #1 - Taxes.....so what's his point? Everyone that earns money pays taxes, does he not understand that? I know he does, it just makes him look stupid (+ 50% is probably high....probably that much on a certain chunk, but not all ~ 45% would be a very high estimate on the total in my opinion, assuming no tax planning). #2 - 25% for agent/management? That is ridiculous. He's either flat out lying or bending the truth by using the highest % he's ever paid on a particular item. Fact is, in the NFL and NBA, agent commissions are capped at 3%. While the NHL does not have a cap, I doubt it would be much higher than 4 or 5%. In terms of management fees, those would be higher - 10-20% on endorsements, but that's completely new income beyond the base NHL salaries. #3 - the NHL doesn't take 20%, they hold back 15% until revenues are recalculated to balance out the sharing between players and owners at 50/50. Fact is, I believe most of that goes back to the players in the end anyway. What he doesn't mention is that players can and have taken more than their base salaries based on total revenues. So, they have 15% held back, but then get paid that much and more if revenues are higher. My estimate on the $13.2 million - agents take 5% (high estimate) - $660,000 and NHL takes 15% (my estimate would be that it all comes back, but let's assume half of it doesn't, so they take 7.5%) - $990,000....both of these would be deductions from the $13.2 million, so the 45% tax would be ($13,200,000 - 666,000 - 990,000) * 45% = $5,197,500. Therefore, net cash after that would be $6,352,500. Quite a bit different from his $660K calculation. Even using his numbers makes his final estimate of $660K make absolutely no sense. $13,200,000 - 3,300,000 (commission) - 2,640,000 (NHL...which he admits comes back) - 3,630,000 (tax on $13.2M-3.3M-2.6M @50%) = $3,630,000. I'm sorry, that article makes him look like a total idiot.

Did the same thing in round 1....see lengthy thread on the topic

Leading your team in goals and points for 10 years is an accomplishment, but doesn't mean much to mean in terms of overall value as a player. For example: If, during those 10 years, a teammate had a spectacular year, doesn't that somehow make you a worse player? Honestly, the fact that Ovechkin has that type of stat may be part of the reason he's never been past the 2nd round of the playoffs.

He'll be 36 later this year, which is at an age where many would at least start thinking about how much longer they'll play (vast majority never make it that far). Couple that with his health concerns, I can't think of a very good reason for him to come back. I think the risk is too great. If he was 10 years younger, maybe I'd feel differently, but even then, I think he'd have to give it some serious consideration. He'll have way more information than us regarding his health and benefit from what doctors are telling him, but what we do know 100% is that he will never have information that guarantees he'd be okay to come back and play.

Darkmanx....not sure where you get 0.45 GPG for Stamkos, it's 0.56 isn't it? Quite a significant difference. Also, in terms of Bure and Lindros, a good chunk of their careers came during one of the lowest scoring eras in the history of the game. There was higher scoring at the first of their careers, but it trailed off significantly later in the 90s. Lindros and Bure were ones that just came to mind as more recent and I agree that many might not think of Lindros as a goal scoring machine, but I think injuries played a big part in that, he score 40+ goals multiple times while also missing significant games. I think he was scoring at a clip of 0.61 GPG over the first 7 years of his career (before major concussion troubles).

Why was Stamkos left off the list of how Ovechkin has dominated competition? He's probably closer than anyone else in terms of GPG over the past while I would think. In terms of pure goal scoring, I think Ovechkin has been one of the best for sure, so far. However, I do think it's way to early to start projecting where he'd finish. He's still over 400 goals behind Gretzky and I think it's pointless to try and extrapolate. As an example, at the same point in Gretzky's career, he was at over 630 goals and he obviously finished nowhere near 1,200+ Bure was scoring at a higher rate than Ovechkin, but injuries caught up to him. Lindros was up there as well. If Ovechkin stays healthy, I think he'll get up there, but even if healthy, inevitable age will catch up to him and keep him short would be my guess.

I had heard Babcock has no interest in a GM role, he just wants to coach and coach with no outside influence. I can't remember if that was straight from him or from someone else. I'm pretty sure it was from someone else, so it might not be entirely true. Even if it was from him, it possible to convince him otherwise.

Toronto really makes no sense to me....unless they are offering much more than Buffalo. I guess I'd take that back a bit....much rather live in Toronto than Buffalo, but in terms of the hockey team, Buffalo appears to have the brighter future (or at least the pieces....Toronto is more of an unknown).

Yes, triple club, but I think he became the 10th or 11th to have the quadruple gold (Stanley Cup, Olympics, World Championships and World Juniors). I know Scott Neidermayer has the following: - Stanley Cup - Olympics - World Championship - World Cup - World Juniors - Memorial Cup Not sure if anyone else has that, but that's pretty hard to do....especially getting the Memorial Cup. The best players are only going to have 1 or max 2 chances at that.

I agree that most don't care about the World Championships and I almost never watch, however, Crosby going this year certainly increased the profile and interest of most. I think a lot of top players end up going (if available) for the European countries, but not Canada and US.

Weird about the Russian team....on paper they were huge underdogs against the Canadians, what did the fans expect?

Anyone have any more details on that $1M + cheque given to Crosby? I guess it was awarded because Canada won every game in regulation, but does that money go to Team Canada or Crosby? I was confused, I was wondering if it was his and if so....why? Because he was the captain, or did he go get it because he's the Captain and it actually goes to the team. If was for him personally, I have to imagine he wouldn't keep it to himself. I got the impression it was for him because he appeared to be accepting it kind of awkwardly.

Yikes...Canada up 4-0 after 1, outshooting Belarus 20-3. Edit...just noticed Dave Lewis is the coach

I admit that I get caught up in labeling as #1 or not, but my main thinking on this one is this.....I'm not in love with a D group if he is the best on the team. If the other 5 were all really good, not a big deal, but it never works that way.

I think there was some disappointment in his player this year, but to be very, very, very disappointed, the expectations must have been way higher than they should have been. My expectations of Mantha have never been extraordinarily high, so I must say that his first year was pretty much as expected. I expect him to be able to come in, develop and contribute quite nicely, but expecting him to become a superstar is just way overboard. I think many may have gotten too excited by his stats in his final year in junior. The way I have looked at is that any future NHL player should be dominating in their third year in juniors. A player that is going to be a future superstar is unlikely to even be playing a third year in juniors (unless they started underage). There's always exceptions to that, of course, but that's the mindset I've always used and it certainly has kept be from being to hyped up about Mantha. The hope though was that he was a bit of a late bloomer and his 3rd year in juniors was his breakout and a glimpse of what to expect in the future.....with that possibility, you could chalk up this year's struggles to having to rebound from serious injury.

Iagree that Kronwall simply isn't a number 1, he never has been. I'm fine with bringing Dion in, but not if the reasoning is that he's going to be the number 1. I do feel that Dion is a really good player, if put in the right role. Currently, as the captain of the Maple Leafs and number 1, he's just not that guy. In that role he's scrutinized far more than he should be of course, but he'd fare much better as a number 2. Maybe two number 2s in Detroit would work? I honestly think Kronwall would be best as a 2nd pairing dman, but do accomplish that, you'd have to find 2 bona fide 1st line dmen to bring in and finding 1 is extremely difficult.