toby91_ca

In terms of his birthday...yes, if he was born 1 month earlier, he would have just finished his 4th full year in junior. He turned 18 before his 50 goal season even began (so it wasn't 50 goals as a 17/18 year old). I kinda feel like I'm putting the guy down now, which is not the intent...I'm simply suggesting that I wouldn't put much stock in his junior stats. Going back to his birthdate and other comments around size...I'd probably even those two out. I agree that it takes a bit longer for a guy his size to develop, so being close to 1 year older than a lot in his draft year may not be as big of a deal. However, one could look at his size and suggest it is easier for him to dominate against guys that are much smaller at 17 and 18 years old....but it likely won't help when he makes the jump to the next level.

I'm cautiously excited about Mantha...however, I don't put much stock at all in his 120 points in the QMJHL. I am a bit excited though as the production didn't completely come out of nowhere...he was seen to have enough ability to be drafted at 20th overall. In terms of Junior stats though, I almost always ignore them unless they are put up by someone in their first couple years in junior and are clearly leading the pack (e.g. Crosby, Lindros, etc.). If you have a look at Daigle as an example....I think most think he put up huge stats, blew everyone out of the water, was drafted 1st overall and was a bust. In reality, he never lead the league in scoring in Junior (was never top 2). He probably went 1st overall though and came with a lot of hype because he put up very high scoring stats as a 2nd year player (even though not leading the league). If you go back and look at scoring stats in junior, most leading scorers are guys in their 3rd and 4th years and most of those guys don't go on to have spectacular NHL careers.......so I really look for the ones that are putting up huge stats early in junior or I most ignore the stats (which is tough to do).

Yeah, Datsyuk's shootout stats are really good, but by no means the best - 4th in total career goals and something like 26th in % for guys with 10 or more attempts.

number9.....didn't watch the video, but wonder if it was pre-criminal trial, which I think Burtuzzi ended up pleaing guilty. This up coming trial was a civil case, which is entirely about money, so settling before going to trial is no different than going to trial except you take the risk of not getting as much money. Both sides might worry about final $ involved in trial, which brings about a settlement pre-trial (saves legal fees as well).

Euro_Twins....if you are purely looking at stats, I don't think Datsyuk has a chance at the Hall at all at this point. 804 points in 824 is good enough? Don't think so. Lindros has 865 points in 760 games and has a Hart and Pearson...he's not in. My personal starting discussion point used to be 1,000 points AND over 1 ppg. Anything less than that would be very difficult, but there would be exceptions (e.g. several high end trophies)

Right now, Marchand is a 25-30 goal guy, his offensive production in not that much less than Marleau, plus, Marleau is 35, Marchand is 26. So, what you lose in offsense is minimal (if any if you consider age and more years in prime for Marchand) you pick up in sandpaper. Marchand is a bit of a dick though, so you have to consider that.

Anyone frequent Sharks message boards? Wondering what the discussion is like there....any additional insights, etc.

Thornton and Marleau are both younger than Datsyuk....why would they retire?

For clarity, the C was stripped from Marleau in favour of Blake and then it went to Thornton the following year after Blake retired. Interesting to note...5 years later, Marleau is still around so I'm not sure I'd jump to conclusions that Thornton must be pissed and he'll be gone soon. For some reason, I thought the removal of the C was news way back at the beginning of the off-season...perhaps it's just official now or perhaps my brain is malfunctioning. My point being, if this was in the works back then, I doubt they are doing it to force Joe to waive his NTC. I haven't heard any of the rumours of potential movement, but that could happen as well. The PR spin being put out there of course is that they want a fresh start and have the C and A's determined out of camp. Joe may very well end up with the C again, who knows....would be very strange though.

1. In answering for myself, Fedorov was the better player. In terms of Wings fans in general, I wouldn't be surprised if more said Datsyuk, for several reasons: he didn't have a nasty exit from the team, for a long time now (at forward), the team has been him and Zetterberg, there were more greats around in Fedorov's day + timing thing, Datsyuk's more current. 2. Fedorov should get in fairly easily, but his offensive stats tailed off (under 1ppg, under 500 goals), but he was better all around than anyone + playoff stats are good and he has the major awards to back him up. Also, being the highest scoring Russian in league history will help. Ovechkin will likely pass him, Datsyuk won't, but either way, Fedorov will have held that title for many years. 3. I'm honestly not sure about Datsyuk getting in. Then again, it's always hard to say. There are worse players in than Datsyuk, but there are also better players that haven't made it.

From what I've heard, his role with MLSE was never meant to be long term, so to many, this isn't a huge surprise. Also, for clarity, it will likely be over 2 years that he will be with MLSE since he will leave on June 30, 2015 (unless the Board finds a new replacement sooner). That said, my guess is that he is likely leaving earlier than planned for some reason (difficulty dealing with Bell and Rogers boards?). For those not as close to the specifics, this isn't a Toronto Maple Leafs thing, MLSE owns the Leafs, Raptors and Toronto FC (MLS soccer team) - amoung many other ventures. So, he was the President of MSLE and from what I can tell, most of his attention was actually on other ventures, not the Leafs specifically.

It's about what we'd give as a wedding gift when attending, so doesn't seem unreasonable at all.

Well, he had just turned 30, so really not that old (Datsyuk's best offensive seasons...by far....were at the age of 30 and 31). The real low scoring years didn't really come until the real late 90s and even then, scoring was higher than now (going by scoring leaders list anyway...not by any in-depth analysis). Anyway, that really doesn't matter as it is really his production compared to the rest of the league. You are right though, regardless of health, would be a bit much to expect him to continue to outpace everyone by a significant margin past the age of 35. That's the other consideration as well....in 1988, Wayne was 27 and Stevie was 23. So if you are thinking about a magically age that players "lose it", you'd be getting an extra 4 years out of Stevie. A fun stat as well...at that point, Gretzky amassed 1,669 career points, compared to Yzerman's 410 (of course, Gretzky had 4 more years in the league). If you look at stats only from when Yzerman was in the league, Yzerman averaged 95 points per 82 games (so he was a star for sure by that point)....but Wayne averaged 209 points over 82 games during that same period.

Looking at this potential in 1988, no question, you'd do the trade 10 out of 10 times. However, let's not forget the hit from behind Gretzky took from Suter in the 1991 Canada Cup. He was not the same player for the rest of his career after that. Yes, he still put up significant offensive numbers, but he no longer left the rest of the league in his dust.

People need to stop pointing to these "escalating contracts" and suggesting we are headed to another lockout. Every player in the league could sign to the league minimum ($550,000 or whatever it is now) and it would have a "zero" impact on how much cash ends up going to the players. Scenario A - every player in the league signs for $1M, scenario B - every player in the league signs for $10M. Under both scenarios A & B, total cash compensation to player will be the same...that's how the CBA works. Player contracts are simply used to determine how the player's share of revenues is divided amongst the player group.

The only problem I have with these types of deals is that the player will always earn more than they should. Sign for a few years that you grow into, then you sign your next deal that overpays early again for you to grow into it, etc. Perhaps they'll be a bargain by the end of the deal, but what about the years leading up to the end of the deal? I'm using hypotheticals now, but if a player signs for 5 years that turns out to be a bargain in the last year or 2, it doesn't change the fact that he was overpaid for the majority of the contract. In Tatar's case, I don't think that is a big issue though as even if he is overpaid for the entire thing, a 3-year, $2.75M contract is not going to cause any issues. It's the long-term, high dollar contracts that suck.

My point is that you can't really apply that logic to everyone (i.e. giving a bridge deal to everyone coming of ELC). Take Crosby as another extreme case. You wouldn't sign him to a 2 year prove it deal after his first 3 years. To me, bridge deals are more of a risk management concept. Sometimes, a player would prefer 2 years at $3M per rather than 6 years at $4M per...it really depends. Take Subban for example. Montreal went with a bridge deal for him and are going to get burned now. Not sure if he pushed for the bridge deal or not, but they would have been better off signing him long-term a couple years ago, now they will end up paying much more. I understand your point of view though....you haven't put in enough time to demonstrate consistency, therefore don't deserve a long-term lucrative contract....however, teams often give players contracts they don't currently deserve to avoid having to pay them even more in the future.

I agree with you there, like I said, I don't think either is a bad deal. I think the Booth deal is a better one, but I certainly wouldn't look at that one as a steal and think of the Cleary one as a terrible deal. Both are low risk deals and while the Booth one is better (imo), it certainly isn't by a huge amount.

Yeah, you have to include AHL games as well since he's over 20, so he's tripped that as well....now must clear.

Pretty sure he wouldn't have to go through waivers. I think he's tripped over the number of years threshold, but I believe you have to trip over both that and games played and he's got a long way to go before he gets to the games played threshold.

Zombo, I'm not sure I get how you think Cleary has so much more potential than Booth. Booth has been very good every year in the league, except last year, not just 2 good years. I think the only question with him is health. He's done the following: 2008 - 40pts 2009 - 60pts 2010 - 16pts in injury shortened 28 games (extrapolates to 47pts over 82 games) 2011 - 40pts 2012 - 30pts in 62 games (extrapolates to 40pts over 82 games) 2013 - write-off due to injury 2014 - 19pts in 66 games. So, yes, health is definitely a problem, but for a guy that can put up 40 - 60pts or more if healthy, a 1 year, $1.1M contract is basically zero risk. For Cleary, he's been on a steady decline, which shouldn't be expected to change as he's continue to get older (he's 35 vs. Booth who is 29). Cleary signed for $1.5M + potential $1M bonus + NTC. Honestly, I don't think either deals are bad since the $$ are really low (below league average), but if I had to pick the better deal, it's obvious to me.

Let's not compare Tatar's situation with the 3 guys in Edmonton who signed for $6M.

Having had a better rookie season than Datsyuk's rookie season is absolutely meaningless, not sure why we are discussing it. Several players in NHL history have had better or even much better rookie seasons than Datsyuk and have gone on to have careers nowhere near the career Datsyuk has had. The opposite is true as well...there have been players that have had worse rookie years than Datsyuk and have gone on to have better careers than him. It is really a silly comparison.

I don't think Danny has come close to "earning" the same money Quincey got. People can argue whether he's just as good or better all they want, but that's not how contracts get done in the NHL at this stage of his career. If Danny was a star player and clearly better, it would be a different story, but the truth is he is simply one of the guys who is developing and who has some promise and could very likely end up being the better player. Quincey put in many years to get to UFA status, which is what many players work towards and often only get the opportunity to experience once in their careers...that's when they cash in. If you are Danny, after putting in 70 odd games in NHL and looking to cash in the same way, then I'd be more than a bit annoyed.

I'll be honest, I have no idea what the negotiating was like a couple years ago, for either side. At the time, he was coming off his first 3 years in the league in which he put up totals of 3 goals, 13 goals and 18 goals (along with 26 points, 26 points and 55 points). Personally, I'd be worried about whether the 55 point total was a fluke or not, but he did look to have nice progression. Historically, most teams in this situation end up paying for future potential and hope to see further development. What I don't know is what the Avs were offering or what he was asking for at that time. If the Avs were low balling him, I'd agree with you, not something you want to do, but if they were offering something reasonable and he was asking for something unreasonable, I'd have a different tune. There is no way he was worth the contract he signed though and now the Avs look bad in trying to bring him back to something that's more realistic. As you say, if they low balled him a couple years ago, that's where the problem comes from.