toby91_ca

I really don't get the people shaking their heads at COL in terms of dealing with O'Reilly. Yes, he's coming off a career year, but that career year is nothing compared to the consistent years that the players earning the money he wants put up. At first, I didn't understand at all how he could even have been making $6.5M, but then I remembered the offer sheet...that's how he got there to begin with. So I decided to do a bit of checking. I had a look at all the other players in the league with cap hits at or greater than $6.5M (he's now looking for $6.75M by the way, but my guess is that is to aim a bit high and let it come down a bit). This is what I found: 26 forwards in the league at that level: 16 - have scored 40 or more goals or 100 or more points 4 - have scored 90 or more points 3 - have scored 80 or more points That leaves the following 4 that haven't scored 40 goals or more than 80pts: Toews - he has scored 34 goals and 76 pts, but I don't think we need to use stats to say that you can't compare to Toews Bergeron - he's scored more than 30 goals 2 times and scored more than 60 points 5 times, 70+ points 2 times, selke winner - no comparison Stastny - getting a bit more comparable, but he has scored 78 points in the NHL and another season with 70+ points as well + he signed his deal as a UFA...big difference Koivu - this is the one I can't quite understand (i.e. why he's paid so much) - his stats are still better than O'Reilly's career year and he's consistently scored 20+ goals and has scored more than 70 points, but he still looks overpaid. So, to me, O'Reilly and his 28 goal and 64 point career year don't seem to explain to me why he should be paid $6.5M.

Looking at what Quincey got is really not a good comparison due to his UFA status. UFA eligibility is a seriously negotiated term of the CBA as compensation coming out of UFA is significantly different than a RFA. That's just the way it is. It is something you need to "earn" - goes beyond just your ability on the ice. Danny has played a total of 76 games in the NHL, I'd be pretty hesitant in handing out a fat contract.

Doesn't make a lot of sense....if you lose in OT, you get 1 pt, but if you make it through OT and lose in the SO, you get no points?

To respond to the earlier question around the shootout, I personally hate it because it has nothing to do with the game itself. It's like they finished the game and now we are going to do this thingy over here to decide the winner (skills comp). In terms of comparison to soccer, showing stupidity in one sport is not a good argument as to why it should be implemented in another. It's not a great argument for me as I can't stand soccer. I played as a kid up until hockey commitments were too great to do much of anything else, but in terms of watching, no thanks. The big reason they have a shootout is because the number of goals scored is generally very, very low. The possibility of a game going for hours without a goal is fairly high. My opinion for it being the world's most popular sport is because it requires the least amount of money to get into, therefore, almost every country around the world can participate. Popularity in "richer" countries isn't as high.....this is my assumption anyway, not backed up by any research at all. Back on topic, I don't think the NHL will look to remove the shootout, I think they simply want to try and limit the number of games that go to a shootout. I'm okay with that as I'm reasonable in thinking that they simply can't let games go on for too long waiting for someone to score. Even though that would be rare, they wouldn't want any going too long. And they don't want to get too goofy to avoid it (i.e. going to 3 on 3). This is, of course, if you really can't live with ties...which I personally have no problem with. The only problem the NHL has with ties is not that they don't have a winner, they can live with ties fine, the problem is that teams start to play not to lose so they can at least get the single point and offense basically dries up.

Frankgrimes....sorry, my quote button isn't working for some reason. I can see arguing Toews as being top 5 (a lot of people have him pretty high). Looking at his offensive numbers, he's nowhere near that, but he brings much more to the table than offense and he provides good offense as well. I don't see Kane as bring too much beyond offense though and his offense is not at the very top of the league, so I have more of a problem stomaching him as highest paid player in the league. In terms of Toews being top 5....that's fine, won't argue there, but he's being paid more than anyone else....by a good margin too. Crosby making more in the next few years is irrelevant, it is cap hit that matters. Would you rather a contract that paid you $10 million every year for the next 5 years or a contract that paid you $12 million for the next 2 years and then $6 million for the remaining 3 years. Crosby makes more for a few years, but over the term, Toews will earn significantly more than Crosby.

Ummm.....Petr Klima?

From what I have seen from some people talking about how the owners are stupid and just driving salaries up again and again and tying the cap to revenues creates a problem, etc......It might be you guys that don't fully understand how it works. In terms of the cap and floor, I'd leave that to the owner's to figure out amongst themselves (I.e. some teams doing really well and some teams losing money....they need to figure out how to share revenues effectively). At the player cost level, it really doesn't matter what contracts are signed, the players will always get 50% (or whatever the number is) of league revenues. As an example, if everyone in the league signed a contract for $500,000 a year and league revenues came in at $3B...every player in the league would actually earn about $4.3M ($3B / 30 teams / 23 players per team). The same is true if every player in the league signed for $10 million....they'd all be giving money back to the league (that is what the escrow system is meant to take care of). A particular player's contracted salary is simply used as a measure against all other player contracts to determine how much of the pie (revenues allocated to players) that he gets. I think this notation of salaries being driven up is a bit on the false side. The bigger problem I have with these contracts though is that I would find it extremely difficult trying to argue why these 2 guys should be the highest paid players in the league.

Or an impression of the poll creators' knowledge of the history of the game.

The dry scrape is coming to the NHL and that should be a no brainer. I think the NHL still has a problem with extending OT though, so going to 7 minutes might not fly. Also, I don't think the NHL has any appetite for going to 3 on 3 in OT. I like that better than shootout, but I still don't like it. The problem is if the NHL likes how things go with these in the AHL, then all of a sudden, they will have an appetite for some of them.

If the cap doesn't move, they need to find over $10M in savings. They are currently over the cap by $2.2M I think, which is with them both earning $6.3M....so add another $8.4M after next season when the contracts take effect. Cdn dollar won't have to nose dive, I think modest fluctuations would actually impact league revenues enough to get people worried. Other than foreign currency though, revenues should continue to climb. You have to consider the chance of increases in the value of the Cdn dollar as well though. If I were a betting man, I'd assume the Cdn dollar stays somewhere between 95 cents and $1 against the US dollar. If I could make such predictions accurately though, there would be no need for me to have a job.

I don't recognize him. In my opinion, there is no way he is a player, or current player anyway. He looks a lot older than someone that would be participating in a prospect camp. Edit...then again, could be just the picture..lighting, angle, etc.

I'm a bit more concerned about Z than D, even though he is a couple years younger. I'm not overly confident of him being an effective player to the age of 40. It's very rare that you have a player play until he is 40 anyway, but Z has struggled with back issues and it's gotten worse as he's aged over the past couple years. We'll see how he recovers from his recent surgery though.

My biggest fear, honestly, is 1 more year older for Datsyuk and Zetterberg. I can't see that as being positive at all in terms of staying healthy and even if they do, they will, without a debt, be slowing down.

I got 42/42 (I tend to keep a good understanding of all time stats lists). But I went down to the wire due to needing to confirm some spellings. Some of the names give me trouble time and time again.

I think Niskanen is a really good player, but to get him, you will have to overpay. I say that because someone will overpay him, by a pretty good margin would be my guess.

Spezza is a good player, but not what this team needs, I think they already have the skills available that Spezza would bring (at least in the near term)

I wouldn't call anyone drafted at 100th or greater really a bust, if they make the NHL, it would be the exception.

My guess is that the Pens might prefer to get Montreal, but they'd be no pushover at all. Didn't the Pens lose to them a couple years ago in the playoffs? I agree with you that the Flyers would have given them a much better test, not because they are better than the Rangers, it is just that it isn't a great matchup for the Pens, while they have seemed to have little trouble with the Rangers. I think I saw a stat the other day that the Rangers have never beat the Pens in a playoff series (doesn't look like it will happen this year either).

I guess it is a good thing that I don't have to watch the games on NBC

What's with people suggesting the Pens ALWAYS get the scheduling breaks? I don't get it. No facts or examples are provided to back it up of course, it's just stated as if it is a fact. The facts are, teams that finish off their opponents quicker should get the breaks and do. If you play to 7 games, you should expect to have less rest than the other team. If someone is truly interested in digging into the reasons why the PIT v NYR schedule is as it is....you will actually determine that is has everything to with scheduling around MSG and nothing really to do with PIT....or, we can just pretend it is because of PIT getting the favoritism, that might work better. In terms of the example provided with DET and PIT in 2009, I don't get it. Again, PIT swept their opponent, DET took a bit longer, should get less rest (while DET actually only got 1 day less rest than PIT). There was 2 off days before the finals, why wait longer, that would make zero sense and would be very poor for the league (killing momentum, etc.). The biggest problem the NHL has as it gets later in the playoffs is that you start to have nights with no hockey....killer at this time of year. 2 days off with no hockey is an eternity.

I caught a lot of yesterday's game, he looked head a shoulders above everyone else on the ice. That didn't translate to any points though. From what I've read, the same couldn't be said for his earlier games thus far.

I think the Rangers are a better matchup for the Pens (from a Pens perspective) than Philly. When the Pens play Philly, there is the greater chance of a meltdown by the Pens. There is a bit of that with the Rangers as well, but not as much. They don't have Dubinsky or Callahan anymore, but they do have Carcillo.

Pointless question really, he'll be a head coach in the NHL next season....100% chance of that.

That really doesn't make much sense since his CHL career is over, the CHL does not have an asset to protect.

Fleury has actually been pretty good in the series, except for the last 30 seconds and OT of game 4. I've only seen the last 10 minutes of this game (4-0 when I started watching, 4-3 now). Can't say I can blame Fleury much on the goals, 2 were deflections and the 3rd was a screen + potential deflection. Edit..those last 30 seconds and OT of game 4 were about as ugly as it gets though.