toby91_ca

Some truth to that, but the other difference with these pre-season hockey games is that it isn't even that actual team that is playing, normally mostly prospects.

Whoops....double post in error

If they are going to do it, should be regular season games. I don't know about anyone else, but if the game doesn't count, I'm not really all that interested in going.

It is a complicated issue, but the no tax thing doesn't really work if you just go and play the hockey season in Russia and live in Canada the rest of the year. There are various scenarios you can be in, of which I'm not an expert, but one is if you are out of the country for more than 181 days. I know a lot of people that have decided to go work in Bermuda....at least for a while. Their earnings in Bermuda are tax free (I think....if not tax free, very little tax, like 2.5%). The key though is that they needed to cut all ties in Canada (i.e. can't hold assets like property, can't have bank accounts, etc.).

So, 58% more isn't "a lot?"

We also have to remember that Zetterberg is 2 years younger than Datysuk, so in terms of longevity, he may stick around only 1 more year than Datsyuk assuming the 2 more years holds true.

Name change coming to arena, after this season will no longer be known as the Air Canada Centre, will become Scotiabank Arena. Deal is worth approximately $800M over 20 years, or $40M per year. http://www.tsn.ca/talent/mlse-agrees-to-record-arena-rights-deal-with-scotiabank-1.842133

There is still a rink there, just now closer to the top, with grocery store at bottom. Rink is used by Ryerson University i think. I get the naming rights thing, that's where all sporting arenas will end up, if not already there. I think MSG is the only one left in the NHL and that's unlikely to ever change. It's not the name itself that bothers me, it's that names are likely to change over time as new rights holders come into play. You don't necessarily have those iconic buildings anymore, perhaps that's less of an issue, because you really don't have the buildings around that long anymore either. The days of the Maple leafs playing from the Gardens for 70 years will never happen again. From what I've heard, it's the largest naming rights deal in NA sports history....didn't fact check that though.

If there isn't a Crosby or McDavid in the draft, is picking #1 really that important though? I'd think getting a high pick is what you want, not necessarily number 1. Picking high will give you a better chance at getting a star, but I'm not sure there is a significant difference between 1-4 for example in most draft years.

I haven't bothered to check, but I don't see why there would be a limit...it wouldn't make sense. You can't just choose to put someone on LTIR though. Well, I guess it is a choice, but the player has to be unable to play due to injury first. If they are in that situation, then it's a choice because if you expect the player to be able to play at some point, you may not want to go that route as all it gets you is the ability to exceed the cap by their salary, if they come back later, you have to make room for them under the cap.

It's not too bad actually....he is able to list 10 teams he won't be traded to....so team is free to trade him to any of the remaining 20 teams with no issue...if one of the other 10, then he'd need to bless the deal.

Agreed, Holland has got the team in a tough spot regardless, but where they are vs. cap shouldn't impact what you sign a player for (shoudl be his value). So, even if there is no room to sign him for $2M, if that is the value, you sign him to that and then get to work figuring out your next move. The even scarier thing on my mind is......we have a team right now that is not very good, unlikely to make the playoffs again....how is it that such a team has no cap room? I know other teams are in similar spots, but when the team is bad, the hopes are at least that you aren't maxing out on payroll.

I think there is even a bigger issue with the LTIR route. I could be totally wrong here, but here's what I assume happens. When a player retires with term left on their contract, they no longer get paid, they've retired. As everyone is aware, such a situation comes with cap implications for the team (not cash requirements) which are dependent on the specific situation. Player contracts are insured (nature of which will differ, again depending on specific circumstances). So, if a player has 2 years left on their contract, but is unable to play due to injury, they'd be put on LTIR and still collect salary (but not from team, from insurance company). The same points made above are valid in terms of the league being super suspicious here, but there's no way he goes on LTIR and gets paid via insurance unless he's legit unable to play.

What if AA is asking for $5M? Not to defend Holland, but there is the other side to consider.

Yes, but you still want to sign him to a reasonable deal, not just give him what he wants. The KHL has to be a negotiation ploy, but what's the point...how much effect would it really have? What 23 year old Canadian kid is going to go play in the KHL, especially now?

Few thoughts on Zetterberg (in comparison to Datsyuk situation): 1) I'm not sure many felt he'd be finishing this contract when he signed it (was pretty borderline where NHL could have not accepted the deal if you ask me). Several others signed similar contracts (like Crosby and Ovechkin....but they were several years younger, so finishing the contracts were not really questions for them). 2) If he does leave before the end of his contract, would leave a bit of a bad taste in my mouth (if he's healthy), but not really that bad at all in contrast to Datsyuk's situation because of #1 above and because he'd leave not to go play somewhere else (assuming). 3) Having him go to LTIR in 2 years will be highly unlikely, would be met with significant scrutiny and likely wouldn't go through.

I agree, goalies are different, but I think goalies' shelf lives are shorter, not longer. There are examples of goalies having great years later in their 30s, but those are few and far between I think and they are also more one offs (i.e. you don't typically see a string of several good years). This isn't backed up by any statistical analysis though.

Huh? They absolutely obliterated teams so much they finished in 9th place overall? Edit....and the team they lost to in the playoffs was a higher seed....

Perhaps my direct use of "no one" went too far. I was merely using a discussion with a Russian guy (who is basically the guy in the media with a reputation as being the go to guy for knowledge on Russian hockey and Russian players)

This has no impact at all on the NHL. The KHL is not seen as much of an alternate to the NHL or competitor. Some may have thought that years ago as a potential, but it's just not going to happen. No one, not even Russians think it is a league that could compete for talent with the NHL

Was going to say the same thing....95/96 was the year for me....I was thinking they were going to steamroll through the entire playoffs. I think a big part is due as well to the fact that they were 40+ years from the last cup win at that point and it looked like it would come to an end. The year before against the Devils could have been a choice as well....but heading into the playoffs I didn't have the same feeling (perhaps because it was a shortened reg season...they always feel different). Shocking though because they only lost 2 games through the first 3 rounds and then got swept in the finals (this may have been the birth of the trap where teams starting seeing this as a way to win)

The issue is really internal with the players....if McDavid takes a large amount, there is less left to pay the rest of the players, no impact to owners.

Perhaps you can "factually" state that Ouellet provide more offense last season (12 pts vs. 7pts), he also did in in 66 games vs. Sproul's 27 games. I'm not really getting into the who's better argument, but I think I'd agree, right now, XO has been better. He hasn't been better offensively though and there are factual stats to back that up (last 5 seasons in all leagues, junior, AHL and NHL): Sproul - reg season - 321 gp, 50g, 121pts (0.16gpg, 0.38ppg), playoffs - 30gp, 6g, 19pts (0.20gpg, 0.63ppg) Ouellet - reg reason - 329 gp, 24g, 95pts (0.07gpg, 0.29ppg), playoffs - 49gp, 10g, 26pts (0.20gpg, 0.53ppg)

In my opinion, I don't think the signing really does much to move the team forward. I don't think it hurts any forward progression, but I don't think it helps either. He'll make the team better this year, but I don't think that should really be the focus, the team won't be good enough to compete for the Cup in the next few years, so making the team better right away won't really do much because you can't make the team that much better. Just my opinion and I could be totally wrong....you never know, sometimes teams ramp up very, very quickly and then fall really quickly because they can't keep the team together.

I don't get the semantics here...the guy is an offensive defenseman at this point....period. The better analogy is to look at highly skilled forwards (offensive guys) who are being seasoned in the AHL. Until a top 6 spot opens up for them, it doesn't necessarily make sense to call them up to fill in on the 3rd or 4th line as that would not be their role. You plug them in to the NHL before they are ready, they may produce very little offense....that doesn't mean they are not offensive players. Doesn't mean he'll always be considered an offensive defenseman, but if he's not, it would mean a shift in his game. 28 games at the NHL level being used to assess someone is absurd. However, for the sake of looking at stats, which are somewhat meaningless in this small sample size, he had the 3rd highest PPG stat amongst defensemen on the Wings last season (very, very, very close to a tie at #2).