Datsyuk Contract Negotiations

[sibiriak 84]

Savard is one year older, and has twice hit 90 points in his career. He has a higher GPG, APG, and PPG.

Datsyuk's career high in points is 87.

Datsyuk's only advantage is plus-minus, which is skewed due to his career with Detroit while Savard has spent most of his time starring on bottom feeders.

If Dats is using Savard's deal as a benchmark, he can't seriously expect more than 5.5m given how he compares to Savard.

Savard played 580 career NHL regular season games and 0 play-off games.

He amassed 155 G 338 A for 493 Pts.

That is 0.27 GPG 0.58 APG and 0.85 PtsPG.

He is third from the bottom in +/- among Boston's forwards with -18.

Datsyuk played 359 career NHL regular season games and 42 play-off games. He has a Stanley Cup ring.

He amassed 107 G 217 A for 324 Pts.

That is 0.30 GPG 0.60 APG and 0.90 PtsPG.

Datsyuk leads the Wings' forwards and is currently 3rd among all NHL forwards with +33 in the +/- category.

He only got 3 less +s than Lidstrom, fer crissakes.

I'd say, Datsyuk's stats are better than Savards. Not to mention the intangibles.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

I'd say, Datsyuk's stats are better than Savards. Not to mention the intangibles.

I'd say you're better served leaving it at stats; his so called 'intangibles' (which I took to mean playoff games/Cup ring, feel free to correct) are none too impressive.

[Kp-Wings 3]

I'd say you're better served leaving it at stats; his so called 'intangibles' (which I took to mean playoff games/Cup ring, feel free to correct) are none too impressive.

The Cup ring especially. I highly doubt that has any means into signing a contract, unless that person scored the winning goal or something.

Or if we go by everyones favorite Eklund rumor by saying the Blue Jackets want Kirk Maltby because he has won a few Cups before and has "playoff expierence".

[sibiriak 84]

I'd say you're better served leaving it at stats; his so called 'intangibles' (which I took to mean playoff games/Cup ring, feel free to correct) are none too impressive.

His playoff stats, as poor as they are, are still better than Savard's non-existing playoff stats.

His chemistry with Zetterberg and Holmstrom, and now emerging compatibility with Filppula and Bertuzzi.

His highlight reel plays, that put butts in the seats and sell merchandize.

All of those earn money for the franchise directly and indirectly. And the contract is about how much money will a player make for his team vs how much he would get in salary.

Datsyuk seems to be a better revenue earner of the two, indubitably.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

His playoff stats, as poor as they are, are still better than Savard's non-existing playoff stats.

His chemistry with Zetterberg and Holmstrom, and now emerging compatibility with Filppula and Bertuzzi.

His highlight reel plays, that put butts in the seats and sell merchandize.

-How do you figure? Much better to have no history at all than a history of failure.

-We'll see how it carries over to the big time. Hopefully he continues to do well, but we've seen this act before.

-I don't think the Wings are having trouble making money.

[sibiriak 84]

The Cup ring especially. I highly doubt that has any means into signing a contract, unless that person scored the winning goal or something.

Or if we go by everyones favorite Eklund rumor by saying the Blue Jackets want Kirk Maltby because he has won a few Cups before and has "playoff expierence".

Are you kidding? A player who won the Cup will always command more in salary then a comparable player with no ring. Ask any GM if he prefers winning experience. Especially on a young or expansion team.

[sibiriak 84]

-How do you figure? Much better to have no history at all than a history of failure.

-We'll see how it carries over to the big time. Hopefully he continues to do well, but we've seen this act before.

-I don't think the Wings are having trouble making money.

Failure is relative. Without getting to the old debate, your name on the Cup stays, and the stats are forgotten. Datsyuk wasn't the only one straggling in the last 3 playoffs, and his "failure" is mostly in not reaching the very high expectations of Detroit fans. On any other team, it wouldn't be as much of an issue.

I understand your scepticism, although I don't share it. In any case, it looks like any further contract talks will take place after the playoffs are over, and Datsyuk's playoff performance will factor in, surely. For the purposes of comparison between Dats and Savard, as of this moment, it wouldn't be fair (to say the least) to include the postulated future playoff failure into the comparison based on the present day data. How do you know, maybe Savard will suck in the playoffs, whenever the Bruins make them.

I'd guess that Yzerman and Shanahan departure has reduced the merchandize sales, or shifted them to the new heroes. If you can attend the games at the Joe regularly (since I don't live close to Detroit), you can tell me, whose jerseys are showing up in the stands now in relatively greater quantity? Would I be correct in assuming more #40, #13, and #44 showing up than before?

It's not a matter of how much money the team makes overall. It's a matter of how much more money they'd make because they sign this or that player. It is difficult to measure, yet the GM must have at least some estimate, before offering a contract.

EDIT-spelling.

Edited April 1, 2007 by sibiriak

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

Failure is relative. Without getting to the old debate, your name on the Cup stays, and the stats are forgotten. Datsyuk wasn't the only one straggling in the last 3 playoffs, and his "failure" is mostly in not reaching the very high expectations of Detroit fans. On any other team, it wouldn't be as much of an issue.

Pavel was not a key figure in our Cup run. He has been since then, and has not delivered. This will not be forgotten when we're comparing the two players. It's not just Detroit fans who think this; I've seen and read on major media outlets like TSN and ESPN questioning Pavel's ability. Everybody knows that this is the issue.

For the purposes of comparison between Dats and Savard, as of this moment, it wouldn't be fair (to say the least) to include the postulated future playoff failure into the comparison based on the present day data.

I wasn't predicted failure, I was merely saying that any chemistry he shares right now isn't meaningful if it doesn't carry over.

How do you know, maybe Savard will suck in the playoffs, whenever the Bruins make them.

Appeal to ignorance...

It's not a matter of how much money the team makes overall. It's a matter of how much more money they'd make because they sign this or that player. It is difficult to measure, yet the GM must have at least some estimate, before offering a contract.

A.) If it's immeasurable, then there's no much use in bringing it up and B.) I'd say they'd make much more money if the team made a deep playoff run than with highlight reel plays during the season, so in this aspect Pavel has not been helpful.

Just so we're clear... I'm not arguing Savard > Datsyuk, I don't really know how those two compare with one another. But arguing that Pavel's playoff anything is a plus for him isn't accurate, in my estimation.

[redwashington2000 42]

-How do you figure? Much better to have no history at all than a history of failure.

-We'll see how it carries over to the big time. Hopefully he continues to do well, but we've seen this act before.

-I don't think the Wings are having trouble making money.

Stop talking BS, be more positive.

[sibiriak 84]

Just so we're clear... I'm not arguing Savard > Datsyuk, I don't really know how those two compare with one another. But arguing that Pavel's playoff anything is a plus for him isn't accurate, in my estimation.

I don't think that. I'm just saying that when we compare a player with "bad" playoff history, with a player without any playoff history, I'd rather have the one with the playoff experience.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

Stop talking BS, be more positive.

Make an argument or eat s***.

I don't think that. I'm just saying that when we compare a player with "bad" playoff history, with a player without any playoff history, I'd rather have the one with the playoff experience.

Normally I'd let us agree to disagree here, but this is no good. Bad playoff history indicates a trend of future failure; no playoff history means it could go either way. Strictly from that standpoint, how can you take the former over the latter?

[Kp-Wings 3]

Are you kidding? A player who won the Cup will always command more in salary then a comparable player with no ring. Ask any GM if he prefers winning experience. Especially on a young or expansion team.

How does that really make a difference? If we were to go by that theory, Ladislav Kohn or Jiri Slegr will demand top dollar too because they were both part of the Wings 2002 Cup team. Same goes for any other player who has one a Cup, even if they didn't play much of a part of it at all.

[sibiriak 84]

Normally I'd let us agree to disagree here, but this is no good. Bad playoff history indicates a trend of future failure; no playoff history means it could go either way. Strictly from that standpoint, how can you take the former over the latter?

Because unless a player is a total moron or is totally lacking in work ethic, he will learn from his playoff exrerience, good or bad. The player who knows what mistakes he's made in the past is better for it. A player who has never been in that situation will have to learn from his own mistakes.

The same applies in other areas of life. Companies prefer to hire former executives of failed companies over the inexperienced candidates. They figure that the second time around the same mistakes won't be repeated.

So when two players of the similar level of talent (or with similar stats) are considered, the one with the playoff experience, good or bad, will get the nod.

How does that really make a difference? If we were to go by that theory, Ladislav Kohn or Jiri Slegr will demand top dollar too because they were both part of the Wings 2002 Cup team. Same goes for any other player who has one a Cup, even if they didn't play much of a part of it at all.

Slegr or Kohn probably made more money than the players with similr stats/talent who didn't have the ring. I dont have time to check now, but I think that is a resonable assumption.

Edited April 1, 2007 by sibiriak

[dicksmack 33]

If Datsyuk continues the way he's been playing, he'll do fine in the playoffs. He's got Bertuzzi, so ppg sounds reasonable. So, if present trends continue, Pavel=6m dollar man.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

Because unless a player is a total moron or is totally lacking in work ethic, he will learn from his playoff exrerience, good or bad. The player who knows what mistakes he's made in the past is better for it. A player who has never been in that situation will have to learn from his own mistakes.

What mistakes, in particular, is he supposed to be learning from?

The same applies in other areas of life. Companies prefer to hire former executives of failed companies over the inexperienced candidates. They figure that the second time around the same mistakes won't be repeated.

We're not talking about filling out a spread sheet. There are big huge men beating people up, there's only so much you can "learn" from that.

I don't think he's gonna have a bad playoffs, but it won't be because he did before. He didn't need three years of shutdown hockey to figure out he needed to shoot more. He's maturing as a player, and that's great, but it doesn't have anything to do with the futility of years past.

[poxer 0]

It would be a crime not to sign him. Sign him for 22m/4yrs. Incentives for the playoffs, maybe throw in an option year. Wings need to keep him and Zetter locked up. Those two are the building point for the new era of the Wings.

[discohadestwo 0]

Maturing as a player = experience

[Rivalred 630]

Today when the game was being announced by Brett Hull on NBC, he stated that Pavel will more than likely not stay in Detroit and will head to Washington for 2 reasons:

1. Ovechkin and Pavel are BEST FRIENDS 4 EVER

2. Pavel is not happy with a certain person behind the bench, Brett paused and it he more or less said was the coach.

Interesting insight on Pavel via Brett.

[Bluedevils_13 0]

Are they really friends or is that people's speculation?

[Viperar 16]

we cant afford to lose pavs, end of story

[Guest paveldatsukthenextsavard]

losing pavs would be a big blow to the wings.

[sibiriak 84]

What mistakes, in particular, is he supposed to be learning from?

We're not talking about filling out a spread sheet. There are big huge men beating people up, there's only so much you can "learn" from that.

I don't think he's gonna have a bad playoffs, but it won't be because he did before. He didn't need three years of shutdown hockey to figure out he needed to shoot more. He's maturing as a player, and that's great, but it doesn't have anything to do with the futility of years past.

I couldn't tell you, I don't know hockey well enough. But you yourself said that Datsyuk's game changed this year. I would add to that IMO his game was already changing in the same direction last year, and during his play in Russia in the lock-out year. Don't forget that this is only the fourth year in the NHL for Pavel. He got here in 2002, and was lucky to be on a great team and go all the way. Next year he (as many if not most rookies do) struggled in the post-season. He did poorly in the playoffs, and discovered that what worked in 2002 didn't work anymore. In 2004 he got 6 pts in 12 playoff games, which is not very good, but not pathetic either, so he must have adjusted somewhat. Then there was the lockout, so Datsyuk had to adjust back to the Russian game. Last year he was hurt in the playoffs, but I think his game in the regular season has been more responsible defensively then before and more mature (the stats bear this out BTW). And then this season we see a Datsyuk who's become an excellent defensive player,without sacrificing his offense, and who learned to create chances with any set of linemates, not just Zetterberg. Am I mistaken to see a progression in Datsyuk's game?

Edit for content and clarity.

Edited April 2, 2007 by sibiriak

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

<snip> Am I mistaken to see a progression in Datsyuk's game?

No, you're absolutely correct. Here's the point I've been driving home: what do playoff struggles have to do with it? People have been telling this guy to shoot more for years. I'm sure coaches have tried to impress upon him the importance of two-way play since he entered the league. Those things take time, and now that he's maturing he's realizing them.

A half a dozen games each spring don't make you a better player; they can expose your weaknesses. That's why I don't view his playoff "experience" as a positive. All it says is "teams know how to get rid of me." He's been getting better every year in the league (something that exists independent of his playoff successes or failures) and that's why he's got a shot to do something great this postseason.

[sibiriak 84]

No, you're absolutely correct. Here's the point I've been driving home: what do playoff struggles have to do with it? People have been telling this guy to shoot more for years. I'm sure coaches have tried to impress upon him the importance of two-way play since he entered the league. Those things take time, and now that he's maturing he's realizing them.

A half a dozen games each spring don't make you a better player; they can expose your weaknesses. That's why I don't view his playoff "experience" as a positive. All it says is "teams know how to get rid of me." He's been getting better every year in the league (something that exists independent of his playoff successes or failures) and that's why he's got a shot to do something great this postseason.

Well, if, as many ppl here suggest, playoffs are totally different from the regular season, then experiencing that difference first hand should help one realize his shortcomings, no? Things which made Datsyuk successful in the regular season, supposedly, do not translate well to the playoffs, so finding this out first hand, and trying to adjust to the difference when playing in the actual playoffs, should be a lot more useful, then just hearing the coach talk in abstract.

If we exclude his first (and most successful) playoff year as an abberation, then Datsyuk's PPG in the playoffs go from 0.0 in 2003 to 0.5 in 2005 and 0.6 in 2006. Small sample, I know, but it's all we've got. Extrapolating from this, Datsyuk should get 0.7-0.9 PPG this year. That's not bad at all. And if we believe that there has been a qualitative change in his game this season, then he may do even better.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

Well, if, as many ppl here suggest, playoffs are totally different from the regular season, then experiencing that difference first hand should help one realize his shortcomings, no? Things which made Datsyuk successful in the regular season, supposedly, do not translate well to the playoffs, so finding this out first hand, and trying to adjust to the difference when playing in the actual playoffs, should be a lot more useful, then just hearing the coach talk in abstract.

Please, it's not a "totally different" game. Tighter checking, more physical, higher intensity and pressure, yeah, but hockey's hockey. Do you really think that his getting better from year to year has been a result of his playoff struggles? It simply takes time to mature into a complete hockey player; as he does that, we hope that playoff success follows.

If we exclude his first (and most successful) playoff year as an abberation, then Datsyuk's PPG in the playoffs go from 0.0 in 2003 to 0.5 in 2005 and 0.6 in 2006. Small sample, I know, but it's all we've got. Extrapolating from this, Datsyuk should get 0.7-0.9 PPG this year. That's not bad at all. And if we believe that there has been a qualitative change in his game this season, then he may do even better.

All that shows (besides very little, a big three years) is that he has gotten better every year he's been in the league. That's pretty normal. He could just as easily have never made it to the playoffs and grown at the same rate.