Datsyuk Signs 7-year, $46.9M Contract Extension

[sibiriak 84]

A-What moving force. He himself said he sat in the background and just watch how the process worked. You know something we don't?

B-Pretty well regarded that his contract is well below what he should make.

C-Without Hasek we are nowhere near #1 in the league. MVP? Dominik.

a) To quote Mike Illitch at the press conference, "Steve Yzerman said that we must sign Pavel, and it was good enough for me."

b) Yes, the management loved him for agreeing for 2.65 a year, but what does that have to do with how good a player he is? And his contract expires in 2009, so Datsyuk's contract is not going to be even close to the 9-10 mil. that Zetterberg is going to sign for in two years.

c) If Hasek is the MVP, then Datsyuk is the first runner-up. Like I said, it's between Pavel and Dom.

[RyanBarnes! 293]

In 2009, if Zetterberg accepts a 6.7mil.a year contract, Holland will jumpfor joy. With the cap at $55 mil. then, Zetterberg and franchize players like him will be going for $ 9-10 mil. per year.

By similar contract I didn't mean the exact same contract, but rather one that pays him a lot of $$$ and for a very long period of time.

[rage 24]

Is there a link or download for the press conference? I listened to it live and recorded Pavel talking, but don't have the rest.

Sorry I gave up going through all the post, I only keep up until about page 7.

[sibiriak 84]

By similar contract I didn't mean the exact same contract, but rather one that pays him a lot of $$$ and for a very long period of time.

Then, at least the dollar amount of Datsyuk's contract won't be any kind of benchmark, and Zetterberg is younger than Datsyuk, so signing him for the long term makes even more sense. In what way, then, would Datsyuk's contract adversely affect signing Zetterberg?

[Chase 0]

It's astonoshing how alot of you letsgowings vets look at Pav last yr playoff performance and judge him. EVEN Stevie Y said Pav wasn't expected to play in the post season last yr. That showed his determination as a player that he's going to play even if he is 25% (still 110% better than most other players)

Exactley what I was saying. This year, Dastyuk will be a much different player in the postseason than what everyone has seen. He is 100% healthy and on fire right now.

[Aeothe Kaear 0]

c) If Hasek is the MVP, then Datsyuk is the first runner-up. Like I said, it's between Pavel and Dom.

Nick Lidstrom

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

Nick Lidstrom

Winnar.

[sibiriak 84]

Nick Lidstrom

Was rather mediocre this season, by his standards anyway.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

Was rather mediocre this season, by his standards anyway.

Fifth in defense points, T-1st in defense +/-, 3rd in league +/-, fourth overall in ice time in the league, arguably the leading candidate for the Norris.

Guy's a bum.

Fun fact: Datsyuk's seven year deal is the longest in franchise history.

[sibiriak 84]

Fifth in defense points, T-1st in defense +/-, 3rd in league +/-, fourth overall in ice time in the league, arguably the leading candidate for the Norris.

Guy's a bum.

Fun fact: Datsyuk's seven year deal is the longest in franchise history.

I take it back. After looking at this season stats, Lidstromis having an above average scoring year and one of his best +/- years. I am wrong about him. I was going on a knee jerk reaction to some few -3, -4 games that he had at the end of the season.

[RyanBarnes! 293]

Then, at least the dollar amount of Datsyuk's contract won't be any kind of benchmark, and Zetterberg is younger than Datsyuk, so signing him for the long term makes even more sense. In what way, then, would Datsyuk's contract adversely affect signing Zetterberg?

It will be a benchmark, because all Zetterberg's agent need to do is point in Datsyuk's direction. The numbers might need some adjustment up or down depending on the cap situation, but the main terms are now set in stone.

[sibiriak 84]

It will be a benchmark, because all Zetterberg's agent need to do is point in Datsyuk's direction. The numbers might need some adjustment up or down depending on the cap situation, but the main terms are now set in stone.

Again, Detroit's brass would be extatic, if Zetterberg's agent uses the $6.7M 7 year contract as a benchmark.

In two years, Zetterberg will be seeking MUCH higher salary, then the $6.7M, because the cap will rise significantly, and the top players will then be making $10M per year, not $7-$8M.

And in the case of a proven bona-fide star like Zetterberg, the longer the contract, the happier the management.

So, what is wrong with using Datsyuk's contract for benchmark again?

[RyanBarnes! 293]

Again, Detroit's brass would be extatic, if Zetterberg's agent uses the $6.7M 7 year contract as a benchmark.

In two years, Zetterberg will be seeking MUCH higher salary, then the $6.7M, because the cap will rise significantly, and the top players will then be making $10M per year, not $7-$8M.

And in the case of a proven bona-fide star like Zetterberg, the longer the contract, the happier the management.

So, what is wrong with using Datsyuk's contract for benchmark again?

You act like there's no downside to signing long term deals at all. 9 out of 10 long term deals come back to haunt you in the end. There's no way of knowing how a player will develop in the next three or four years, let alone seven years. Such a contract makes them virtually impossible to trade and in Datsyuk's case it could very well mean that Detroit is stuck with a playoff no-show for the foreseeable future. In my opinion it's stupid to sign these kind of deals, even if the player is Zetterberg.

[sibiriak 84]

You act like there's no downside to signing long term deals at all. 9 out of 10 long term deals come back to haunt you in the end.

Do you have evidence to support that? If you can list at least 20 5+ year contracts, and show that 18 of them were flops, I'd be interested to see that.

Thereare two possible pitfalls to a long term contract.

1) Injury, which is covered by insurance, and cap exemption for LTI.

2) Drop-off in performance. That is a double-edge sword. If the player steps up his game, the contract is a steal, if he falls off, it is a bust. But you can't get the steal, without risking a bust. In your opinion, the risk is not worth the possible gain, in the more informed opinions of Mssrs Babcock, Holland, Yzerman, and Illitch, the potential gain far outweighs the risk.

There's no way of knowing how a player will develop in the next three or four years, let alone seven years.

If we are talking about 18-23 year old player, I might agree (And yet, a standard rookie contract is for 3 years. I guess the GMs don't share your concern. They are willing to sign totally unproven kids for 3 years, and probably longer, if they could.) But in the case of a 28-year old, most of the further development will take place within 3 years, no more. So it is much easier to judge.

Such a contract makes them virtually impossible to trade and in Datsyuk's case it could very well mean that Detroit is stuck with a playoff no-show for the foreseeable future. In my opinion it's stupid to sign these kind of deals, even if the player is Zetterberg.

If they turned out bad, you are correct. See above. But I don't think either Datsyuk or Holland consider a trade to be high on the list of future concerns. The obvious intent of this contract is to KEEP Datsyuk as one of the Wings cornerstones for the foreseeable future. In the cap world, acquiring UFAs is difficult, so a team must try to lock up its stars long term, and if possible, at a level of salary that becomes more and more cap friendly as the years go by.

[Curban915 0]

Most of the ppl that post hear make me LMFAO... Thank god none of you all are GMS... Pavel is one of the key players on the wings... Yet no one is happy he wanted to stay a wing.. You all are some of the hardest ppl to please in the world...

Edited April 9, 2007 by Curban915

[RyanBarnes! 293]

Do you have evidence to support that? If you can list at least 20 5+ year contracts, and show that 18 of them were flops, I'd be interested to see that.

Thereare two possible pitfalls to a long term contract.

1) Injury, which is covered by insurance, and cap exemption for LTI.

2) Drop-off in performance. That is a double-edge sword. If the player steps up his game, the contract is a steal, if he falls off, it is a bust. But you can't get the steal, without risking a bust. In your opinion, the risk is not worth the possible gain, in the more informed opinions of Mssrs Babcock, Holland, Yzerman, and Illitch, the potential gain far outweighs the risk.

If we are talking about 18-23 year old player, I might agree (And yet, a standard rookie contract is for 3 years. I guess the GMs don't share your concern. They are willing to sign totally unproven kids for 3 years, and probably longer, if they could.) But in the case of a 28-year old, most of the further development will take place within 3 years, no more. So it is much easier to judge.

If they turned out bad, you are correct. See above. But I don't think either Datsyuk or Holland consider a trade to be high on the list of future concerns. The obvious intent of this contract is to KEEP Datsyuk as one of the Wings cornerstones for the foreseeable future. In the cap world, acquiring UFAs is difficult, so a team must try to lock up its stars long term, and if possible, at a level of salary that becomes more and more cap friendly as the years go by.

I don't need to list 20 names to prove my point. Yashin is a pretty good example why teams shouldn't offer contracts longer than 4 years. Fedorov is another example. Regarding the potential gains in locking Datsyuk up, what good is a cornerstone that will not produce in the playoffs? Some still think there's a chance he'll come through this year, but if not, then all he is good for is selling regular season tickets. Spare me the most exciting player talk. That money could be used on someone capable of something more.

[Chase 0]

Most of the ppl that post hear make me LMFAO... Thank god none of you all are GMS... Pavel is one of the key players on the wings... Yet no one is happy he wanted to stay a wing.. You all are some of the hardest ppl to please in the world...

lol yeah thats how people are here on this board. Never pleased.

[RyanBarnes! 293]

Most of the ppl that post hear make me LMFAO... Thank god none of you all are GMS... Pavel is one of the key players on the wings... Yet no one is happy he wanted to stay a wing.. You all are some of the hardest ppl to please in the world...

And some will jump of joy for any news, probably because the don't know what else to do...

[sibiriak 84]

I don't need to list 20 names to prove my point. Yashin is a pretty good example why teams shouldn't offer contracts longer than 4 years. Fedorov is another example.

Yashin was a disappointment. Fedorov was not. He played fine (and won a Cup) for the whole length of his 5 year contract. That's 50% success rate out of your two handpicked examples. Not 10% like you think. Sakic's long contract seemed to work out well. In fact,beside Yashin, I have trouble thinking of anyone who signed a 5+ year contract and then tanked.

Be honest now. Even if the Wings signed Datsyuk for 1 year and $5M, you'd still be unhappy.Your one and only problem with Datsyuk's contract is your lack of faith in Datsyuk's playoff capabilities. If he happens to play well in the next 2 months, you'll have no desire to question his contract anymore.

[RyanBarnes! 293]

Yashin was a disappointment. Fedorov was not. He played fine (and won a Cup) for the whole length of his 5 year contract. That's 50% success rate out of your two handpicked examples. Not 10% like you think. Sakic's long contract seemed to work out well. In fact,beside Yashin, I have trouble thinking of anyone who signed a 5+ year contract and then tanked.

Be honest now. Even if the Wings signed Datsyuk for 1 year and $5M, you'd still be unhappy.Your one and only problem with Datsyuk's contract is your lack of faith in Datsyuk's playoff capabilities. If he happens to play well in the next 2 months, you'll have no desire to question his contract anymore.

You really think Fedorov was a success?! I don't think Anaheim shares that opinion, hence the trade to Columbus. No Cups for him in Anaheim. That's 100 %.

[eva unit zero 271]

You really think Fedorov was a success?! I don't think Anaheim shares that opinion, hence the trade to Columbus. No Cups for him in Anaheim. That's 100 %.

Fedorov was traded because Burke did not like him. Had nothing to do with his performance--he was the team's best player.

Remember in Vancouver Burke said, regarding a potential Fedorov trade 'we already have one too many Fedorovs in our system.' referring to Sergei's brother.

Also of note: In his two seasons in Anaheim, Burke has traded away every Russian on the team except Bryzgalov--who stands a pretty good chance of being traded this summer. Maybe Fedorov's trade had more to do with the fact he's Russian than anything else?

And he's been pretty damn good in Columbus.

[sibiriak 84]

You really think Fedorov was a success?! I don't think Anaheim shares that opinion, hence the trade to Columbus. No Cups for him in Anaheim. That's 100 %.

I meant the RFA contract that Fedorov signed with Detroit. Not his latest one, which is a 4 year contract, and I was only thinking of 5yr+ contracts. Given what he has had to play with and his nagging injuries, I can't really say that Fedorov tanked in ANA or CLS.

Edited April 10, 2007 by sibiriak

[J-Swift 0]

Most of the ppl that post hear make me LMFAO... Thank god none of you all are GMS... Pavel is one of the key players on the wings... Yet no one is happy he wanted to stay a wing.. You all are some of the hardest ppl to please in the world...

And just who are you directing this post to? Just because I don't agree with the length or amount of money in this contract, doesn't mean I'm doubting Datsyuk's value to the team this season, or that I don't want him to stick around.

And he's been pretty damn good in Columbus.

His 42 points this season leave something to be desired, no?

But lemme guess, Eva, you're going to tell me Sergei's unparalleled defensive play justifies the kind of money he's making in Columbus.

[eva unit zero 271]

And just who are you directing this post to? Just because I don't agree with the length or amount of money in this contract, doesn't mean I'm doubting Datsyuk's value to the team this season, or that I don't want him to stick around.

His 42 points this season leave something to be desired, no?

But lemme guess, Eva, you're going to tell me Sergei's unparalleled defensive play justifies the kind of money he's making in Columbus.

In the first half, he was outscoring Datsyuk. In the second half, he has played a significant number of games entirely on defense, and his offense has dropped considerably. Had he remainned at center and scored at his first-half pace, he would have around 60-65 points.

Fedorov was playing darn near $6m hockey at center. He has been playing $6m hockey on defense. Hard to argue he's been a bust given that.

That said, Fedorov's former linemate is a notable bust as far as 5+ year deals go. Or did everyone just forget that Rick Nash's cap hit is almost as much as Fedorov's for far less on-ice contribution?

[J-Swift 0]

In the first half, he was outscoring Datsyuk. In the second half, he has played a significant number of games entirely on defense, and his offense has dropped considerably. Had he remainned at center and scored at his first-half pace, he would have around 60-65 points.

Fedorov was playing darn near $6m hockey at center. He has been playing $6m hockey on defense. Hard to argue he's been a bust given that.

That said, Fedorov's former linemate is a notable bust as far as 5+ year deals go. Or did everyone just forget that Rick Nash's cap hit is almost as much as Fedorov's for far less on-ice contribution?

I fail to see how Nash's inability to live up to his contract justifies what Sergei Fedorov is making for his contributions. But yes, it does go some way in proving that long term deals, like the one given to Datsyuk, aren't always a good idea.

And 6 million seems like an awful lot for a defenceman who doesn't bring much offence. Not to mention the fact that Columbus, being 28th in terms of offence this season, probably needed (and certainly expected) a few more goals from him this season.