Any News on Zetterberg?

[thedisappearer 291]

I feel like vomiting from reading so much anti-Zetterberg stuff on a Wings message board. Disgusting. A few weeks ago he was a god among men and now he's just your average almost-star?

Wow...

Saying Hossa and/or Dats is better than Zetterberg is NOT anti-Z. It's an opinion. No one WANTS him to leave. We all love Zetterberg and want to find a way to keep him. It's just that for the first time in Red Wings history, we have to balance the cap wit h the players we have. It will break my heart if Z leaves, but if it means we keep Hossa, well, I believe the team will better. Doesn't mean I hate Zetterberg at all.

[PROBIE4PREZ 58]

8.25 mill a season would make me vomit .. where the hell is the Home Town Discount there?!? 7.5 is a hometown discount or even 7.25 .. but 8.25 really??!?

[chrisdetroit 189]

Lets talk about franchise players:

Datsyuk, Thornton, Crosby, Malkin, Iginla, Lidstrom, Luongo, Kovalchuk, Nash, Gaborik all make less than ten million dollars per season. All of the players listest besides, Crosby, Lidstrom and Malkin make $6.7 mill or less per season.

Everyone, including Zetterberg, Holland and yourself knows that the salary cap is going to decline next season and probably the one after that too.

If Z pushes for anything more than Hossa's $7.4 million hes delusional. The only thing that may justify a $8.5 million dollar pay check is:

- Finishing a full season

- Leading the team in scoring

- Winning a Selke

- Winning a Hart, Pearson, Conn Smyth(Again)

If none of those things happens, give me just one example of why Zetterberg is more valuable than Datsyuk or even Hossa.

You are ignoring one very important part of this. Inflation. All of the guys mentioned signed before this year. Compare that to the one franchise player that signed this year - Sundin who went for 10mil.

Any of those guys that you mention sign this year and it's gonna be for 9-10 mil

[chrisdetroit 189]

8.25 mill a season would make me vomit .. where the hell is the Home Town Discount there?!? 7.5 is a hometown discount or even 7.25 .. but 8.25 really??!?

Sundin just signed for $10 mil a year. Last year Edmonton offered Hossa $10mil a year. What makes you think that Z wouldn't command 9-10 mil a year on the open market?

$8.25 is in fact a discount.

Like it or not, that's the market.

Simple economics

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

8.25 mill a season would make me vomit .. where the hell is the Home Town Discount there?!? 7.5 is a hometown discount or even 7.25 .. but 8.25 really??!?

*Seeking* a deal in the $8.25 million range is not the same as obtaining it. First and foremost, plenty of teams would be Z $8.25 per to play for them, so lets get that out of the way first. Second, $8.25 is where Z's agent is *starting* at, which is massively different than where they'll most likely finish. The truth is no matter where Z's agent comes in initially at Kenny will then push to get him to take a home-town discount (whether he comes in at $8.25 or $7.25 for that matter). Z has been around the organization long enough to know the sacrifice those have to make to be a Red Wing and I'd be very willing to bet his deal won't have a Cap hit over $7.75 million. My guess is it'll be right around Lidstrom-type dollars.

[Frozen-Man 144]

My opinion has nothing to do with being biased, its the fact that Zetterberg has been outperformed by Datsyuk completely during his career. Datsyuk took less than hes worth to play here and hes done everything asked of him by the organization.

Zetterberg expecting 8.5 mill, even for one season is irrational and doesn't shine well on his "Next captain" moniker.

Last season, Hossa outperformed Zetterberg and this season hes doing the same.

Last season, Datsyuk outperformed Zetterberg during the regular season and 75% of the playoffs and hes making $6.7 million, along with tons of other "Franchise players" that signed after him.

Not one person has given me a solid reason as to why Z should make anything more than $7 mill per season and "Inflation" is meaningless. Its two seasons and we're going through the worst recession in twenty years, the cap is going to decrease for at least two seasons.

Using Zetterberg's current contract to justify overpaying him now is ridiculous. He took a lengthy, terrible deal, played better than expectations and was underpaid. It could have very easily went the other way and Z could have turned into a third liner making $3 mill per season.

Its the same thing the organization did with Kronwall and is doing with Filippula. Does that mean if Flip turned into an 80 point two-way center, the team should throw $2 million per season extra at him to make up for overpaying for his services?

And Mats Sundin is worth $10 million pro-rated because hes signing with a terrible team. Hes getting paid extra to deal with the fact that hes not going to win this season. If he signed with a contender he would have dropped his price significantly.

Its a simple argument, Z vs Hossa and its an obvious choice. Everyone has been waiting years for Datsyuk to get a legitment sniper on his line, all of the pipe dreams of Kovalchuk are finally here. Hossa is good for 40, 50 and maybe 60 goals with Dats. If that means sacrificing a second line center than so be it, we have another center to take his place in Flip, who happens to be earning a second liners salary.

I agree the inflation argument doesn't make much sense based upon the current circumstances. Everything is down drastically from two years ago. Furthermore, if Z should get $8M (which many have stated he should get because of inflation) that is 16.25% more than Dats got less than 2 years ago, in April of 2007. Based upon the inflation argument that makes the inflation rate roughly 8.125% per year (assuming Z doesn't sign until April of 2009 and he should be signed well before that). The inflation rate in 2007 was 2.85% and will probably be about 3.61% for 2008. That is a two year inflation total of 6.46% but people are trying to argue that inflation is the reason for a 16.25% increase in salary, which is off by about 10% (and is still not entirely accurate because inflation matters differently to different industries and when revenue is going down like it is this year there is often negative inflation within a specific market). However, if Z gets his price based off Dats contract plus inflation he gets $7.13M. I think Z will get a little more than that and maybe even closer to $8M but it won't be because of inflation it will either be because 1) management thinks he is more valuable; or 2) he won't take as big a home discount.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

I agree the inflation argument doesn't make much sense based upon the current circumstances. Everything is down drastically from two years ago. Furthermore, if Z should get $8M (which many have stated he should get because of inflation) that is 16.25% more than Dats got less than 2 years ago, in April of 2007. Based upon the inflation argument that makes the inflation rate roughly 8.125% per year (assuming Z doesn't sign until April of 2009 and he should be signed well before that). The inflation rate in 2007 was 2.85% and will probably be about 3.61% for 2008. That is a two year inflation total of 6.46% but people are trying to argue that inflation is the reason for a 16.25% increase in salary, which is off by about 10% (and is still not entirely accurate because inflation matters differently to different industries and when revenue is going down like it is this year there is often negative inflation within a specific market). However, if Z gets his price based off Dats contract plus inflation he gets $7.13M. I think Z will get a little more than that and maybe even closer to $8M but it won't be because of inflation it will either be because 1) management thinks he is more valuable; or 2) he won't take as big a home discount.

I don't think you understand what people mean by inflation in this case. They aren't referring to US economic inflation, rather they're referring to the NHL's Salary Cap inflation which has skyrocketed in excess of 15% the past two seasons.

[Frozen-Man 144]

I don't think you understand what people mean by inflation in this case. They aren't referring to US economic inflation, rather they're referring to the NHL's Salary Cap inflation, which has skyrocketed in excess of 15% the past two seasons.

I fully understand what is meant by inflation, but the problem is the NHL's Salary Cap inflation has been spurred to it's 15% based upon a flourishing economy and economic outlook based upon late 2002 through early 2007. If you look at real inflation and economic growth charts that was a high time where the price of everything wheat, corn, gas, and even NHL contracts and salary cap. That is no longer the reality. The price of wheat, corn, gas, and even the NHL salary cap and thus contracts will be going down. Contracts were never going to be able to sustain a 7-8% increase every year. That would have them doubling roughly every 12 years. My point what that the inflation in the Salary Cap is loosely tied to real inflation. Gas prices sky rocketed earlier in the year but are down to a 5 year low because there is less demand and not near as much money in the economy to purchase it. NHL salary caps and contracts are not immune to this phenomenon, there is going to be less money to throw around next year and probably for several years after that. NHL salaries cannot maintain an inflation clip that is 2-3 times the rate of everything else in the country. The system will collapse on itself (which incidentally was a major part of the problem that led to the last lockout). The owners and management know that the NHL salary cap/contract levels are directly related to US inflation and economic outlook.

[chrisdetroit 189]

I don't think you understand what people mean by inflation in this case. They aren't referring to US economic inflation, rather they're referring to the NHL's Salary Cap inflation which has skyrocketed in excess of 15% the past two seasons.

Thank you. Finally somebody else understands.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

I fully understand what is meant by inflation, but the problem is the NHL's Salary Cap inflation has been spurred to it's 15% based upon a flourishing economy and economic outlook based upon late 2002 through early 2007. If you look at real inflation and economic growth charts that was a high time where the price of everything wheat, corn, gas, and even NHL contracts and salary cap. That is no longer the reality. The price of wheat, corn, gas, and even the NHL salary cap and thus contracts will be going down. Contracts were never going to be able to sustain a 7-8% increase every year. That would have them doubling roughly every 12 years. My point what that the inflation in the Salary Cap is loosely tied to real inflation. Gas prices sky rocketed earlier in the year but are down to a 5 year low because there is less demand and not near as much money in the economy to purchase it. NHL salary caps and contracts are not immune to this phenomenon, there is going to be less money to throw around next year and probably for several years after that. NHL salaries cannot maintain an inflation clip that is 2-3 times the rate of everything else in the country. The system will collapse on itself (which incidentally was a major part of the problem that led to the last lockout). The owners and management know that the NHL salary cap/contract levels are directly related to US inflation and economic outlook.

"Loosely" is the key word. The fact of the matter is even if the Cap were to relatively stay close to where its at right now things are very different then when Datsyuk signed his contract. He signed a $6.7 contract when he showed no signs of playoff production and with the cap at a meager $44 million. If we assume that both Dats and Z are comparable, the NHL's salary cap inflation since that time shows that Z's contract if adjusted to current NHL economics would be in the $8 million range, *just the same as if Dats' contract was up this year.*

No one (especially myself) ever said the NHL could sustain an inflation rate 2-3 times what the rate of everything else is in this country. That wasn't the point.

[chrisdetroit 189]

I fully understand what is meant by inflation, but the problem is the NHL's Salary Cap inflation has been spurred to it's 15% based upon a flourishing economy and economic outlook based upon late 2002 through early 2007. If you look at real inflation and economic growth charts that was a high time where the price of everything wheat, corn, gas, and even NHL contracts and salary cap. That is no longer the reality. The price of wheat, corn, gas, and even the NHL salary cap and thus contracts will be going down. Contracts were never going to be able to sustain a 7-8% increase every year. That would have them doubling roughly every 12 years. My point what that the inflation in the Salary Cap is loosely tied to real inflation. Gas prices sky rocketed earlier in the year but are down to a 5 year low because there is less demand and not near as much money in the economy to purchase it. NHL salary caps and contracts are not immune to this phenomenon, there is going to be less money to throw around next year and probably for several years after that. NHL salaries cannot maintain an inflation clip that is 2-3 times the rate of everything else in the country. The system will collapse on itself (which incidentally was a major part of the problem that led to the last lockout). The owners and management know that the NHL salary cap/contract levels are directly related to US inflation and economic outlook.

You are making an assumption that is just that - an assumption.

The general concenses among the people that report on the NHL is that the salary cap will probably stay the same or increase slightly next year and may go down the following year.

That said, the cap went up dramatically from last year to this year so you can't ignore this when comparing the salary of a franchise player whose contract was negotiated 2 years ago with a similar player whose contract will be negotaited this year. It just isn't a valid comparison.

There is more cap money to spend this year and next year than there was when Ovechkin and Crosby and Datsyuk signed so it stands to reason that Z will get a fatter contract than Pavs.

[Frozen-Man 144]

Thank you. Finally somebody else understands.

I do understand, I just disagree with the premise that the two are not related. Inflation of the whole U.S.A. (and world) will have a direct and dramatic impact on the NHL and its cap/salaries. However, even if you take the 15% NHL contract inflations over the last two years (and totally disregard the present economic realities) a 15% increase over Dats is $7.705M not the $8-9.5M that is being bandied about. I still say that Z will have to take less when he signs his contract this winter than he would have last winter because the economic climate outside the NHL is so bad and has an impact on the NHL's bottom line. But yes you (and now finally NFM) are the only one who understands.

[chrisdetroit 189]

I do understand, I just disagree with the premise that the two are not related. Inflation of the whole U.S.A. (and world) will have a direct and dramatic impact on the NHL and its cap/salaries. However, even if you take the 15% NHL contract inflations over the last two years (and totally disregard the present economic realities) a 15% increase over Dats is $7.705M not the $8-9.5M that is being bandied about. I still say that Z will have to take less when he signs his contract this winter than he would have last winter because the economic climate outside the NHL is so bad and has an impact on the NHL's bottom line. But yes you (and now finally NFM) are the only one who understands.

Even though the league’s board of governors meetings wrapped up Tuesday with confirmation that next year’s salary cap won’t move very much, it’s the potential for a major drop in 2010-‘11 that has some teams prepared to alter their course.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

I do understand, I just disagree with the premise that the two are not related. Inflation of the whole U.S.A. (and world) will have a direct and dramatic impact on the NHL and its cap/salaries. However, even if you take the 15% NHL contract inflations over the last two years (and totally disregard the present economic realities) a 15% increase over Dats is $7.705M not the $8-9.5M that is being bandied about. I still say that Z will have to take less when he signs his contract this winter than he would have last winter because the economic climate outside the NHL is so bad and has an impact on the NHL's bottom line. But yes you (and now finally NFM) are the only one who understands.

Another reason I didn't even bring up was how much the NHL low-balled the Cap the first year out of the lockout. They were so concerned with the league hitting its total to keep the cap atleast where it was that there wasn't much chance of it dropping at that point. However, the fact of the matter is that at the time Datsyuk signed his deal things were much different than they are now and how they'll most likely be over the next few years. The financial future does play a major factor in dealing with a long-term deal to Z, but that's not what I was talking about.

No one ever said that the US financial economy has nothing to do the NHL Salary Cap, I think you're just looking to argue because nothing I've said claims the Cap will continue to rise.

Lastly and most importantly, the salary Cap when Dats signed was $44 million. This past season was $56.7 million which is a 22.399% increase. How do you figure only 15%...are you basing that on what others have said, because the numbers state otherwise. 22.39859% above Pavel's contract is $8.2007 million.

NOTE: This is not claiming anything about the future of the Salary Cap...*just the correct numbers with all economic factors aside*.

[Frozen-Man 144]

You are making an assumption that is just that - an assumption.

Of course I'm making an assumption - as are you. That is ridiculous, everyone here is making assumptions concerning contracts, cap space, cap limit, player intentions, length of contracts. But WOW yeah I'm (and here's a secret so is everyone else in this thread) making and assumption - what a novel idea in a discussion thread.

The general concenses among the people that report on the NHL is that the salary cap will probably stay the same or increase slightly next year and may go down the following year.

Oh wait is that general consensus an assumption. Actually, now, I'm embarrassed, that's not even an assumption its just made up. For example here are a few article from just in the last few weeks:

NHLPA Executive Director Paul Kelly doesn’t expect the salary cap to increase next season. Kelly even suggested that the salary cap may be decreased by $1-2 million dollars in 2010-2011. The salary cap’s slowing growth is a direct result of the sagging economy, which is already beginning to hurt the NHL. Kelly also said that he doesn’t anticipate players earning back their escrow money this season, which means that players will end up with between 85 and 92 percent of their actual contract worth.

I'm betting the 2009-10 cap is no higher than $54 million and could be as low as $52 million. Remember, this season's $56.7 million cap was based on a projected five-percent increase in league revenues.

The economic news that came out of the recent NHL board of governors meeting was bleak, and for the first time since the salary cap set the league's financial landscape in 2005, the upper limit could drop next season.

And finally an article with the caption "Future free agents like the Red Wings’ Henrik Zetterberg might suffer if the salary cap tumbles."

The cap will either stay stagnant or go down a few million next summer. The only reason it's not more is because most teams already sold their season tickets before the world's economy took a turn for the worse . . . With that in mind, the timing couldn't be worse for Gaborik, the Sedin twins, Alex Kovalev, Henrik Zetterberg, Johan Franzen and other elite players who could become free agents this summer.

That said, the cap went up dramatically from last year to this year so you can't ignore this when comparing the salary of a franchise player whose contract was negotiated 2 years ago with a similar player whose contract will be negotaited this year. It just isn't a valid comparison.

That is true the went up dramatically in the last couple of years. It is also true that everyone expects the cap to go down dramatically over the next few years and so your comparison is not valid. Holland is too good to not consider what everyone knows, that this year's revenues will be bad and so the cap will likely go down a bit but the real problem is the 2010 cap because season tickets and suites have not been sold yet. I have agreed that contracts and the cap went up but they are going to go down and most economists are predicting several bad years of even or negative growth in the economy and a dramatic impact on many more frivolous items such as hockey tickets. Holland is going to consider what he thinks the cap hit and impact will be for years to come (you know those after the contract is signed) much more heavily than those before the contract was signed. Z will get more than Dats but I just don't think it will be the $8M+ range anymore, if he had signed 9-12 months ago yeah probably so, the economy looked great, revenues were up, the cap had been continuing to rise, and people expected more of the same. That is no longer the case.

There is more cap money to spend this year and next year than there was when Ovechkin and Crosby and Datsyuk signed so it stands to reason that Z will get a fatter contract than Pavs.

Yeah a bit but look at the projections. The cap for the 2007-2008 season (right before Pav signed) was $50.3M, while it is up since then many projections have it going down to somewhere between $52-54M next year and then in 2010 (when it could get really bad) probably at or significantly below $50M. Holland is a smart man and knows these projections. That means that next year the cap could be 1-2% higher than when Dats signed and after the first year of Z's contract will likely be actually lower than it was when Pav signed, and projections for the economy (especially with the year lag in ticket sales) could drive it lower the next couple of years. That is a valid comparison and while I still think Z will get more than Pav and your juvenile comments about assumptions and valid comparisons aside, the reality is that at least for the first several years of Z's contract there will not be a significant difference in the salary cap between the two signings.

[Frozen-Man 144]

However, the fact of the matter is that at the time Datsyuk signed his deal things were much different than they are now and how they'll most likely be over the next few years. The financial future does play a major factor in dealing with a long-term deal to Z, but that's not what I was talking about.

But I was talking about the financial future in my comment which is the one that you originally responded to.

No one ever said that the US financial economy has nothing to do the NHL Salary Cap, I think you're just looking to argue because nothing I've said claims the Cap will continue to rise.

I'm not looking to argue, this all started because I made a comment and you disagreed with it. I had no argument with you at all.

Lastly and most importantly, the salary Cap when Dats signed was $44 million. This past season was $56.7 million which is a 22.399% increase. How do you figure only 15%...are you basing that on what others have said, because the numbers state otherwise. 22.39859% above Pavel's contract is $8.2007 million.

I took the 15% from you. . . one page back you said " rather they're referring to the NHL's Salary Cap inflation which has skyrocketed in excess of 15% the past two seasons."

Additionally, although the cap was officially at $44M for the 2006-2007 season, when Dats signed in April of 2007 the contract was for the 2007-2008 season which had a cap of $50.3M which is only an 11.287% cap increase which is $7.456M. I think Z will get closer to that number than $8.2M.

NOTE: This is not claiming anything about the future of the Salary Cap...*just the correct numbers with all economic factors aside*.

But that is what I was talking about. I wrote a post commenting on the fact that inflation nationwide was stagnated and would possibly go in to negative growth, if you don't agree that is fine but its ok for me to bring it up and mention that I think it will play a big part in the future contracts.

[Frozen-Man 144]

He signed a $6.7 contract when he showed no signs of playoff production and with the cap at a meager $44 million. If we assume that both Dats and Z are comparable, the NHL's salary cap inflation since that time shows that Z's contract if adjusted to current NHL economics would be in the $8 million range, *just the same as if Dats' contract was up this year.*

Again, his contract didn't start till the 2007-2008 season when the cap was $50.3M. The first year of Dat's contract the cap was $50.3M and the first year of Z's contract the cap will probably be somewhere between $52-$56M (though probably closer to the $56 mark) somewhere between $2M and $6M more. That is not as big a difference as people make it sound. I just don't think with the state of the economy, the league, and the uncertainty surrounding it all (and I'm not alone in this thought) Z will get a lot more than Pav because of the cap increase in the past.

However, the part that I put in bold is a good reason for Z to make more than Dats. Z has a proven record that makes him less of a gamble (except for his health with his back). He is much less of an unknown, much less of a risk, a much hotter commodity, and much more accomplished than Dats was when he signed his contract.

edit: clarify

Edited December 22, 2008 by Frozen-Man

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

But I was talking about the financial future in my comment which is the one that you originally responded to.

I'm not looking to argue, this all started because I made a comment and you disagreed with it. I had no argument with you at all.

That wasn't why I responded to you. I did so because I didn't agree with something you said. Should it matter that you weren't originally debating with me.

I took the 15% from you. . . one page back you said " rather they're referring to the NHL's Salary Cap inflation which has skyrocketed in excess of 15% the past two seasons."

*I* didn't say 15%, I said *in excess of 15%* because people were throwing out numbers in the 16% area. I knew that wasn't right but didn't feel this was going to get dragged out this far. Once it did, I listed the correct increase.

Additionally, although the cap was officially at $44M for the 2006-2007 season, when Dats signed in April of 2007 the contract was for the 2007-2008 season which had a cap of $50.3M which is only an 11.287% cap increase which is $7.456M. I think Z will get closer to that number than $8.2M.

The cap number (while rumored to be going up the following year) wasn't official at the time of Pavel's signing. *When* he signed the contract the Cap was $44 million. I'm not interested in what it was the year his contract kicked, and I made no mention of that. The fact is the numbers I mentioned in my previous post reflected *current* percentages based on time of signing, not at the time of kicking in.

But that is what I was talking about. I wrote a post commenting on the fact that inflation nationwide was stagnated and would possibly go in to negative growth, if you don't agree that is fine but its ok for me to bring it up and mention that I think it will play a big part in the future contracts.

When did I not agree with you in terms of the cap going down? Reread my posts and all you'll find is comments based on when players were signed and percentages at the time of signings. You're reading into what I'm saying too far, hence why I bolded the last comment of my previous post.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

Again, his contract didn't start till the 2007-2008 season when the cap was $50.3M. The first year of Dat's contract the cap was $50.3M and the first year of Z's contract the cap will probably be somewhere between $52-$56M (though probably closer to the $56 mark) somewhere between $2M and $6M more. That is not as big a difference as people make it sound. I just don't think with the state of the economy, the league, and the uncertainty surrounding it all (and I'm not alone in this thought) Z will get a lot more than Pav because of the cap increase in the past.

However, the part that I put in bold is a good reason for Z to make more than Dats. Z has a proven record that makes him less of a gamble (except for his health with his back). He is much less of an unknown, much less of a risk, a much hotter commodity, and much more accomplished than Dats was when he signed his contract.

edit: clarify

See above

[chrisdetroit 189]

That wasn't why I responded to you. I did so because I didn't agree with something you said. Should it matter that you weren't originally debating with me.

*I* didn't say 15%, I said *in excess of 15%* because people were throwing out numbers in the 16% area. I knew that wasn't right but didn't feel this was going to get dragged out this far. Once it did, I listed correct increase.

The cap number (while rumored to be going up the following year) wasn't official at the time of Pavel's signing. *When* he signed the contract the Cap was $44 million. I'm not interested in what it was the year his contract kicked, and I made no mention of that. The fact is the numbers I mentioned in my previous post reflected *current* percentages based on time of signing, not at the time of kicking in.

When did I not agree you in terms of the cap going down? Reread my posts and all you'll find is comments based on when players were signed and percentages at the time of signings. You're reading into what I'm saying too far, hence why I bolded the last comment of my previous post.

After all this arguing, my bet is that Z signs for 8-8.25mil and that he could get 9-10 on the free market. My bet is that Vancouver or Edmonton would offer him that in a heartbeat. Neither have cap issues (remeber that Sundin only has a 1 year contract) and both have floated those kind of numbers to lesser players in the last 2 years.

It doesn't matter to them as much if the cap drops 1-2 mil next year since they are not near the cap anyway.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

After all this arguing, my bet is that Z signs for 8-8.25mil and that he could get 9-10 on the free market. My bet is that Vancouver or Edmonton would offer him that in a heartbeat. Neither have cap issues (remeber that Sundin only has a 1 year contract) and both have floated those kind of numbers to lesser players in the last 2 years.

It doesn't matter to them as much if the cap drops 1-2 mil next year since they are not near the cap anyway.

If the report that Z's agent came in with an initial requested amount of $8.25 per is correct, I doubt he'll get it. Kenny will get that knocked down by about $750,000 for the home-town discount and longevity of the contract.

[Frozen-Man 144]

See above

You just want to argue and I have no desire, I'm done.

Edited December 22, 2008 by Frozen-Man

[Doggy 130]

This thread has become such a mess.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

You just want to argue and I have no desire, I'm done.

Absolutely not. I just want to get my point across (no different than you) and I can't help it if you either don't agree with it or don't like it. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing....you can get off your high horse.

This thread has become such a mess.

Agreed...and I'm mad at myself for letting it go as far as it has.

[Frozen-Man 144]

Absolutely not. I just want to get my point across (no different than you) and I can't help it if you either don't agree with it or don't like it. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing....you can get off your high horse.

It's not that I care if we disagree, its that I made a comment that you disagreed with and then you told me I was wrong (which is fine) but then changed your disagreement from what I was talking about to what you wanted to talk about then told me that I was not talking about the subject you changed it to. Add to that the fact that you were dismissive of any point or reason that I brought up - not that my point was a wrong - but just that you didn't want to discuss it that aspect or facet of discussion, which is fine if you brought up the subject but you were responding to my statement and then changing what it was about.

I am not on a high horse and have always enjoyed your posts before and topics that we have discussed. That is why I am out because it was just turning into (at least this is how it seemed to me) an argument for arguments sake and neither one of us wanted to or was willing to look at the others point. As I said I always enjoyed your posts in the past and it just seems like we were getting no where and no real discussion was taking place (and ultimately the entire conversation was based upon our opinions i.e. which cap date mattered for the Dats signing, thus we were talking past one another). Therefore, rather than get further into the discussion it seems best to drop it.

Again, no hard feelings and nothing disparaging meant throughout this thread and look forward to your future posts on a different topic.