• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
stevkrause

Kovalchuk will not be a Red Wing

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Pretty much sums up your entire argument.

I think one of my first points (which you stated was "irrelevant") was *if* Holland seriously wanted to hand out another long-term contract, he'd done so by re-signing Hossa for 12-years @ $5.3 million cap hit.

The entire debate is pretty much irrelevant since we both agree Holland isn't going to sign Kovalchuk, nor is willing to offer anyone a long-term deal.

The debate is whether Kovalchuk would make the team worse or not. You say he would, I say he wouldn't. What Holland is willing to do is not relevant to that debate.

The debate itself is irrevelant. Everything ever said on this board is in that context. Nothing said here effects anything in the real world. In fact, even if Holland WAS planning to go after Kovy, this debate would still be irrelevant. Kenny isn't looking for our advice.

This is just a discussion board. We discuss things we find entertaining. I post my opinions about certain topics. I read others opinions. Not because it matters at all, but because I enjoy doing so. I enjoy debating my reasoning.

But I'm not going to let an argument that basically amounts to "something you never said isn't true because something that doesn't pertain to it is" go unanswered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this guy has credit and Merit.. But I question his remarks a little here....

From Spector....

UFAs Jason Williams, Andreas Lilja, Brett Lebda, and Kirk Maltby aren't expected to be re-signed. Maltby reportedly could retire and perhaps accept a off-ice position with the Wings.Notable restricted free agents include Justin Abdelkader, Darren Helm, Patrick Eaves, Drew Miller and Derek Meech. It's believed most, if not all, will be re-signed.

blog on Fox Sports...HERE

Why would he suggest that Meech would be re-signed and Lilja not? Am I the only one who sees this as weird?

I know he says "It's Believed" But I would like to think that Lilja is more a value to the team then Meech. Just my opinion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this guy has credit and Merit.. But I question his remarks a little here....

From Spector....

blog on Fox Sports...HERE

Why would he suggest that Meech would be re-signed and Lilja not? Am I the only one who sees this as weird?

I know he says "It's Believed" But I would like to think that Lilja is more a value to the team then Meech. Just my opinion...

I read that, and seen similar such reports elsewhere. I don't understand anymore than you do. I guess they're expecting Kindl to be the 6th. Honestly worries me a little. Hopefully there's no truth to it, unless they're planning on letting Lilly go to make room for an upgrade, and letting Meech and Kindl fight over the 7th spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Heaten   
Guest Heaten

The debate is whether Kovalchuk would make the team worse or not. You say he would, I say he wouldn't. What Holland is willing to do is not relevant to that debate.

Lol. So we can make this thread go another 9 pages with "If Kovakchuk signed for $6 million", "If Kovalchuk singed for $7 milllion", "If Hudler scores 28 goals with 1st line ice time", "If Hudler doesn't stick on the first line", "Filppula won't score 20 goals with a season on the 2nd line centered by Zetterberg", and etc.

There is no debate other than Holland would have to sign 4th liners (for league minimum) to plug the 3rd line, to afford Kovalchuk at $6 or $7 million. However, without Kovalchuk (and his salary), Babcock can assemble a potent 3rd line to roll.

Should we argue 1 good line Vs. 3 solid lines? Because with Kovalchuk, that's what we'll have... a bunch of 4th liners plugging in the 3rd line due to blowing the wad on one player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. So we can make this thread go another 9 pages with "If Kovakchuk signed for $6 million", "If Kovalchuk singed for $7 milllion", "If Hudler scores 28 goals with 1st line ice time", "If Hudler doesn't stick on the first line", "Filppula won't score 20 goals with a season on the 2nd line centered by Zetterberg", and etc.

There is no debate other than Holland would have to sign 4th liners (for league minimum) to plug the 3rd line, to afford Kovalchuk at $6 or $7 million. However, without Kovalchuk (and his salary), Babcock can assemble a potent 3rd line to roll.

Should we argue 1 good line Vs. 3 solid lines? Because with Kovalchuk, that's what we'll have... a bunch of 4th liners plugging in the 3rd line due to blowing the wad on one player.

Damn, we were getting pretty close I thought. You brought up the goals gained and lost and I had hope we could get a real debate going. Now you're backsliding.

Let me offer you some advice on proper debate.

I start with a premise. I provide evidence. I draw a conclusion.

You, to argue against that, either: Invalidate my premise or dispute my conclusion. You back it up with your evidence.

My assertion is that Kovalchuk would make us a better team. I suggest the roster of players I listed would sign for the amounts I listed. That is my premise. I support that by citing various examples of similar players on similar deals. I then propose that said roster is superior to your suggested roster. I support that with my logic (since we're talking about the future, we obviously don't have any actual evidence). I conclude that my suggestion is superior.

Now if you want to argue with that you either:

A:) Invalidate my premise. You say that the players wouldn't sign for those amounts, but don't offer anything to support your argument. Your opinion that they wouldn't is not evidence. Why do you not think the players would sign for those values?

OR

B:) Dispute my conclusion: Argue that my roster is inferior to yours. You came close to trying this, but you've never actually argued against what I suggested. Therefore the logic you use is invalid. You've offered nothing to contradict my conlcusion.

You are trying to do both of the above at the same time. You're saying (without anything to support your assertion) that my roster isn't viable, proposing your own alternate roster, and using that as the foundation of your argument. You're essentially arguing against yourself.

So let's try simplifying once again. Multi-tiered arguments appear to be too difficult for you. Forget the whole better or worse part of the debate for a minute. Maybe we can get to that part later.

Let's look at just the salaries. I posted my suggested roster with my suggested salaries. I offered my supporting evidence for why I believe the salaries are reasonable, why I believe the players would sign for those amounts.

Now you counter that. Pick one or more deal in my list that you don't think the player would accept. Then tell me why. You say Kovalchuk wouldn't take $6 million. Ok, so... why not?

Edited by Buppy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buppy--Just wanted to tell you I'm on board with ya. People are SO obsessed with 'depth'. However the lines you've put out offers substantial depth with a ridiculous top 6. As opposed to this spreading the wealth crap which is a 2nd round exit waiting to happen. And that's a great way to treat your frontline center too--Give him Jiri Hudler as a winger. What an absolute joke. Jiri is a liability defensively. He is small. He underperforms when on the top 6. He has been invisible in the playoffs before. But HEY...He was the missing ingredient this year right!??? I can't just see him turning that Sharks series around with his lazy passes.

Damn, we were getting pretty close I thought. You brought up the goals gained and lost and I had hope we could get a real debate going. Now you're backsliding.

Let me offer you some advice on proper debate.

I start with a premise. I provide evidence. I draw a conclusion.

You, to argue against that, either: Invalidate my premise or dispute my conclusion. You back it up with your evidence.

My assertion is that Kovalchuk would make us a better team. I suggest the roster of players I listed would sign for the amounts I listed. That is my premise. I support that by citing various examples of similar players on similar deals. I then propose that said roster is superior to your suggested roster. I support that with my logic (since we're talking about the future, we obviously don't have any actual evidence). I conclude that my suggestion is superior.

Now if you want to argue with that you either:

A:) Invalidate my premise. You say that the players wouldn't sign for those amounts, but don't offer anything to support your argument. Your opinion that they wouldn't is not evidence. Why do you not think the players would sign for those values?

OR

B:) Dispute my conclusion: Argue that my roster is inferior to yours. You came close to trying this, but you've never actually argued against what I suggested. Therefore the logic you use is invalid. You've offered nothing to contradict my conlcusion.

You are trying to do both of the above at the same time. You're saying (without anything to support your assertion) that my roster isn't viable, proposing your own alternate roster, and using that as the foundation of your argument. You're essentially arguing against yourself.

So let's try simplifying once again. Multi-tiered arguments appear to be too difficult for you. Forget the whole better or worse part of the debate for a minute. Maybe we can get to that part later.

Let's look at just the salaries. I posted my suggested roster with my suggested salaries. I offered my supporting evidence for why I believe the salaries are reasonable, why I believe the players would sign for those amounts.

Now you counter that. Pick one or more deal in my list that you don't think the player would accept. Then tell me why. You say Kovalchuk wouldn't take $6 million. Ok, so... why not?

Edited by Bring Kovy to the D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever wants a loser in Kovalchuk is an idiot, thats all i really have to say.

He's never won anything, and never will. He's quit on his coach and team in Atlanta a couple times.

He's got two gold medals (soon to be 3) in the WHC. It's not Cups or Olympic golds but you can't say he's never won anything.

I really don't want him on the Wings though and luckily he won't ever come here, this thread is pretty funny though with the people who think there's a chance :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Heaten   
Guest Heaten

Now you counter that. Pick one or more deal in my list that you don't think the player would accept. Then tell me why. You say Kovalchuk wouldn't take $6 million. Ok, so... why not?

Because Kovalchuk can go to the KHL and earn twice that per year /tax free. And if my memory serves me correctly, he hinted that he would go to the KHL if he doesn't get the offer he wants in the NHL. I would also argue that Holmstrom may get $2 million per year, he currently earns $2.25 and is coming off a 25 goals season... but that argument doesn't matter since Kovalchuk isn't going to sign for $6 million like you seem to think.

The bottom line to the argument is Kovalchuk isn't going to sign for $6 million, you seem to think he would under your circumstances. Oh, and Malkin's cap hit is $8.7 million, Ryan Smyth in LA makes over $6.2 million (and he's getting old). Kopitar, for example, earns $6.8 million and he never even scored 35 goals. However, Kopitar will earn $7.5 million when he's Kovalchuk's age. That said, he signed a long-term contract when he was 19 years old.

Reports that Kovalchuk turned down 12 years @ $101 million

Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2010/02/ilya-kovalchuk-kings-.html

I can argue any point you can muster up, but when I do, you chant "irrelevant" while you continue to post your hypothetical theory.

My guess is is that you want to argue "*IF* Kovalchuk was to accept $6 million, and lets pretend he does, even though we both know he won't.... but lets pretend..." like this is NHL '09 on xBox. Is that what you want to argue, the **what if** Kovalchuk accepted $6 million, and the DRWs roster Holland can afford using your cap numbers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Kovalchuk can go to the KHL and earn twice that per year /tax free. And if my memory serves me correctly, he hinted that he would go to the KHL if he doesn't get the offer he wants in the NHL. I would also argue that Holmstrom may get $2 million per year, he currently earns $2.25 and is coming off a 25 goals season... but that argument doesn't matter since Kovalchuk isn't going to sign for $6 million like you seem to think.

The bottom line to the argument is Kovalchuk isn't going to sign for $6 million, you seem to think he would under your circumstances. Oh, and Malkin's cap hit is $8.7 million, Ryan Smyth in LA makes over $6.2 million (and he's getting old). Kopitar, for example, earns $6.8 million and he never even scored 35 goals. However, Kopitar will earn $7.5 million when he's Kovalchuk's age. That said, he signed a long-term contract when he was 19 years old.

Reports that Kovalchuk turned down 12 years @ $101 million

Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2010/02/ilya-kovalchuk-kings-.html

I can argue any point you can muster up, but when I do, you chant "irrelevant" while you continue to post your hypothetical theory.

My guess is is that you want to argue "*IF* Kovalchuk was to accept $6 million, and lets pretend he does, even though we both know he won't.... but lets pretend..." like this is NHL '09 on xBox. Is that what you want to argue, the **what if** Kovalchuk accepted $6 million, and the DRWs roster Holland can afford using your cap numbers?

There you go, buddy. That wasn't so hard now, was it? Pick something I actually said, and argue against that, easy as pie. No need to make up stuff on your own and pretend that I said it.

Now to counter your points.

Regarding the KHL, I've never heard anything from Kovy. I've seen rumors that the KHL might throw $15-20m at him, and there is precedent for other players making the jump. I have to concede that it's a possibility.

And yeah, he turned down a truckload from Atlanta. 7 years/$70m was another rumor. But what that suggests to me is only that he didn't want to stay in Atlanta. Some reports suggest that he didn't like the fan base, but I've never really heard anything directly from him, so the credibility is suspect. I would think he's not much different than most players, in that having a chance to win and a supportive fan base is important. Turning down that much money from Atlanta suggests to me that money is not neccessarily the most important factor in his decision.

One comment from him is, "It's a business...but I'm open to anything". Suggests that money is a factor, but not the only one.

As for other players making more, there's a few. Most, like Malkin, Crosby, etc, are players that are both younger and better, nor are they for the same term as I would offer. But then, there are some like Smyth and Lecavelier getting way too much, Nash in Columbus. I have to concede again that some teams out there would be willing and able to offer him more. Some, like LA, Phoenix, or Colorado, would even offer a fair chance at winning a Cup.

So, I can only conclude now that it's certainly possible that he could get a better offer than I'd be willing to give. I still believe he would take a 10/$60 deal to come here, but I can understand your reasoning for not thinking he would. We'll have to agree to disagree. He would be great at the right price, you just don't think we could get that price.

See how simple that was? One rational argument from you accomplished what days of nonsense couldn't. Enjoy the rest of your day. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this