• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

The Secret

The Curse of Marian Hossa

Rate this topic

228 posts in this topic

I have a question on Hossa's contract. Since he will make 7,900,000 a year until 2016-17 then he'll make around 4 mil then it's 1 mil after that for the remainder of his contract, does the 35+ thing come into effect or does that only count when you are 35+ and sign a contract? So my main question really i guess is say he retires in 2017-18 when he's gettin paid 1 mil and his cap hit is 5 million and whatever, does that cap hit still apply the the hawks?

The 35+ is only if you sign the contract over that age. Zata and Mule and Hossa all have contracts where they can retire before the contracts are over without having it apply to the cap.

The difference is that Z and Mule are more likely to finish out their contracts since Hossa's would require him to play to an older age (42 IIRC, but don't quote me on that.)

Pronger's contract extension with the Flyers was signed before the age of 35, but went into effect after he turned 35, thus muddying things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandstrom wasn't a star player that was going Cup hunting with different teams every year.

As a star player, Hossa doesn't deserve the Cup. He disappears in big games.

It doesn't really matter if he "deserves" it or not because if Chicago wins he is getting a cup ring.

He played the games and was part of the team. Ergo, cup ring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Coattails" Hossa: 16 games, 11 points. He's not hurt again, is he?

The most telling thing is that he has a third of the goals he had last year at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 35+ is only if you sign the contract over that age. Zata and Mule and Hossa all have contracts where they can retire before the contracts are over without having it apply to the cap.

The difference is that Z and Mule are more likely to finish out their contracts since Hossa's would require him to play to an older age (42 IIRC, but don't quote me on that.)

Pronger's contract extension with the Flyers was signed before the age of 35, but went into effect after he turned 35, thus muddying things up.

thank you for answering that. and i think you're right, i was pretty sure it was 42 as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most telling thing is that he has a third of the goals he had last year at this point.

We keep hearing that Chicago is not worried about his lack of point production, that he's doing the "little things" for them. That's an awful lot of money being paid for a "little things" player. Maybe he is really is "no pay / no play" in the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hossa isn't playing anywhere as good as he was in 07-08, but he isn't playing bad by any stretch. Chicago's not getting their money out of him putting him on a line with his admirer, but neither were the Wing's with all the stars who were on the 3rd and 4th line of years past. Depth improves teams but decreases numbers. Don't believe me? Ask Danny Heatly

It doesn't really matter if he "deserves" it or not because if Chicago wins he is getting a cup ring.

He played the games and was part of the team. Ergo, cup ring.

Exactly. No one is going to Luc Robitallie's house and demanding that he give his 02 ring back (granted he didn't real play bad, just had very limited ice time).

.

Edited by EZBAKETHAGANGSTA
stevkrause likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the Hawks with a passion but they built their team with youth and talent, they are gonna be contenders for years. Good luck to them and I hope Hossa can finally lift Lord Stanley. They deserve to be where they're at. With that said I hope the Finals will go 7 games I'd love to see how physical the Flyers (assuming they will close it out tonight) can be against the Hawks especially Kane. By the way does Kane still have that stupid mullet?

Actually, they built their team by sucking for quite a long time:

2007: 1st Overall Draft Pick (Kane)

2006: 3rd Overall Draft Pick (Toews)

2005: 7th Overall Draft Pick (Skille)

2004: 3rd Overall Draft Pick (Barker)

Good job in not picking a lot of busts but come on the only reason the Hawks are good is because the sucked for long enough to get 6 top Ten picks since 2000 and 3 Top Three picks in four years. Its a shame but the best way to be good in the new NHL is to suck for 5 or 6 years in a row.

Edit: Just ask the Penguins. :lol:

Edited by Frozen-Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, they built their team by sucking for quite a long time:

2007: 1st Overall Draft Pick (Kane)

2006: 3rd Overall Draft Pick (Toews)

2005: 7th Overall Draft Pick (Skille)

2004: 3rd Overall Draft Pick (Barker)

Good job in not picking a lot of busts but come on the only reason the Hawks are good is because the sucked for long enough to get 6 top Ten picks since 2000 and 3 Top Three picks in four years. Its a shame but the best way to be good in the new NHL is to suck for 5 or 6 years in a row.

Edit: Just ask the Penguins. :lol:

How did the Wings nab Yzerman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did the Wings nab Yzerman?

With the number 4 pick? One lower than Toews or Barker and three lower than Kane?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the number 4 pick? One lower than Toews or Barker and three lower than Kane?

And you mean to tell me that getting the fourth pick doesn't make your team terribad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you mean to tell me that getting the fourth pick doesn't make your team terribad?

Yes of course it does, your team either has to be bad or trade with a bad team to get a top pick. That was not my point. That is why I explicitly stated "the only reason the Hawks are good is because the sucked for long enough to get 6 top Ten picks since 2000 and 3 Top Three picks in four years. Its a shame but the best way to be good in the new NHL is to suck for 5 or 6 years in a row."

The last three Wings pick in the top three were 1990, 1986, and 1979. There have been 31 years since the Wings last three top 3 picks. Even grouping them together it took from 1979 to 1990, elven years, for the Wings to get three top 3 picks. The Hawks did that in 4 years. Yeah every team though out the history of the NHL has gotten a top pick at one time or another, a team getting a number four pick is not something rare (a la the Wings with Yzerman) however, a team getting three top 3 picks in four years is rare. I honestly can't believe that you would compare the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of the draft lottery is to ward off teams from intentionally tanking. Yes, the worst team gets the best shot at the number 1 pick. But they're not guaranteed a top pick. It seems like the lottery is what keeps teams from tanking.

And there's also no guarantee that the players you draft will ever work out

you're right, but it's not exactly what I meant.

I'm not OK with the way the lottery works now. because it ultimately does give unfair advantage.

lottery is obviously better than straightforward allocation (worst team automatically picking first,

2nd worst as second etc.) but if it's Blackhawks after Penguins then it's pretty obvious to me,

that there has been a little too much reward for dwelling at league bottom for extended period.

if it was me I would scratch the current concept and give every team fair 30-to-1 chance to land

1st pick. because why should those bad teams be rewarded for being bad - it's unfair.

and if that is too extreme and the NHL wants to have the theoretical parity - give non-playoff

teams 21-to-1 chance and the playoff teams 48-to-1 (so that the 1st pick goes on average 2 for

each 3 years to non-playoff team) so there's bias towards higher picks for non-playoff teams,

but playoff success doesn't always mean lower picks.

my point is: Pittsburgh and Chicago (likely) are two teams which deliberately tanked for a number

of years and now succeed because of this. it seems thus, that the reward they got for sucking

is an advantage over other teams. and I don't think this is fair. IMHO as of now there's no

good equilibrium between rewarding continuous success through scouting/development and rebuiding

throrugh draft. it seems to me, that the later makes winning cups a bit too easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes of course it does, your team either has to be bad or trade with a bad team to get a top pick. That was not my point. That is why I explicitly stated "the only reason the Hawks are good is because the sucked for long enough to get 6 top Ten picks since 2000 and 3 Top Three picks in four years. Its a shame but the best way to be good in the new NHL is to suck for 5 or 6 years in a row."

The last three Wings pick in the top three were 1990, 1986, and 1979. There have been 31 years since the Wings last three top 3 picks. Even grouping them together it took from 1979 to 1990, elven years, for the Wings to get three top 3 picks. The Hawks did that in 4 years. Yeah every team though out the history of the NHL has gotten a top pick at one time or another, a team getting a number four pick is not something rare (a la the Wings with Yzerman) however, a team getting three top 3 picks in four years is rare. I honestly can't believe that you would compare the two.

You aren't seriously implying the Hawks tanked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess it sounds better when you type things in the form of a question??

The second question mark was on accident, but thanks for adding to the discussion. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you mean to tell me that getting the fourth pick doesn't make your team terribad?

That was a different era. Apples and oranges.

What round was Gordie Howe drafted in? :ph34r:

Edited by Broken 16
Frozen-Man likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You aren't seriously implying the Hawks tanked.

No, I'm not at all. I don't think they tanked and don't believe I implied that. My comment was merely that it is not as if the Hawks have built their team through great free agent signings (other than Hossa which is greatly offset by Huet and Campbell) or mining gems in late rounds of the draft or cultivating those low draft picks within their system. I also don't think that the Penguins tanked but it sure makes it a lot easier to be good (at least in the short term) if you get a lot of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd draft picks in a very limited number of years. I just don't think there is any doubt that Chicago is the team that they are because they sucked for multiple years and as a result got quite a few great draft picks.

Edit: However, what about my post, are you seriously comparing getting one 4th draft pick with 3 top 3 picks in four years?

Edited by Frozen-Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm not at all. I don't think they tanked and don't believe I implied that. My comment was merely that it is not as if the Hawks have built their team through great free agent signings (other than Hossa which is greatly offset by Huet and Campbell) or mining gems in late rounds of the draft or cultivating those low draft picks within their system. I also don't think that the Penguins tanked but it sure makes it a lot easier to be good (at least in the short term) if you get a lot of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd draft picks in a very limited number of years. I just don't think there is any doubt that Chicago is the team that they are because they sucked for multiple years and as a result got quite a few great draft picks.

Edit: However, what about my post, are you seriously comparing getting one 4th draft pick with 3 top 3 picks in four years?

My point is your team rarely gets top tier talent without sucking for a number of years.

Detroit was just less lucky than Chicago was in the process. s*** happens, and with the salary cap it is easier for a team to rebound due to the abundance of players demanding raises from solid teams and having to be bumped to weaker ones. It has nothing to do with drafting. Drafting has been the same for quite some time.

Zeowingsfan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second question mark was on accident, but thanks for adding to the discussion. rolleyes.gif

Always happy to discuss Stevie Y... Was just thumbing through and saw all the ? but its ok your point can be proven somehow...was just wondering where it was...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did the Wings nab Yzerman?

Yea, and then there next top pick was who? Nobody. Nada. No more top ten picks since. I think Kronwall was about #20. Not a good comparison...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is your team rarely gets top tier talent without sucking for a number of years.

Detroit was just less lucky than Chicago was in the process. s*** happens, and with the salary cap it is easier for a team to rebound due to the abundance of players demanding raises from solid teams and having to be bumped to weaker ones. It has nothing to do with drafting. Drafting has been the same for quite some time.

I never said drafting hadn't been the same for quite some time. The point is Chicago got the vast majority their talent from sucking for many years. It wasn't through great scouting, player development, excellent trades, or great free agent signing (other than Hossa). It came from the fact that they were one of the worst teams, consistently, for a long time. My original post was nothing other than a statement of that fact. People sometimes give credit to the Hawks for developing a great team when I don't think that they did much development but rather benefited from consistent top picks. My point was not, and I have not argued, any of tangents that you have tried to make it. The fact is that it is very rare for a team to get that many top three picks in that short a span. I don't really care about the rest of it, I don't care if it is fair, or if the Wings got a number 4 pick, and I never said that the Hawks intentionally tanked. You still aren't really refuting my only statement that the Hawks can attribute the vast majority of their success to having been so bad for so long that they got a lot of really high picks pretty consecutively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always happy to discuss Stevie Y... Was just thumbing through and saw all the ? but its ok your point can be proven somehow...was just wondering where it was...

All two the "?" Are you freaking kidding me, you have used more question marks at the end of one sentence. :rolleyes:

Yeah! no kidding what has that clown done??

:blush: :blush: :blush:

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