Hi, I'm Gabriel, and occasionally I like to come on and dish out some logic in the face of illogical statements.
In reality, my post had little to do with the actual Suter and Parise and more with the concept of them. As a free agent, what would attract people to Detroit? The glamour seems to be gone. However, I should have realized that people are too butt-hurt over those two choosing the Wild to be able to think rationally and have an intellectual discussion about such an abstract concept.
$90M for 12 years and $98M for 13 years are ALMOST AN IDENTICAL CAP HIT. $7.5M/yr. vs. $7.538M/yr. Would you still consider it a handcuff if Suter were a Wing for a mere $38,000/yr less?
Never did I say anything about being a second tier franchise. Just because the competition has increased their level through 'parity' does not mean that the Wings have necessarily lowered theirs. However, if there are multiple teams than can be considered legitimate playoff contenders, simply going to Detroit "for a shot at winning" doesn't have the same draw.
Nice personal attack. When you can't, or won't, discuss an issue, feel free to attack another person's fan-ness. My point in the original post was to see what other fans think Detroit can do to possibly change the perception (if there is one) about committing to the Wings. A city in disarray and a team that continually derided as too old and past their prime.
If I were given the choice between two major cities and nearly identical contracts, I'd look at it in a 'numbers' sense as well..
You'll pay 3% more in personal income taxes in Minnesota (Suddenly, your extra $8Mil is $2.94Mil less).
Also, the cost of living is 28% higher in Minneapolis - http://www.bestplace...&city2=52743000
Given factors like that, the dollars make more sense for Detroit.
I realize that Suter/Parise wanted to play together and that is a mitigating factor that you can't place a value on. I just want to discuss the changing dynamics behind the concept.
Firstly, I'm glad you put 'ALMOST' in there, because they're no where near identical cap hits. 12 years would get both players off the books in the 39th year, 13 years would be 40th. That's an extra year at $7.5 when they'll most likely be crappy shells of their former selves. So whilst similar in yearly numbers, not so in practice. For a GM that's a difference maker.
As for the second point, if Detroit hasn't lowered their standards then there is still the lure of a chance at winning. What you've put out is close to an unfalsifyable statement, in that I can counter it with an equally valid yet opposite statement and neither can be proved right or wrong. If 'parity' means that more teams have a chance of winning, yet Detroit hasn't necessarily lowered their chances, then yes there will be more teams with a good chance of success yet Detroit will still be in the same strong position only with company. That doesn't mean their appeal for players lowers. See my point? I love my iMac, but those nice new Windows laptops have really closed the gap in regards to performance and technology. Still, iMacs haven't got any worse so I'll stick with them. Make sense?
1. I agree with you on this - BUT - he was not prepared to lose Lids.
2. Regarding Schultz - he went to the place where the young players have a chance to develope and play in NHL.
Other than that, I agree with you... and the worst part is that Holland will sign Carle for $25M/5 years and that's even worst than overpaying for Suter...
Unfortunately he went to a place where they only have young players looking to develop. By the time they have done, they'll be priced out of that team and will spend their prime years elsewhere. And who is to say that a whole team of young player will even develop as they should without veteran presence at all levels? I understand his decision, but don't necessarily agree. That being said, also don't mind that he didn't end up here as there is no guarantee he'd have faired well or suffered in the NHL. Could have been a risk.
Regardless of these two guys not coming here, if anyone honestly believes this team is as appealing as it was let's say 5 years ago, you are only fooling yourself. In the last two seasons we have lost two ELITE defensemen and our stars are only getting older. I don't think it's as bad as some people are making it out to be, but we certainly aren't the be all-end all like we once were.
I must be fooling myself then because this team is always appealing to me. But that's only because I support them and will during thick and thin. They may not be as successful in years to come but I'll still love watching them and will still cheer every goal and wish them to do well each and every night. That's what I understand as 'appealing'.
I read a couple of articles today that reference the Wings' inability to land Suter or Parise. I'm beginning to think long gone are the days of the hometown discount and the 'head to Detroit and you've got a shot at a championship' mentality. With the parity that currently exists, any team has a shot at winning.
Yes, there's a tradition of success. Yes, there's 4 Cups in the last 15 years. However, there's just as many first/second round exits and early playoff exits. Other than consistently making the playoffs - what sets Detroit apart as a choice for someone's career? Nothing tangible.
Sure, there are the intangibles - the history, Original Six, 11 Cups, Gordie Howe, etc.. but those have very little to do a person's day-to-day working life or home life.
I was just pondering all this.. what say you?
The first point here, you use in reference to the Wings failing to land two players who decided to sign for a team close to their homes. Everyone has a different 'hometown'. Much like we managed to convincce Mike Modano, only the best American-born player in NHL history, to put off retirement for a year and sign for a hometown discount in the state where he was born and raised. Unfortunately due to unforeseen circumstances it didn't pan out as it could have but proves the point that everyone has different homes.
The second point is a bit of an odd one, because being one of the winningest teams in NHL history, there are far more teams that have more 'first/second round exits' than the Wings. In fact there are far more teams that don't even make the playoffs year on year... Calgary would wish for a first round exit after these recent years.
Even if the Red Wings had matched Minnesota's offers to both, it probably wouldn't have mattered.
“You read today where they’re happy to be going as a pair and they’re both going home,'' Holland said. “Those are some of the things we couldn’t compete against because we’re not (their) home.''
Reference for the above point about 'hometown discount'.
Dominator2005, youre the only one who realizes that Holland lost a race. If hes willing to offer 180 mil to 2 guys, why not go the extra mile and offer 8 mil a season to land em both. In 7 years, cap will be 80-90 million and the extra mil a season will be so meaningless. We lost 2 great players and our gm stinks. Those are the facts.
Non-bold: Maybe Holland didn't lose a race here. He simply got to a point that was financially viable and make the decision not to go over the top and risk future money. Hence not offering an extra $8m. Deciding to not throw more money and risk losing a contract is a stronger, more ballsy decision than doing it. People might criticise him for doing it but it makes this team stronger going forward than if we had them for that long. If it was 7/8 years then maybe not as much, but 13 is a long time and I think he made a good choice. Also the cap doesn't simply rise a la inflation. It can very well go down. We'd be boned if it did (as MIN will be if it does).Bold:
Those aren't facts at all. They are opinions. Why they are not facts? I think 1 is a great player and 1 is a good defenceman who can give solid play but is in no way elite. Also I think Holland is a damn good GM. See, not facts. Opinions.
It doesnt matter why. Facts are: 1) we dont have either Lidstrom, Shultz, parise or suter, and 2) we have bertuzzi, sammuelson, gustavson, and tootoo. That is crappy general management by definition.
1) Those ARE facts (see above point). As are those at 2) yet everything else is once again opinion. Not sure how it's crappy management either considering Lidstrom made his own decision (Holland didn't tell him to retire), Schultz is unproven, and Parise and Suter either wanted too much money or wanted to play closer to home. If anything I'm thinking that limiting yourself with money and thinking about the sustained future of the organisation rather than the next 10 years is a good thing. If you're going on age here as well, Gustavsson and Tootoo are both 27, same as Parise and Suter (I only say as people seem to think that Tootoo is old for some reason?!) Yes they're not as accomplished as P & S but one's a goaltender and one's a physical forward. Bert and Sammy also have the experience over all 3 of Parise, Suter and Schultz which can count for everything down the line.
People are acting like we lost Dats, Z, Flip, Helm, etc in all this and that we're falling apart. I think we'll be ok, maybe not as dominating as we've been in the past, but come on, we're not the Thrashers here.