This is an absolutely ridiculous comparison. So, in effect, you're saying the Wings are "cheap" for not paying a player $24-million for these players when they did for a team in another sport they own? Or it'd be "cheap" if they didn't spend $30-million per year on a player because someone did with Joe Johnson in the NBA?
Ownership offered, and will pay, two-hundred-and-fourteen million to one player, paid over a shorter period of time. No difference whatsoever.
This is ludicrous on all fronts and I feel dumber having to even respond to it. What the Tigers do in baseball has had nothing to do with the Red Wings spending habits in hockey. Nothing.