• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
RedWingsRox

Franzen on IR

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

That 'sweatheart' deal was still seeing Franzen make $5 million plus per season (will make $5 million next season as well)...Just his last 3 seasons are sumthin around $1 million that makes it all tolerable (and chances of Franzen playing in any of those final seasons is rather slim given his age, and history of injuries)...Is he doing us any favors now with his lack of production, and what appears to be indifferent play these past few seasons?

Granted Hossa has had his fair share of injuries, but when healthy he's a solid producer, and since parting ways, and signing with Chicago - he's been the better of the 2.

Also, are you suggesting that he didn't do management a favor because he hasn't been good afterward? That's absurd.

The twists of logic that people go through to demonize Franzen are getting outrageous. He's not a superstar, so what? He signed the contract that management (and everybody else) thought he was worth at the time, AND it was a contract that was favorable to management. And his contract had almost no impact on the Hossa negotiations.

If anybody should take heat for the Hossa thing, it's Holland. Not Franzen. What was he supposed to do, turn down the money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

go back to the franzen signs extension thread...not EVERYBODY was happy. Most, as a matter of fact, hated the term and a lot of us, me included, thought it was too high cap hit in order to make the team better.

most of that thread had a lot of people NOT liking something about it. Again, if you read entire posts instead of just looking for things that may support your opinion, you'd be a bit wiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

go back to the franzen signs extension thread...not EVERYBODY was happy. Most, as a matter of fact, hated the term and a lot of us, me included, thought it was too high cap hit in order to make the team better.

most of that thread had a lot of people NOT liking something about it. Again, if you read entire posts instead of just looking for things that may support your opinion, you'd be a bit wiser.

You said he should be signed to a long term, Zetterberg like, contract. If nothing else, that suggests a higher cap hit (since Zetterberg's cap hit is higher). They did EXACTLY what you said should be done. EXACTLY.

Now you're against it huh? Give me a break. Your whole schtick is so phoney its surreal.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hossa was a 'All Star' calibre player prior to being a Red Wing for that 1 year while Franzen looked like a 4th liner until having 2 exceptional years which he then earned his lengthy deal.

Yes - hindsight is indeed 20/20 - however Hossa was/is a thoroughbred while Franzen - well he's just a Mule.

IMHO it landed down to either having 1 or the other for Holland (not sure if he could've ever signed both)...A more expensive, but proven Hossa, or the less expensive Franzen.

So blame Holland, fine. I don't care. And I don't care that you think Hossa's better. He is. But I'm a little tired of hearing people ***** about Franzen as if he was supposed to voluntarily turn down the money. Or as if his contract hasn't been helpful. Or like his production didn't warrant 3.9 million a year.

As for the second part, about either having one or the other, that's absurd. Here's a recent example: Boston didn't have a lot of cap space and wanted to keep Riley Smith and Torey Krug. They didn't have a lot of money. They convinced Krug and Smith to sign one year contracts below market value. Let Iginla walk (even though they didn't want to), and traded Boychuk. Where there's a will there's a way.

You can argue all day that Holland made the wrong decisions, but he clearly thought that keeping Hudler, Filppula, AND Franzen was worth more to the team than losing two of those guys and keeping Hossa.

And it's a little hard to blame him since he had just got done winning a Cup the year before with Hudler, Filppula, and Franzen...but not Hossa.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing less appealing in an individual, than an arrogant, pompous, told-you-so attitude.

Throw enough s*** at the wall, and some is bound to stick... Even a broken clock is right twice a day... People spew enough far-out opinions, they're bound to be "right" sooner or later...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So - you feel Holland could've signed both Hossa, and Franzen, or am I reading too much into your post?

Yes (see below).

My point is, why bother? You just won a Cup with your EXACT same team...minus Hossa. So offer him a contract that leaves you in a good cap situation, and if he takes it great. If not, you've still got a team that just won the Stanley Cup.

The fact that he didn't re-sign Hossa was probably not limited by Franzen's contract. There's always options. We had plenty of moveable assets going into free agency 2010. If Holland really though keeping Hossa was integral to team success, he could have traded Filppula, Hudler, Kronwall, Stuart, Cleary, Abby, Helm, Howard, Ericsson, Lilja. Or NOT SIGNED Bertuzzi, Miller, Eaves, May, or Williams. Remember that the difference between what Holland offered Hossa and what he took from Chicago was only about 1.5 million dollars. One or two of these players would have easily covered that. The likely reason he didn't re-sign Hossa is because Hossa wanted 5+ million for the next 12 years. Which Holland didn't want to do.

How did it suddenly become and either/or scenario between Franzen and Hossa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was always my interpretation that it was gonna be 1 or the other.

Franzen was cheaper (cap hit), and had a few good years...Done deal as Holland was concerned...Just my opinion how it went down.

Again, read above for all the possible things that could have been done in order to keep Hossa. And then ask yourself, "was it really Franzen's contract that was the difference, or have I been wrong this whole time?".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was Holland even known for swinging trades in order to free up cap space to sign 'hi-end' players after the work stoppage in 2004/2005?

Lets be honest - the chances of Holland transforming into a Burke type GM, and start 'wheeling & dealing' is very unlikely.

What's that got to do with Franzen? If there's a strong incentive to keep someone, you make it happen. Now, aside the fact that Hossa may not have wanted to stay here at all (which isn't a stretch considering our coach is a dick), I do believe there were some (minor) mistakes that were made surrounding the choice to let Hossa walk. Here are a few mistakes Holland (and management) made that might have influenced what happened (and how we view it).

1) Its the managment's job to determine whether guys are just a flash in the pan or here to stay. They clearly misjudged Franzen's long term potential. Though it should be noted that for three of the next four years he was within 5 pts. of his 2009 career high. So even if they agreed on a short "prove it" contract, he would have been in the same ballpark as he was in 2009. Indications were that he'd keep it up, but still, it's their job to get it right.

2) Having a better handle on Hudler's status would have helped retain Hossa. Hudler held out and bolted for Europe when he didn't get offered enough money as an RFA, but that happened after Hossa had already signed elsewhere. Assuming they knew he wanted a TON of money, they could have traded his rights before free agency and used that money toward Hossa. Knowing Hudler was a potential flight risk might have helped prioritize extending Hossa as well.

3) Having a better handle on whether Samuelsson was going to try out FA could have made a difference as well. He ultimately did want to test the market, and so a big chunk of his salary could have been used to extend Hossa prior to FA (if, indeed, he wanted to come back).

And that's about all for big mistakes. Otherwise, it was just a matter of prioritization. And, as I said before, considering the Wings had just won the Cup without Hossa, he probably wasn't as big a priority for Holland as we'd all like to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mentioned earlier that Holland could've made some deals that would've opened up cap space to allow Holland the much needed room to keep both Franzen, AND Hossa.

Holland chose Franzen because he was cheaper, and Holland wouldn't have to work the phones in order to move current players from the roster.

There were lots of scenarios in which he didn't have to move a player under contcct. I've mentioned some above. Also, you're speculating about his unwillingness to "work the phones"...speculating badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please enlighten me as to Holland's history of player movement?

We all know he's not the type to swing big trades involving players currently on the roster - not in the last several years.

You going off the premise that there was a whole list of moves Holland could've made with roster players in order to sign Hossa - something I do not agree with given Holland's history.

I've always seen it as 'black & white'...It was one guy, or the other, and chances of signing both were zero.

Firstly, you can Google Holland's personnel moves. I see no need to list every trade, or signing, or player he let walk for another, just because you feel like being difficult.

Secondly, the fact that you've always seen something one way doesn't mean other options weren't available. It also might explain why, despite the fact that I've listed multiple alternative scenarios, you refuse to think anything else was possible. You don't believe it was possible because you've never believed it possible, despite the fact that there's at least a handful of other possible scenarios. The fact that you think its black and white is the cause of your consternation, not the effect. Because accepting that there were alternatives to what happened, and it happened anyway, either makes Holland dumb or else means he just didn't want Hossa that bad. Neither of which are as simplistic "it was either or". It wasn't. I've now told you several ways in which it could be both. Some of which didn't involve trades. If you still insist it wasn't possible, its because you're being obtuse. Not because you've got a firm grasp of the situation.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's that got to do with Franzen? If there's a strong incentive to keep someone, you make it happen. Now, aside the fact that Hossa may not have wanted to stay here at all (which isn't a stretch considering our coach is a dick), I do believe there were some (minor) mistakes that were made surrounding the choice to let Hossa walk. Here are a few mistakes Holland (and management) made that might have influenced what happened (and how we view it).

1) Its the managment's job to determine whether guys are just a flash in the pan or here to stay. They clearly misjudged Franzen's long term potential. Though it should be noted that for three of the next four years he was within 5 pts. of his 2009 career high. So even if they agreed on a short "prove it" contract, he would have been in the same ballpark as he was in 2009. Indications were that he'd keep it up, but still, it's their job to get it right.

2) Having a better handle on Hudler's status would have helped retain Hossa. Hudler held out and bolted for Europe when he didn't get offered enough money as an RFA, but that happened after Hossa had already signed elsewhere. Assuming they knew he wanted a TON of money, they could have traded his rights before free agency and used that money toward Hossa. Knowing Hudler was a potential flight risk might have helped prioritize extending Hossa as well.

3) Having a better handle on whether Samuelsson was going to try out FA could have made a difference as well. He ultimately did want to test the market, and so a big chunk of his salary could have been used to extend Hossa prior to FA (if, indeed, he wanted to come back).

And that's about all for big mistakes. Otherwise, it was just a matter of prioritization. And, as I said before, considering the Wings had just won the Cup without Hossa, he probably wasn't as big a priority for Holland as we'd all like to think.

You're a bit off here. There was no money for Sammy or Hudler that year. We were over the cap the entire year, only getting by on LTIR. We eventually had to dump Leino, demote May, and force Maltby on to IR just to bring Franzen and Lilja off IR. It would have been difficult to keep Hossa instead of Franzen, much less keep both. Both would have meant losing Flip for sure, plus some.

Realistically, the choice was Hossa or Franzen. Mistake? Perhaps, though I doubt having Hossa would have made any significant difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're a bit off here. There was no money for Sammy or Hudler that year. We were over the cap the entire year, only getting by on LTIR. We eventually had to dump Leino, demote May, and force Maltby on to IR just to bring Franzen and Lilja off IR. It would have been difficult to keep Hossa instead of Franzen, much less keep both. Both would have meant losing Flip for sure, plus some.

Realistically, the choice was Hossa or Franzen. Mistake? Perhaps, though I doubt having Hossa would have made any significant difference.

I agree it wouldn't have made a difference if we'd kept him.

We had 5.3 million dollars wrapped up in guys we signed (or claimed) after Hossa left (Bertuzzi, Williams, Miller, May, Eaves, Leino). And that's 5.3 without making a single trade. Move a player with a moderate salary out, and there's more money. I agree it was tight. But I don't agree that it was one or the other. It was one or the other ONLY if we didn't want to move out salary to retain Hossa...which clearly Holland didn't. Lots of teams clear salary to retain stars. Holland didn't. Likely because he didn't think Hossa was that important, and not because (as a result of Franzen's signing) there was absolutely no money available.

Again, they brought on the equivalent of Hossa's current contract AFTER he was signed by Chicago.

Also, last year also showed that Ken Holland clearly doesn't mind going into a season over the cap if he sees fit. He had no problem waiving guys like Tootoo, Samuelsson, and Eaves a year ago to get cap compliant. So he clearly A) knows it can be done, and B) will do it. I don't buy, for one second, that he REALLY wanted to retain Hossa, but just couldn't make the cap work. Especially considering they offered him a contract valued 1.1 million dollars less than what he makes now. You really don't think Holland couldn't have found 1.1 million if he'd really wanted to?

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, people realize Hossa's cap hit was 7.45 million in 2009 right? By signing him to the exact same money he made in Chicago we would have gained around 2.3 million against the cap compared to the year before. Or, in other words, his cap hit is less now (for Chicago) than it was the year we had him. So even if nothing changed from 2009 accept his contract, he still would have been more affordable re-signed than he was the year we actually had him on the books. And that's with no other changes. Add to that the fact that we lost Hudler, Sammy, Kopecky, Conklin, and didn't need to sign all of Bertuzzi, Williams, Eaves, May, Miller, and Leino, and there was plenty of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One player doesn't replace 6.

We started the year over the cap, with Lilja on LTIR. Aside from Hossa, we were losing Hudler, Sammy, and Kopy, as well as Downey and McCarty.

We brought in Eaves and May, both at league minimum, and promoted Leino and Helm, both also very cheap. Miller was added later after injuries started piling up.

So we could sign Hossa instead of Bert and JWilly, but that's still an extra $2 mil+ in cap that has to move and a player short of a full roster. So you have to move at least one other player, and I believe only Flip and Cleary were making enough. But that also creates another spot to fill. So we'd be adding another player at around league minimum.

It's not that it was absolutely impossible to keep both, just not realistic. Moving a 40 point player and filling the roster with scrubs at league min just isn't as reasonable as choosing to keep just one of the big guns, plus your 40 point guy, and having a few mil left to try to find a couple cheap depth scorers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One player doesn't replace 6.

We started the year over the cap, with Lilja on LTIR. Aside from Hossa, we were losing Hudler, Sammy, and Kopy, as well as Downey and McCarty.

We brought in Eaves and May, both at league minimum, and promoted Leino and Helm, both also very cheap. Miller was added later after injuries started piling up.

So we could sign Hossa instead of Bert and JWilly, but that's still an extra $2 mil+ in cap that has to move and a player short of a full roster. So you have to move at least one other player, and I believe only Flip and Cleary were making enough. But that also creates another spot to fill. So we'd be adding another player at around league minimum.

It's not that it was absolutely impossible to keep both, just not realistic. Moving a 40 point player and filling the roster with scrubs at league min just isn't as reasonable as choosing to keep just one of the big guns, plus your 40 point guy, and having a few mil left to try to find a couple cheap depth scorers.

That's exactly what happened anyway. So we had Franzen, Cleary, Bert, Williams, Eaves, Miller, and two rookies at league minimum

Ultimately I agree though. 1 guy can't replace six. Which is probably why Holland wasn't too concerned about re-signing Hossa. That's a fairly accurate thing to say. Know what isn't? There wasn't enough money after signing Franzen to re-sign Hossa. Which is what the narrative has transformed into. That's bogus. Given that Holland had Dats, Z, Franzen, Cleary, and Holmstrom in the top six, and all those guys had already won a Cup together, I doubt he was too worried about bringing back Hossa. Likely, he'd rather have the depth (as you've pointed out). But that shouldn't be mistaken with "not being able" to re-sign him. Teams get rid of depth to keep stars all the time. Sometimes it works (Chicago post 2010), sometimes it doesn't (Boston now). But to say it's impossible because Franzen was re-signed is (at best) inaccurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one was saying it was literally impossible.

It was, however, impossible to keep Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Franzen, Filppula, Cleary, Homer, Draper, Maltby, AND Hossa, and the defense and goalies, and ice a full roster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one was saying it was literally impossible.

It was, however, impossible to keep Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Franzen, Filppula, Cleary, Homer, Draper, Maltby, AND Hossa, and the defense and goalies, and ice a full roster.

Right, Holland didn't want to replace all his mid-tier guys with unknown guys or depth players like Bowman did with Versteeg, Byfuglien, Niemi, and Ladd. I get why Holland let Hossa go. My problem is that since 2010, the narrative has become "Holland chose Franzen over Hossa". Which is bulls***. Holland chose to keep this core team from the 2009 Cup run intact, rather than blow it up just to keep Hossa. When you put it that way, it seems a little bit more reasonable. Which was my point all along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kip, that is a good point, and I do understand it. My point was just that I hated losing Hossa, and since Franzen was the main guy kept to be "The Sniper" on this team, I turned on Franzen when he NEVER even came close to being the right guy. I understand the business aspect of it, but even back then I was in favor of dumping Hudler, Filppula and Franzen instead of losing Hossa. I always was pro-Hossa and always will be. My whole point that started this was, I didn't think losing Hossa in favor of Franzen was the right thing to do, and I was right. Hossa has 2 Cups to our none since he left. So even though Holland chose to keep three players instead of one, it didn't help us what so ever. Hudler and Filppula left anyhow and Franzen is nitrous garbage. So, losing all three of them and keeping Hossa would not have hurt the team, and it may have even bettered the team because Hossa would've been on Dats' wing this whole time (more than likely) and probably would have scored more shootout goals...

I get it, hindsight is 20/20, but I was never in favor of losing Hossa. And no,I do not blame Franzen for taking the money, hell, he got a free ride into the millionaire's club. He has nowhere near earned his money while here. I was ONLY in support of him signing and his contract if we could've kept Hossa. I wasn't after we lost Hossa mainly because Franzen took the money and ran, or should I say floated. I said it in the original extension thread, the cap hit was too much, most other hated something about the term or the cap hit, so, krsmith, a lot of us were throwing s*** at the wall back then as well, and a lot of us were right. I just happen to be the biggest Franzen hater in this place, so I feel like celebrating that almost all the rest of the world has joined me on a boat I have been sailing for a long time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kip, that is a good point, and I do understand it. My point was just that I hated losing Hossa, and since Franzen was the main guy kept to be "The Sniper" on this team, I turned on Franzen when he NEVER even came close to being the right guy. I understand the business aspect of it, but even back then I was in favor of dumping Hudler, Filppula and Franzen instead of losing Hossa. I always was pro-Hossa and always will be. My whole point that started this was, I didn't think losing Hossa in favor of Franzen was the right thing to do, and I was right. Hossa has 2 Cups to our none since he left. So even though Holland chose to keep three players instead of one, it didn't help us what so ever. Hudler and Filppula left anyhow and Franzen is nitrous garbage. So, losing all three of them and keeping Hossa would not have hurt the team, and it may have even bettered the team because Hossa would've been on Dats' wing this whole time (more than likely) and probably would have scored more shootout goals...

I don't want to be Devil's advocate here, but one player does not a cup make sir. Those Hawks teams were stacked even without Hossa. And if we'd kept Hossa and had to lose Franzen, Hudler and Filppula, we probably wouldn't have won another cup just because the losses would have hurt our depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well one thing we can all agree on...at least we're not paying Dion Phaneuf 7 million dollars to defend guys like Ryan Johansen. Yikes!

WelllitAmusedDouglasfirbarkbeetle.gif

yeah! Poor Dion just can't get a break in TO. Reminds me of Murphy when he was there. Then he came to us and was great. Not saying we need Dion, but he needs out of TO!

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