Zetterberg's status in 2 years. MOD WARNING PAGE 6

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

4 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

$30M is $30M. Whether it be 5 yrs or 6 yrs. Thats all im saying. Cap hit. Same money, different term. Yes, AA and Mantha could've done the same with the extra year. That's my definition of being more team friendly to save cap space. I wouldnt be mentioning it ehen it comesto Larkin as much except for the fact that he himself had said he wants to give the team a friendly deal so they can be better and have flexibility. The only way taking the team over the cap, thus blocking any chance of having better players here, with this contract is team friendly is if they knew it's going to be a wash of Z's contract. For Larkin's worth, future worth to this team as C, he could very well be making over $7M AAV. So $6M is probably team friendly with them knowing Z is not playing. Then that gives them over $6M (with Franzen LTIR) to promote 3 or more kids. 

And to your question about Vanek. on July 1 i did say I felt both he and Bernier got a bit too much, as well as Green. So really its not just about Larkin's term.

No, it's literally not.

Different terms matter a lot. In one scenario his yearly take home is (over the course of the contract) 5 million, and in the other it's 6. Would you rather make $6 million every year or $5 million? Would you rather get paid your entire years salary for 1 hour of work, or your entire one years salary over the course of 10 years? Term matters. A lot.

In unrelated news I'd love to be your banker, or possibly sell you a car. PM me for financing.

13 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

Zetterberg would be I'll advised to risk permanent injury to be on this roster when it's going nowhere. If we were a playoff team or better, then I could see him play, but it's pointless to play when this team is a bottom 5 team. Larkin got the contract because Z is not coming back. If Z were 100% healthy and playing, Larkin's cap hit would have been about $1M lower. Neither Holland or Larkin were going to handcuff this team. If Z were healthy,  Larkin would've taken less.

You've completely flip-flopped and moved the goal posts already. Just stop. First you say Larkin is not team friendly and would've taken 1M less, now you're saying he already did take 1M less and is team-friendly. Get your story straight.

I'll also point out, from Dylan's Larkin's contract thread earlier this month:

On 8/10/2018 at 9:08 AM, LeftWinger said:

Not team friendly At all. Thanks for the memories Zetterberg. Nearly exact cap hit as Z, so obvious he is done. If not, then Rasmussen returns to play with 17 tear olds and Zadina wastes his time in the AHL. I am glad he is locked in, but I'd of rather seen 6 years $30M, instead of 5 years $30M

 

On 8/10/2018 at 8:07 PM, LeftWinger said:

The sky is not falling because Larkin signed. The sky is not falling because now Z is pretty much done. We're good, plenty of room for Ras and the New Z.

Besides all I said was it wasn't team friendly, but then again it is almost Z's cap hit, so it's a wash since Z is done. Then I went in to say, if he isn't done, then Holland blew smoke when talking about new kids. I'm more than glad Larkin has signed, I just wish, unless they know Z is done, it was more towards $5M. 

But hey, with Zadina on his wing, he'll be getting 90+ points a season anyhow!

 

On 8/11/2018 at 6:42 AM, LeftWinger said:

Not enough. Salaries are outrageous and out of control. I know it's "The Market" but it doesn't mean it's not absurd. I'm sorry, but IMO $6.1M is not team friendly. All the talk about he wants the team to be able to sign players and leave room for the team to get better. If $6.1M is team friendly, I hate to see what he was thinking about getting, $10M?

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[LeftWinger 5,152]

I've maintained the same stance the entire time. I don't see any flip flopping. I just said, maybe since they probably knew at the time of the signing that Z was done, $6.1M was team friendly because he probably could've asked for more. But my original stance was/is, if Z plays, it's not team friendly. $5M to $5.5M WITH Z 100% playing is team friendly.

Done. I'm not arguing this. If you don't understand, then that's your issue. 6x5 is 30, 5x6 is 30. If I am making 30 million either way and want the team to have cap room, I take the 5x6. BUT since Z is done, the 6x5 was signed and its a wash. IMO, they signed the deal once they knew Z's fate.

They've been posturing since July, reporters, insiders, Wings insiders, that he may be done, isn't training, isn't ready, isn't cleared. It's a setup for his eventually departure from training camp to LTIR. He's had back issues for a few seasons, never have we heard all this talk that he might be done. So, yes, them knowing that Z was Done, thus opening up $6M possible cap, he could've asked for more. So MAYBE with all that available cap, $6.1M IS team friendly, but again, and final time, if Z is 100% playing, going over the cap, thus not allowing Zadina or Rasmussen to be here PLUS having to waive or trade someone is not team friendly. That is just my opinion. 

Edited August 25, 2018 by LeftWinger

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

14 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

I've maintained the same stance the entire time. I don't see any flip flopping. I just said, maybe since they probably knew at the time of the signing that Z was done, $6.1M was team friendly because he probably could've asked for more. But my original stance was/is, if Z plays, it's not team friendly. $5M to $5.5M WITH Z 100% playing is team friendly.

Done. I'm not arguing this. If you don't understand, then that's your issue.

 

On 8/10/2018 at 9:08 AM, LeftWinger said:

Not team friendly At all. Thanks for the memories Zetterberg. Nearly exact cap hit as Z, so obvious he is done.

 

On 8/10/2018 at 12:32 PM, LeftWinger said:

It's just not team friendly.

Team friendly is 6 years $5M, it's still $30M, but allows for more cap flexibility.

 

On 8/11/2018 at 6:42 AM, LeftWinger said:

I'm sorry, but IMO $6.1M is not team friendly. All the talk about he wants the team to be able to sign players and leave room for the team to get better. If $6.1M is team friendly, I hate to see what he was thinking about getting, $10M?

No you haven't

 

 

[LeftWinger 5,152]

5 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

 

 

 

No you haven't

 

 

Ok then, so I guess saying it isn't team friendly, especially if Z plays, each time I address this with you is not maintaining my position on it, then okie dokie. What's next, when Z is done, I never maintained that opinion all summer long either?

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

42 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

I've maintained the same stance the entire time. I don't see any flip flopping. I just said, maybe since they probably knew at the time of the signing that Z was done, $6.1M was team friendly because he probably could've asked for more. But my original stance was/is, if Z plays, it's not team friendly. $5M to $5.5M WITH Z 100% playing is team friendly.

Done. I'm not arguing this. If you don't understand, then that's your issue. 6x5 is 30, 5x6 is 30. If I am making 30 million either way and want the team to have cap room, I take the 5x6. BUT since Z is done, the 6x5 was signed and its a wash. IMO, they signed the deal once they knew Z's fate.

They've been posturing since July, reporters, insiders, Wings insiders, that he may be done, isn't training, isn't ready, isn't cleared. It's a setup for his eventually departure from training camp to LTIR. He's had back issues for a few seasons, never have we heard all this talk that he might be done. So, yes, them knowing that Z was Done, thus opening up $6M possible cap, he could've asked for more. So MAYBE with all that available cap, $6.1M IS team friendly, but again, and final time, if Z is 100% playing, going over the cap, thus not allowing Zadina or Rasmussen to be here PLUS having to waive or trade someone is not team friendly. That is just my opinion. 

Again, this assumes you think both Larkin and Holland are absolute morons. Keep pretending term does not matter. Those salaries are not the same no matter how you slice it.

On 8/11/2018 at 6:42 AM, LeftWinger said:

I'm sorry, but IMO $6.1M is not team friendly. All the talk about he wants the team to be able to sign players and leave room for the team to get better. If $6.1M is team friendly, I hate to see what he was thinking about getting, $10M?

"They know Z is done which is why Larkin got the team-friendly deal, but $6.1 is not team-friendly"

7 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

Ok then, so I guess saying it isn't team friendly, especially if Z plays, each time I address this with you is not maintaining my position on it, then okie dokie. What's next, when Z is done, I never maintained that opinion all summer long either?

Whether or not Larkin's contract is team-friendly or not is not at all tied to Zetterberg's status on the team.

Just like Abdelkader's contract did not become more team-friendly when we traded off tatar, or Ericsson's when we traded off Smith.

 

[LeftWinger 5,152]

Yep, you just don't get it. Talk over...

[LeftWinger 5,152]

42 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Again, this assumes you think both Larkin and Holland are absolute morons. Keep pretending term does not matter. Those salaries are not the same no matter how you slice it.

"They know Z is done which is why Larkin got the team-friendly deal, but $6.1 is not team-friendly"

Whether or not Larkin's contract is team-friendly or not is not at all tied to Zetterberg's status on the team.

Just like Abdelkader's contract did not become more team-friendly when we traded off tatar, or Ericsson's when we traded off Smith.

 

This is all just your opinion. Much like we all have our own. Plus as always, you like to cherry pick words and leave out the ones that don't support your opinion. Even everything you have quoted shows that I have said the same thing since the signing and have not flip flop as you have suggested. IMO, if Z was 100% playing, hands down the cap hit would have been smaller. Period. That is being team friendly. Since its obvious they waited to find out more of Z's mindset before the contract, Larkin got the larger cap hit, which will be essentially a wash of Z's LTIR, thus STILL leaving lots of room for the three kids. Now, if Z somehow miraculously plays, these cap hits are NOT team friendly, and that would be Holland's fault.

Quote

“It’s got to make sense for the team as well as myself,” Larkin said. “I don’t want to be a burden on the cap or for the team. I really want to do something that — obviously it’s my future, when I want to have a family later in life, it’s something that can be pretty significant — but I also want to win and I want to be on a team that can have good players and can be competitive.

Exceeding the cap with the assumption Zetterberg is playing, thus not allowing the team to get better and be competitive and win, AND having to waive/trade players, is not team friendly. But if they waited to hear more of what Z's mindset was, then they knew they had a lot more cap available, thus settling on what is pretty much a wash of Z's cap, is team friendly. It all works together and matters on each other. I'm sorry if you cannot understand that.

Now, my side of this talk is over.

Edited August 25, 2018 by LeftWinger

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

40 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

Yep, you just don't get it. Talk over...

lol "talk over"

NINE minutes later....

31 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

This is all just your opinion. Much like we all have our own. Plus as always, you like to cherry pick words and leave out the ones that don't support your opinion. Even everything you have quoted shows that I have said the same thing since the signing and have not flip flop as you have suggested. IMO, if Z was 100% playing, hands down the cap hit would have been smaller. Period. That is being team friendly. Since its obvious they waited to find out more of Z's mindset before the contract, Larkin got the larger cap hit, which will be essentially a wash of Z's LTIR, thus STILL leaving lots of room for the three kids. Now, if Z somehow miraculously plays, these cap hits are NOT team friendly, and that would be Holland's fault.

Exceeding the cap with the assumption Zetterberg is playing, thus not allowing the team to get better and be competitive and win, AND having to waive/trade players, is not team friendly. But if they waited to hear more of what Z's mindset was, then they knew they had a lot more cap available, thus settling on what is pretty much a wash of Z's cap, is team friendly. It all works together and matters on each other. I'm sorry if you cannot understand that.

Now, my side of this talk is over.

No, it's literally not my opinion. Those really are two different salaries. And the "team-friendlyness" of player A's contract is not dependent on what player B's contract is. Zetterberg's move to LTIR does not make Ericsson or Abdelkader contracts anymore palatable, why would it Larkin's?

You're tripping over your own feet

 

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[LeftWinger 5,152]

You seem to be trippin.

If I were changing my story over and over, that would be tripping over my own feet. But, I've said the same thing from day 1 to now. That is not tripping.

BTW, 8 minutes.

Edited August 25, 2018 by LeftWinger

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

16 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

You seem to be trippin.

If I were changing my story over and over, that would be tripping over my own feet. But, I've said the same thing from day 1 to now. That is not tripping.

BTW, 8 minutes.

Are you actually gonna address any of my points? All you're doing is dodging

On 8/10/2018 at 9:08 AM, LeftWinger said:

Not team friendly At all. Thanks for the memories Zetterberg. Nearly exact cap hit as Z, so obvious he is done.

In the very same post you say Larkin's contract is not team friendly and that Z is done. Now you say it is team friendly and that Z is done. Flip-flopper.

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

11 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

$30M is $30M. Whether it be 5 yrs or 6 yrs. Thats all im saying. Cap hit. Same money, different term. Yes, AA and Mantha could've done the same with the extra year. That's my definition of being more team friendly to save cap space. I wouldnt be mentioning it ehen it comesto Larkin as much except for the fact that he himself had said he wants to give the team a friendly deal so they can be better and have flexibility. The only way taking the team over the cap, thus blocking any chance of having better players here, with this contract is team friendly is if they knew it's going to be a wash of Z's contract. For Larkin's worth, future worth to this team as C, he could very well be making over $7M AAV. So $6M is probably team friendly with them knowing Z is not playing. Then that gives them over $6M (with Franzen LTIR) to promote 3 or more kids. 

And to your question about Vanek. on July 1 i did say I felt both he and Bernier got a bit too much, as well as Green. So really its not just about Larkin's term.

No it's not. Playing an extra year for the same money is not the same. If your Boss told you he was going to pay you $500 for 6 days of work instead of 5 and then told you that $500 is $500 whether its 5 days or 6, would you do it? I hope not.

Which is exactly what he did, whether Z plays or not. 

No. His contract is "team friendly" because it's below market value, whether Z plays or not doesn't change this.

Yes this. Again Z has nothing to do with making his contract team friendly.

4 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

This is all just your opinion. Much like we all have our own. Plus as always, you like to cherry pick words and leave out the ones that don't support your opinion. Even everything you have quoted shows that I have said the same thing since the signing and have not flip flop as you have suggested. IMO, if Z was 100% playing, hands down the cap hit would have been smaller. Period. That is being team friendly. Since its obvious they waited to find out more of Z's mindset before the contract, Larkin got the larger cap hit, which will be essentially a wash of Z's LTIR, thus STILL leaving lots of room for the three kids. Now, if Z somehow miraculously plays, these cap hits are NOT team friendly, and that would be Holland's fault.

Exceeding the cap with the assumption Zetterberg is playing, thus not allowing the team to get better and be competitive and win, AND having to waive/trade players, is not team friendly. But if they waited to hear more of what Z's mindset was, then they knew they had a lot more cap available, thus settling on what is pretty much a wash of Z's cap, is team friendly. It all works together and matters on each other. I'm sorry if you cannot understand that.

Now, my side of this talk is over.

No it wouldn't. By your own admission, Larkin is already taking less than he could get. So why would he have to take an even smaller salary to be "team friendly"? And no, $30 million over 6 years is not the same salary as $30 million over 5. It's not an opinion.

No it's not "obvious".

1. Opinions are not "obvious".

2. The timing of Larkin's contract had nothing to do with Z or any other player. If it did, then why not wait until right before training camp to sign it. Wouldn't that give them a better idea of Z's health, or any other player for that matter. To me, this is the more "obvious" logic.

Why on earth would any player take less money to get rookies onto the roster? Don't players generally take less to get better players (older, more experienced, veterans) on the roster in order to make the team more competitive?

Nope. You admitted that Holland signed Larkin for less than he could have gotten. That means Holland did a good job on that contract whether Z plays or not, it's still a smart move.

Hello, Erik? Ken Holland here. We're interested in trading with Ottawa for your services this year and re-signing you to a long term contract. How does 9 million for 7 years sound? Oh, you think 10.5 is being generous? That is more than fair. You could probably get 12 in free agency, so 10.5 would be good value for sure. Here's the problem tho...If I don't get you to take 9, then I will have to trade or waive someone from my roster, so I'm afraid that 10.5 isn't a "team friendly" contract. I will have to pass. Thank you for your time tho.

Nope. We all understand what ur saying. I am not so sure that you do.

 

[LeftWinger 5,152]

[NerveDamage 4,176]

1 hour ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

No it's not. Playing an extra year for the same money is not the same. If your Boss told you he was going to pay you $500 for 6 days of work instead of 5 and then told you that $500 is $500 whether its 5 days or 6, would you do it? I hope not.

Which is exactly what he did, whether Z plays or not. 

No. His contract is "team friendly" because it's below market value, whether Z plays or not doesn't change this.

Yes this. Again Z has nothing to do with making his contract team friendly.

No it wouldn't. By your own admission, Larkin is already taking less than he could get. So why would he have to take an even smaller salary to be "team friendly"? And no, $30 million over 6 years is not the same salary as $30 million over 5. It's not an opinion.

No it's not "obvious".

1. Opinions are not "obvious".

2. The timing of Larkin's contract had nothing to do with Z or any other player. If it did, then why not wait until right before training camp to sign it. Wouldn't that give them a better idea of Z's health, or any other player for that matter. To me, this is the more "obvious" logic.

Why on earth would any player take less money to get rookies onto the roster? Don't players generally take less to get better players (older, more experienced, veterans) on the roster in order to make the team more competitive?

Nope. You admitted that Holland signed Larkin for less than he could have gotten. That means Holland did a good job on that contract whether Z plays or not, it's still a smart move.

Hello, Erik? Ken Holland here. We're interested in trading with Ottawa for your services this year and re-signing you to a long term contract. How does 9 million for 7 years sound? Oh, you think 10.5 is being generous? That is more than fair. You could probably get 12 in free agency, so 10.5 would be good value for sure. Here's the problem tho...If I don't get you to take 9, then I will have to trade or waive someone from my roster, so I'm afraid that 10.5 isn't a "team friendly" contract. I will have to pass. Thank you for your time tho.

Nope. We all understand what ur saying. I am not so sure that you do.

 

didn't read

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

3 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

I see two paths forward:

Either stick to your guns that Larkin's contract is not team-friendly (regardless of Zberg's contract).

Or admit that you've changed your mind, i.e. Larkin's contract is pretty fair/normal (regardless of Zberg's contract)

I won't burn you for either, I'd be happy just to move the discussion on with some rationalism.

Let's stick to the facts moving forward. This made up business about Larkin taking less if X had occurred is completely unsubstantiated and isn't growing the discussion at all.

[LeftWinger 5,152]

What I find ironic is you talking about growing the discussion, yet not accepting the fact that I've maintained the same stance this entire time.

We have no "facts" only our opinion of what was negotiated and how and why. I've stated my opinion many times, it's not going to change. I didnt once try to tell you that your opinion is wrong or try to prove to you why mine is right. I simply, over and over, stated why i came to my opinion. You dont agree, that's great, I said in one of my many posts that I understand your point, so really there is only one path going forward, drop it and stop making yourself look like a baiting troll.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

16 hours ago, NerveDamage said:

didn't read

My fonts are beautiful. Get with the times man. The world isn't just black and white anymore.

[NerveDamage 4,176]

48 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

My fonts are beautiful. Get with the times man. The world isn't just black and white anymore.

the font is not the problem, yellow lettering on a white background is an eff you to our retinas. I appreciate your effort, thou.

just black?

 

[joesuffP 1,746]

 

[kipwinger 8,766]

9 minutes ago, joesuffP said:

 

I like it.  Give AA the reps and see what he's got.  Maybe it'll force him to commit to playing a full game.  If not, you can always move him back to the wing. 

 

[Dabura 12,232]

34 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I like it.  Give AA the reps and see what he's got.  Maybe it'll force him to commit to playing a full game.  If not, you can always move him back to the wing.

Agreed.

If it doesn't work, maybe you try Rasmussen at center.

[kipwinger 8,766]

I mean, with Zetterberg done it's basically a throw away season as it is so I don't see a problem in trying anyone who factors into your future plans at center.  I genuinely couldn't be happier about this.  It gives a couple of kids some much needed minutes, and still ensures we'll essentially be a lottery team.  One more year of solid drafting and I'll feel very good about our future (I actually do already). 

Edited August 26, 2018 by kipwinger

[Dabura 12,232]

10 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I mean, with Zetterberg done it's basically a throw away season as it is so I don't see a problem in trying anyone who factors into your future plans at center.  I genuinely couldn't be happier about this.  It gives a couple of kids some much needed minutes, and still ensures we'll essentially be a lottery team.  One more year of solid drafting and I'll feel very good about our future (I actually do already). 

I hear that.

I'm ready for the post-Zetterberg era. Bring it on.

[kipwinger 8,766]

We're positioned to have a really big draft again next season and we're already pretty stacked prospect-wise.  If I'm Holland I'm content to be mediocre this season, have a huge draft, and slowly replace older guys with up and comers via attrition.  Next offseason we lose Frk, Vanek, Nyquist, Kronwall, Jensen, and Witko.  Year after its Green, Ericsson, Daly.  And that's without trades.  All Kenny needs to do is draft well, stay the course, and be a lottery team this coming year and we're back in the thick of things. 

And finally, FINALLY, the glory days Red Wings will be behind us and we can get on to being a modern hockey team. 

[Dabura 12,232]

5 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

We're positioned to have a really big draft again next season and we're already pretty stacked prospect-wise.  If I'm Holland I'm content to be mediocre this season, have a huge draft, and slowly replace older guys with up and comers via attrition.  Next offseason we lose Frk, Vanek, Nyquist, Kronwall, Jensen, and Witko.  Year after its Green, Ericsson, Daly.  And that's without trades.  All Kenny needs to do is draft well, stay the course, and be a lottery team this coming year and we're back in the thick of things. 

And finally, FINALLY, the glory days Red Wings will be behind us and we can get on to being a modern hockey team. 

Yep. Holland himself has said that's the plan. He showed this past season that he's committed to steering the ship in that direction, so I've got very little to complain about re: the rebuild effort. I know a lot of folks think the Wings should be tanking hard and I get where they're coming from. But, right now, I'm fully on-board with the Holland plan. Like you said, give us one or two more drafts like the one we just had and we should be in a good place. I'm not expecting the team to be a powerhouse within the next three years, but I'm also not sold on all the talk of how the Wings are in for a very long and very painful rebuild.

Y'know what amuses me? Seeing every hockey pundit say the Wings are trapped in cap hell. Let's ignore the Zetterberg situation. Let's ignore all the money that's set to come off the books next summer and the summer after that. Let's ignore the fact that having a ton of cap space doesn't necessarily get you anywhere.

[kipwinger 8,766]

Yeah, it's a lazy argument.  You're only in "cap hell" if you're a team like Chicago who wants to win one or two more with your current core before rebuilding.  Cap constraints don't really matter for a team like Detroit because all the bad contracts will be off the books by the time we're ready to compete again. 

For a lot of lazy pundits, having bad contracts has become synonymous with "cap problems" when they aren't really the same thing.  Sure we've got bad contracts, but they're not really stopping of from doing anything we should be doing (re-signing our FAs, adding quality depth, integrating entry level contracts), so who cares?