Rumors Thread

[Euro_Twins 4,476]

41 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Do you have this same "Athletetes are a bunch of rich babies who need to be crushed" attitude when it comes to lockouts as well?

Clearly those are one and the same... 

[kipwinger 8,524]

1 minute ago, Euro_Twins said:

Clearly those are one and the same... 

Didn't say they were.  I was asking.  You seemed to have a pretty strong opinion in favor of management against the worker and I asked if that applied to labor disputes as well?  I assumed that if you felt like they weren't "one and the same" that you'd explain why. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

19 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Didn't say they were.  I was asking.  You seemed to have a pretty strong opinion in favor of management against the worker and I asked if that applied to labor disputes as well?  I assumed that if you felt like they weren't "one and the same" that you'd explain why. 

He said players should be paid based on past performance, not how they might perform.

How did you get "pretty strong opinion in favor of managment against the worker" and "athletes are a bunch of rich babies who need to be crushed" from that?

Looney tunes

Edited November 14, 2018 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[The 91 of Ryans 3,015]

Yeah. I'm not sure what's going on here.............

[Euro_Twins 4,476]

1 hour ago, kipwinger said:

Didn't say they were.  I was asking.  You seemed to have a pretty strong opinion in favor of management against the worker and I asked if that applied to labor disputes as well?  I assumed that if you felt like they weren't "one and the same" that you'd explain why. 

I'll explain why I'm opposed to lockouts if you wish. Both players and teams are making record money, and the owners have gotten what they wanted out of the last 3 lockouts. I think they should just keep playing and not lock the league out squandering over money they've both been happy with. 

On your thought process about my clear opinion, I don't believe you understood me properly. I was saying players shouldn't be paid on what they may do in the future. If a guy scores 60 points a year his salary should be based on that. If he believes he's worth more, he should sign a short term deal for what he's worth now and prove he's worth more. Signing these kids to huge contracts right after their ELC has ended is crippling teams caps. I think holding out for months because you think you're worth more than you are is a self entitled millennial attitude (I'm unfortunately a millenial) and it sets a bad precedent If the gm caves to these costly demands. 

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

If I went to my boss and asked for a raise based on what I MIGHT later bring instead of what my current performance warrants, I would get a definitive "No". Only in Sports...

[Mckinley25 678]

1 hour ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

If I went to my boss and asked for a raise based on what I MIGHT later bring instead of what my current performance warrants, I would get a definitive "No". Only in Sports...

When you sign contracts that last many years it becomes increasingly necessary to anticipate production, more than it does in other professions.

[kipwinger 8,524]

20 minutes ago, Euro_Twins said:

I'll explain why I'm opposed to lockouts if you wish. Both players and teams are making record money, and the owners have gotten what they wanted out of the last 3 lockouts. I think they should just keep playing and not lock the league out squandering over money they've both been happy with. 

On your thought process about my clear opinion, I don't believe you understood me properly. I was saying players shouldn't be paid on what they may do in the future. If a guy scores 60 points a year his salary should be based on that. If he believes he's worth more, he should sign a short term deal for what he's worth now and prove he's worth more. Signing these kids to huge contracts right after their ELC has ended is crippling teams caps. I think holding out for months because you think you're worth more than you are is a self entitled millennial attitude (I'm unfortunately a millenial) and it sets a bad precedent If the gm caves to these costly demands. 

I'd argue that market disequilibrium works out for the teams just as often as it works out for the players.  Roman Josi has outperformed his contract for years. Off the top of my head Pacioretty, Letang, Klingberg, too. Tons of guys are on contracts that were signed before the reached the ceilings that everybody knew they were going to reach.  I don't see many teams rushing to make up that gap.  You can argue that Nylander isn't worth 8 million (which is a starting ask and not what anybody thinks he'll actually get), but it seems odd to argue that a hockey player's value should be determined by the quality of the games they've played without giving much weight to the quality of the games they will play in the future. 

Also, the economics of an NHL contract are not the same as the economics for most jobs anyway.  Most jobs don't have salary caps.  Most jobs are open ended and don't end after a finite period of time followed by a free agency period.  Hell, most workers aren't "retired" at 40 because they can no longer physically do their jobs.  As a result of these (and other factors), almost no player is getting paid exactly what they're worth at any given moment.  Instead, the hope is that they'll provide fair value over the life of the contract.

[Euro_Twins 4,476]

1 hour ago, kipwinger said:

I'd argue that market disequilibrium works out for the teams just as often as it works out for the players.  Roman Josi has outperformed his contract for years. Off the top of my head Pacioretty, Letang, Klingberg, too. Tons of guys are on contracts that were signed before the reached the ceilings that everybody knew they were going to reach.  I don't see many teams rushing to make up that gap.  You can argue that Nylander isn't worth 8 million (which is a starting ask and not what anybody thinks he'll actually get), but it seems odd to argue that a hockey player's value should be determined by the quality of the games they've played without giving much weight to the quality of the games they will play in the future. 

Also, the economics of an NHL contract are not the same as the economics for most jobs anyway.  Most jobs don't have salary caps.  Most jobs are open ended and don't end after a finite period of time followed by a free agency period.  Hell, most workers aren't "retired" at 40 because they can no longer physically do their jobs.  As a result of these (and other factors), almost no player is getting paid exactly what they're worth at any given moment.  Instead, the hope is that they'll provide fair value over the life of the contract.

Ya well most jobs don't pay millions either. And if I could have a guaranteed job for 6 years that's some damn good job security. Also if 8mil was a "starting ask" he would have negotiated and signed already. I don't see a chance in hell of him ever out producing 8mil a year. 6mil maybe, but 8 no way. 

[kipwinger 8,524]

35 minutes ago, Euro_Twins said:

Ya well most jobs don't pay millions either. And if I could have a guaranteed job for 6 years that's some damn good job security. Also if 8mil was a "starting ask" he would have negotiated and signed already. I don't see a chance in hell of him ever out producing 8mil a year. 6mil maybe, but 8 no way. 

Only if the Leafs' counter offer was reasonable.  By many accounts they've been lowballing him because they're up against the cap and also don't have money to sign him to a fair price this year and then do the same for Marner and Gardiner next off season.  There's also term to consider.  God only knows what's going on there. 

As far as him living up to the money, I'm not so sure.  If we take the age old maxim that you get a million bucks for every 10 points you put up (basically what Larkin got), that would make him worth about 6 million in his age 20 and 21 seasons.  So the question is whether Nylander hit his ceiling at 21, or whether he'll improve on that in a  significant way.  I don't think it's unreasonable to think that riding shotgun for Mathews or Tavares would net Nylander another 15-20 points or more as he moves into his prime. 

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

5 hours ago, Mckinley25 said:

When you sign contracts that last many years it becomes increasingly necessary to anticipate production, more than it does in other professions.

Agreed. Which is why I said "only in sports".

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

10 hours ago, Euro_Twins said:

I'll explain why I'm opposed to lockouts if you wish. Both players and teams are making record money, and the owners have gotten what they wanted out of the last 3 lockouts. I think they should just keep playing and not lock the league out squandering over money they've both been happy with. 

On your thought process about my clear opinion, I don't believe you understood me properly. I was saying players shouldn't be paid on what they may do in the future. If a guy scores 60 points a year his salary should be based on that. If he believes he's worth more, he should sign a short term deal for what he's worth now and prove he's worth more. Signing these kids to huge contracts right after their ELC has ended is crippling teams caps. I think holding out for months because you think you're worth more than you are is a self entitled millennial attitude (I'm unfortunately a millenial) and it sets a bad precedent If the gm caves to these costly demands. 

*Shocking*

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

9 hours ago, kipwinger said:

I'd argue that market disequilibrium works out for the teams just as often as it works out for the players.  Roman Josi has outperformed his contract for years. Off the top of my head Pacioretty, Letang, Klingberg, too. Tons of guys are on contracts that were signed before the reached the ceilings that everybody knew they were going to reach.  I don't see many teams rushing to make up that gap.  You can argue that Nylander isn't worth 8 million (which is a starting ask and not what anybody thinks he'll actually get), but it seems odd to argue that a hockey player's value should be determined by the quality of the games they've played without giving much weight to the quality of the games they will play in the future. 

Also, the economics of an NHL contract are not the same as the economics for most jobs anyway.  Most jobs don't have salary caps.  Most jobs are open ended and don't end after a finite period of time followed by a free agency period.  Hell, most workers aren't "retired" at 40 because they can no longer physically do their jobs.  As a result of these (and other factors), almost no player is getting paid exactly what they're worth at any given moment.  Instead, the hope is that they'll provide fair value over the life of the contract.

Do you have any openings at the dumbass company you're working at? I'd love to milk that.

"retty strong opinion in favor of managment against the worker" and "athletes are a bunch of rich babies who need to be crushed"

Edited November 15, 2018 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[krsmith17 7,191]

Howard for Raddysh, straight up.

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 minute ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

Unless Holland can get a 1st rounder or a blue chip prospect for Howard, he'd be an absolute idiot to not re-sign him.

If all Holland can get for Howard is a 3rd round draft pick, I think he should take it. I'd still re-sign him this summer regardless if he's traded or what he's traded for.

[krsmith17 7,191]

18 minutes ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

wtf is going on here?

@krsmith17 just quotes me before I posted?

The site is f***ed...

[LeftWinger 4,963]

2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Howard for Raddysh, straight up.

this is the good thing about Howard playing pretty well. Not that players getting injured is good, but there will be teams calling and we may get a little over-value for him, if Holland does not do that stupid thing and re-sign him before he gets some assets for him.

[The 91 of Ryans 3,015]

13 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

this is the good thing about Howard playing pretty well. Not that players getting injured is good, but there will be teams calling and we may get a little over-value for him, if Holland does not do that stupid thing and re-sign him before he gets some assets for him.

Unless Holland can get a 1st rounder or a blue chip prospect for Howard, he'd be an absolute idiot to not re-sign him.

 

[The 91 of Ryans 3,015]

wtf is going on here?

@krsmith17 just quotes me before I posted?

[The 91 of Ryans 3,015]

3 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

As someone who HATES the Maple Leafs, I would HATE this trade...

I would crawl under a rock with a box full of whisky. You wouldn't see or hear from me for like a decade. 

That being said, and I like MacKenzie, but I think this is just typical Toronto media over-valuing Nylander. IMO, Werinski > > lil willy

[krsmith17 7,191]

As someone who HATES the Maple Leafs, I would HATE this trade...

[LeftWinger 4,963]

4 hours ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

Unless Holland can get a 1st rounder or a blue chip prospect for Howard, he'd be an absolute idiot to not re-sign him.

 

I am not against re-signing him in the off season, or extending him after the TDL if he cannot trade him. But I hope that he explores all offers (if there are any) for Howard's services for a playoff run for a team in need of a goalie.  I hope that Holland doesn't offer him an extension like in December is what I meant.  We to to utilize his UFA status as a way to acquire more picks. Even if it's not a 1st. Only a desperate team would offer a 1st for Howard, in any normal trade he is just not worth it.

[LeftWinger 4,963]

IMO, if we're talking trade value for Werenski, it would be a lottery 1st rounder...again that is my opinion. Also my opinion that Panarin is NOT worth over $7M, $6.5M to $7M more reasonable, but not upwards of $8M+ .  That is why I would not want Yzerman to pursue him as a UFA.

If we win the lottery, I'd trade it to Columbus for Jones and Werenski and their 1st.  Yes, I am crazy, but that is about what it would take to get the #1 from me...something that large from ANY team.

 

[F.Michael 4,590]

1 hour ago, LeftWinger said:

IMO, if we're talking trade value for Werenski, it would be a lottery 1st rounder...again that is my opinion. Also my opinion that Panarin is NOT worth over $7M, $6.5M to $7M more reasonable, but not upwards of $8M+ .  That is why I would not want Yzerman to pursue him as a UFA.

If we win the lottery, I'd trade it to Columbus for Jones and Werenski and their 1st.  Yes, I am crazy, but that is about what it would take to get the #1 from me...something that large from ANY team.

 

If I were the GM of the Sens back when the drafted Daigle - there would be a bird poop stained statue of me.

Both the Habs, and Nords we’re offering up high end players for that 1 pick.

[kipwinger 8,524]

4 hours ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

I would crawl under a rock with a box full of whisky. You wouldn't see or hear from me for like a decade. 

That being said, and I like MacKenzie, but I think this is just typical Toronto media over-valuing Nylander. IMO, Werinski > > lil willy

I don't know man.  Werenski is a really good player, but so is Nylander.  Dude put up back to back 61 point seasons at 20 and 21 years old.  I don't think Columbus would trade Werenski, as they'd just be filling on hole and creating another.  But I could see trying to build a package around Panarin.  They're going to lose him anyway and Nylander would immediately become the Blue Jackets' best winger.