Buppy

No, I don't dislike them;

They're for the most part equal contributors offensively at this point, but Cleary is very injury prone and Flip somewhat.

Bolland is also the best defensive player of the three.

Bolland has had his own injury issues, but if I have to choose one or the other, I'm picking the healthy young guy right?

One serious injury in five NA seasons and Flip is 'somewhat injury prone'?

If anything, I'd be worried about Bolland's herniated disk that required surgical repair, since that's the kind of injury that could bother a player for their entire career. He's only two years younger than Flip too. Again, I have to ask, are you really referring to Dave Bolland? From Chicago?

It's like saying 'Man, I really wish Flip had a slightly higher cap hit' since they're pretty equal players.

No idea where this came from. I said the NHL is an industry, not a business entity. As for the rest of that sentance, what the hell were you reading?

Now you are duplicitous.  By definiton, you can't talk about just the sporting aspect if you are going to talk about resources devoted to players salaries.

Forgive me if I'm being unclear. I'll try to clarify.

I don't want to argue semantics, so I think we can agree that industry and business entity are similar enough terms. Both of us I think, were referring to the fact that the NHL and its member franchises generate significant revenue, and generally operate in a businesslike manner, having employees, customers, products, et al.

I inferred that your comment on the NHL industry was a counter to my own assertion of the fact that we're talking about a game. The intent seemingly to suggest that the salary cap restricts the ability of the Wings to operate as a business. But you followed that up with an example only of how the cap restricts the Wings in respect to the sporting competition.

I then took each aspect of NHL/team operation separately to try to illustrate that the cap is not really a socialist policy in respect to either aspect. I then commented later in the post that you can't totally separate the two. In case you missed it: "...you can't totally separate the game aspect from the business either. So the cap must be considered in the complete terms. An arbitrary rule governing competition in a sporting league, which does not appear to impact the earning power of member franchises, nor restrict in any way outside of league competition the freedom of those franchises to 'reap their fruits'.

I contend that the cap is a 'competition' rule, in that it's sole restriction is on the amount of money that can be spent on player salaries. The salary cap places no limits on what the Wings can do otherwise to promote, increase the value of, or generate revenue from, their product. Nor does it restrict any other ways in which Illitch or the Wings organization can spend their profits. And while I admit the cap can have an adverse effect on the quality of the on ice product and thus potentially be impactful from a business perspective, that effect is outweighed by the positive benefits gained from membership in the NHL. Therefore, I conclude that there is nothing 'socialist' about it. It is simply a rule, very much like all the others, governing the manner in which teams are to compete in the NHL.

You seem to be laboring under the pretense that all rules are socialist. But without those rules, we wouldn't have a game. There would be no product for the NHL and its members to promote and sell. We obviously need some rules. The primary purpose being to regulate fair competition. But the existance of another rule designed to increase the number of viable competitors is not unfair at all. Everyone has the same limit, it is a fair rule of competition.

The draft is a better example of a socialist rule, since it is not a fair practice. But personally, I dislike the idea of luck being such a factor in draft position, though it would be more fair. I enjoy the parity and level of competition in the league, and thus I think the draft as it is is good for the league.

Wasn't a huge fan of this deal, but It bothers me that the league is invalidating this deal by a subjective standard and has not made clear what they see this standard as.  Of course the deal violates the so-called "spirit" of the cap, but I don't see how you could say it does so anymore than any of the other deals.  If the NHL has a problem with these deals, it should wait for the next cba.

Well, that's just it. The Kovy deal was worse in every way than any of the others. Longer, took him to a later age, more 'garbage' years, less money in those years, greater cap reduction as a result...like someone said in another discussion: pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

A line has apparently been drawn, and it's somewhere between Luongo's deal and Kovy's. Or maybe Hossa's and Kovy's since goalies often have separate standards. Probably should have done it sooner, even with Lecavalier (I think he was the first to get a deal like this), but better late than never.

Yet, you cry for more regulation, not less.  You want to close even more aspects of the market, not open them.  Who are you to tell NJ how to spend their money?  What's it to you if they sign him until he's 34, 44, or 54? (In retrospect, Illitch could have saved quite a bit of money with a long term Chelios deal and put that money somewhere else!)

If that's a risk NJ is willing to take, then who are you to ask for more impedance on their sovereignty as a business entity?

NJ has had a great franchise for many years, and cannot reap the fruits of their own labor, the rewards they deserve for their hard work.  Instead, they have to give their hard earned money to ill concieved, unorganized franchises in rediculous southern markets, and are only allowed to spend what a governning body has centrally planned they can spend.

Yet, this doesn't satisfy you. You want to impose more rules on business owners and how they can go about acguiring their assests.  

Central planning and overegulation.  I repeat; Spoken like a true Socialist.

What a ridiculous post.

It is hardly socialist to expect NJ to comly with the rules that all teams have agreed to operate under.

But even further, I question the assertion that the cap itself is socialist.

Remember that we are talking about a game here. A sport, nothing more. A competition between teams conducted within a very specific set of standards and regulations. The cap is no more socialist than practice restrictions, PED regulations, roster limits, rink standards, scheduling rules, game length, player aquisition, or any of the myriad rules governing play and operation of the competing teams. It is simply a rule governing the resources that can be spent on players.

While an argument could be made that the cap (and moreso, revenue sharing) is socialist in the business aspect of the NHL, it is not a limit on how much money or profit a team can make. Furthermore, an argument could be made that belonging to the league (as opposed to operating independently) provides more benefit to any single team than any single team provides to the league, so operating under league rules is a small price to pay for membership. And also that increased parity in the league, and the associated rise in popularity, allows a well-managed team operating under a cap to do just as well or even better financially than one without a cap. The fact that league revenues are at all-time highs, and that the Wings'revenues have increased by over $30 million from 03-04 to 08-09 (and I think that's even after revenue sharing) makes that a pretty strong argument.

I don't like the cap, but I freely admit that it's only because otherwise the Wings would have an advantage over almost all other teams. I would prefer a soft cap with a tax system to replace revenue sharing. But I have to admit that the cap is by all appearances good for the league.

There is nothing enforcably wrong with what Lamo did.  Like J.T. says, he totally followed the letter of the law, if not the spirit of the law.  And until the letter of the law and the spirit of the law are the same, a GM would be irresponsible to not do the same because the bold GMs will and the conservative GMs will be left behind.
http://habsloyalist.blogspot.com/2010/07/letter-of-law.html

Two things here. One, you nor anyone else here knows if he followed the letter of the law or not. If there was an unwritten agreement (probably not) or (more likely) a predetermined plan to somehow dispose of Kovy before the contract is fulfilled in its entirety, then he has in fact broken the letter of the law, which strictly forbids both actions.

Also this: 26.3 (a) from the CBA

No Club or Club Actor, directly or indirectly, may: (i) enter into any
agreements, promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements,
assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind, whether express, implied, oral or
written, including without limitation, any SPC, Qualifying Offer, Offer Sheet or other
transaction, or (ii) take or fail to take any action whatsoever, if either (i) or (ii) is intended
to or has the effect of defeating or Circumventing the provisions of this Agreement or the
intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement

Is a rather neat way of saying that violating the 'spirit of the law' is, in itself, against the rules.

Its too late for them to do that IMO. They let everyone else have their long contract's and some with a history of getting injured. If they try to do something about his contract then they would have to do something about every one of these 10+ year contracts.

Not really. The league can reject (or nullify at a later time, even if the deal is initially approved) any contract deemed to be a circumvention of the cap. But there isn't any specific definition of what constitutes circumvention. There is this, Section 26.13 (b) from the CBA:

The System Arbitrator may find a Circumvention has occurred based on
direct or circumstantial evidence, including without limitation, evidence that an SPC or
any provision of an SPC cannot reasonably be explained in the absence of conduct
prohibited by this Article 26. The investigation and findings of the Investigator pursuant
to Section 26.10 shall be fully admissible in any proceeding before the System Arbitrator
under this Section 26.13.

That would seem to provide all the latitude necessary for the league to decide that a 17-year deal for a player who would be 44 at its conclusion can not be explained reasonably without considering it an attempt to avoid the Upper Limit, and/or an unwritten agreement (both of which are specifically prohibited). A line has to be drawn somewhere. Exactly where is somewhat arbitrary. Could be length of the deal, degree of front-loading, age of the player, etc.

There's nothing that specifically prevents 50 or 60 year deals either, but I think we'd all agree that offering a player a contract until they're 84 would be a clear case of circumvention. 84 is just an arbitrary number, there isn't any absolute guarantee that Kovy couldn't play that long. In all the history of the NHL there have been only 7 fewer 84 year-olds as there have been 44 year-olds. Pretty small difference, relatively speaking. No matter where the arbitrary number is (if age was the factor) there would be a line where age X is ok, but age X+1 isn't. They could easily, just for the sake of simplicity, say 43 is far enough.

I don't have a problem with this at all. Detroit utilized it with two of their players. I don't see why people would be bothered by this when Holland's done it as well.

It's a matter of degrees. See my 50-60 year example above. Also look at the effect of the 'garbage' years. All three deal are structured similar. Front loaded to pay out over 95% of the salary in the first 11, 10, and 9 years respectively for Kovy, Hank, and Mule. Coincidentally, that is when all three players turn 38. After that, all three see their salary drop to $1 million or less.

For Franzen and Zetterberg, each has two years at $1M, reducing their cap hits by around $650k for Frazen, and slightly over $1M for Hank. Kovy has 6 years paying a total of $3.5M, reducing his cap hit by nearly $3 million!

That said, I wouldn't really care if they did nullify our deal, provided we get a period of exclusivity in which to renegotiate. If it meant stopping the nonsense I'd be ok with it. If they let this one go, what are they going to do next year when Parise gets the 22 year deal NJ would need in order to afford him.

Who cares if it's a loop hole? The team is still taking a gamble. What if Kovy wants to play till he's 44 to get every dollar but he sucks after he's 37, he's eating up a lot of cap space at that point. Stop being so bitter, it's NJ's problem not ours.

There's really not that much risk. If he starts to suck, NJ could just send him to the minors. He'd already have 95% of the salary, so he probably wouldn't care and would just go to Russia anyway, but even if he didn't NJ is still off the hook for the cap hit.

Ya think Zetterberg is gonna play til he is 41 or Hossa til he is 43?  f*** NO.

Zetterberg will be 40 in his final year (as will Franzen and Lecavalier). Hossa and Pronger will each be 42. Luongo will turn 43. Kovy will turn 44 in his final year. These deals keep getting more and more ridiculous.

It's pretty rare for players to reach 40, with only around 60-70 players in history doing so. (It is getting a bit more common though, about 20 of those from the past decade.) I think it's under 20 have played at 42. Only like 7 players in history have made it to 44.

And 6 garbage years tacked on at basically league minimum. It's such a clear attempt at circumvention they should remove Lamoriello from the HHOF. If the league doesn't step in here and deny this deal, they should just get rid of the cap altogether. I'd expect a 20+ year deal for Parise next year.

The best is when he turns 38 he can go get a 15 million dollars a year contract in the KHL. rolf



Only problem with this, players would never get multiyear deals then when they approach 40.  That is unfair to players because then they would have to take one year deals where if they get hurt they lose all opportunity to make money.

Multi-year contracts for players over 35 already count towards the cap for the duration of the deal. Modifying that rule to extend to these long-term deals wouldn't hurt anyone besides the GMs trying to circumvent the cap.

That's exactly it.  Don't act like I am bitter when I had no problem with Hossa leaving and would have enjoyed having him stay on the team, especially last year.

And I wouldn't consider it a homer bias if I had said these same things when Hossa was here (which I did) and am more of a fan of Hossa than I am Datsyuk (which I am).

Significantly better?  The guy has done significantly WORSE.

Because I judge Datsyuk as an elite all around player and not just a playmaker.  Unless you disagree and consider Hossa to be primarily an assist man?

And when it comes down to it Hossa does worse when it comes to producing goals, the thing that he was supposed to do on Detroit as a WINGER.  The last two years he was solid defensively but was not a great offensive contributor.  Datsyuk in 09 was not having a good year (funny how you ignore that I mention that) offensively but did very well on a struggling Detroit team in the playoffs.

1.  There is a difference between bias and bitterness.  You can argue bias with me but don't say "oh you are bitter" without anything to show for it, especially when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
2. I never said Hossa was a choker, just a weaker playoff player than Datsyuk.  And especially weaker than Franzen, the man who Holland essentially picked in front of him.  Money well spent in my opinion.

No one is disputing that, but I don't see how that will help when Hossa is having trouble scoring goals in the playoffs.  Especially with a team that relied soley on its depth to win the cup in the first place.

Well, I'm not going to dig through all your old posts to nail down your every opinion. Your comments (and the other comments from other posters) that I was responding to in this thread strike me as biased and bitter. I'm sorry if that offends you. I guess I expect someone accumstomed to the internet to show a little thicker skin. Oh well.

And to clarify some points:

You mentioned that Hossa had only once scored more than .5 gpg in the playoffs. My repsonse was that that is an unfair standard. It is unfair because for one .5 gpg is significantly higher than his career regular-season average of .436, and also because it completely ignores his other contributions. My comment on Datsyuk's assists was an example of how you were unfairly judging Hossa. Hossa, like Datsyuk, is an elite all-around player. He does more, much more, than just score goals.


And I didn't ignore your comment on Datsyuk performance in '09. I only bothered to address it indirectly because you also added an excuse for it immediately after the comment. It seems you cannot say anything bad about Datsyuk without immediately following up with a mitigating compliment or excuse, and cannot say anything good about Hossa without a follow-up criticism. Now that it seems that isn't working out, you take the argument further afield by bringing up Franzen...for what purpose beyond criticizing Hossa?

'Bitterness' does not necessarily mean you wanted him to stay. That can also stem from blaming him for our loss in the Finals. Or it could just mean an extra bias against him for choosing Chicago, or just being a former Wing, even if you accept that it wasn't feasible to keep him. I think there is plenty of evidence that you an others in this thread are judging Hossa by a notably specific standard in order to purposefully paint him as negatively as you can. To me, it seems a bit more than simple bias. Motivated bias I would say. Again, sorry if that offends you.

And one more time I'll say that I was not comparing Datsyuk and Hossa. I agree that Datsyuk is a better player. The point was that Datsyuk does not score as well in the playoffs as he does in the regular season. Someone was suggesting that Hossa was not a very valuable player because his scoring drops in the playoffs. I contend that that is no more true than it is in regards to Datsyuk, who ,statistically, struggles even more in the scoring department. So someone did indeed dispute Hossa's value, stating something to effect of 'Kane-Toews and not much else' and dismissing Hossa's value pretty much entirely. That's how this debate got started in the first place.

But I do notice once again your inability to allow something that might reflect favorably on Hossa to pass without an associated criticism. Yeah, you obviously don't have anything against the guy.

If you can't have a discussion about a subject without attempting to attack another person's character then don't bother responding to me.

I also believe Datsyuk underacheived in the 09 playoffs, but had a cup hangover and TWO great playoffs (not even including 07) to show for himself.  Hossa has had one playoff year in which he scored at least .5 gpg and that was with a 100 point superstar playmaker to center him.

Wait...I'm attacking someone's character by suggesting they are bitter over Hossa leaving or claiming they have a homer bias?

And now for Hossa to have a successful playoff he has to score goals at a significantly better rate than he has in his career regular season? Seems a little unfair of a standard. Pav has averaged 0.65 apg in his career regular season. He's never once managed that rate in the playoffs, much less exceeded it. Why doesn't that matter to you?

You're full of excuses to explain away Pav's scoring troubles. I'm sure someone who cared could do the same for Hossa. But they won't give you a Cup for having a good enough excuse. Neither player scores as well in the playoffs as they do in the regular season. That is an indisputable fact.

That you can't make that simple admission without couching it in excuses, while simultaneously refusing to even consider the possibility that Hossa is anything other than a playoff choker is just plain biased. I'm sorry if that offends your character, but that's what it is.

My original assertion was that Hossa is one piece giving chicago a very good top 6 forward unit. I stand by that.

More than likely because the guy has loyalty to the organization for so many years and just does so many different things for us as Hossa just leeches for a Cup. Hey, its a little more honest I suppose. We love Pav.

I don't remember anyone criticizing Hossa for being a leech or mercenary when he came to Detroit. Well, except Penguin fans. Wonder why that is...

Well shouldn't Hossa have played close to his potential considering the amount of motivation and rest the guy had in comparison to his peers (Datsyuk had been in a WCF and SCF the previous two years while Hossa played a whopping 4 games in the 07 playoffs).  Datsyuk at least had the excuse of complacency and fatigue from winning a cup the year prior and playing almost two full post-season runs.

Datsyuk has been over a ppg twice the last 3 playoffs. Hossa has once while playing with the best player in the world as his centerman. All the while Datsyuk is much better defensively and one playoff was playing with a very bad charlie horse iirc.

Datsyuk is not as big of a choker in playoffs as Hossa is especially when you take into account the last 3 years, Hossa has played with the team he think will win the cup and should've been by far and away teh best player on the ice, but he hasn't been. Not even close

Datsyuk's numbers were driven down by his injury during the '06 playoffs and by the team's general inability to get pucks past Michelin Man in '03. They were further reduced by his injury last playoff season. Datsyuk was healthy in '07 and '08, and he was nigh-unstoppable in those playoffs; he was also quite good in this past April-May.

This is what I'm talking about. You'll all make any excuse in the world to explain Datsyuk's scoring troubles in the playoffs, but in Hossa's case the only possible explanation you'll consider is 'lazy and sucks'. You even deny him credit for his best season, attributing all his success to Crosby. The bitterness is obvious, even a little funny.

It seems pretty obvious to me that Hossa'a slide is much worse than Datsyuk's slide. Doesn't mean that you have to agree. Personally, I'm glad Hossa isn't on the Wings. Despite your repeated attempts to make them equal. As far as I'm concerned, he was paid way too much to get knocked on his ass repeatedly. Again, you don't have to agree. Maybe a multi-million dollar, back-checking mercenary is worth as much as homegrown magician to you. Free country. But I wonder which player would impact the Wings more by being out of the lineup? Pretty sure you know the answer to that.

When's the last time Datsyuk almost cost his team a very important (basically life and death) playoff game with a selfish decision?

And it's pretty obvious to me that you have an irrational dislike for Hossa because he left. There were a lot of factors for our loss in the finals two years ago. But you just want to make Hossa the scapegoat because he left. You don't have to admit it.

Datsyuk, statistically speaking, is relatively worse in the playoffs. That's a simple fact. My original response was to someone saying that no one else came close to Hossa's drop-off from regular to post season. I pointed out someone who is not just close but in fact worse.

I was never comparing Datsyuk to Hossa. I was comparing their relative drops in production. You're the one that wants to make it a "who's better" argument. Both players score less in the playoffs. That is a simple, undeniable fact. That is all I was saying.

Now you just want to jump in and say something bad about Hossa, while exempting Datsyuk from criticism for exactly the same thing. That's what makes you a homer and bitter little cry ass over Hossa leaving. But whatever, free country.

I would rather not, considering Datsyuk is paid to be an elite defensive playmaker, and Hossa is paid to be an elite defensive goal scorer.  Which of those have you seen more of the past three years?

Sure I would love to have Hossa on this team, but the guy was unable to produce offensively for Detroit and Chicago.  Also considering he has had much more to play for than virtually all of his teammates the past two years.

Datsyuk has averaged nearly 30 goals a year over the past 6 seasons. He's much more than just a playmaker. Likewise, Hossa is more than just a goal scorer, averaging over 40 assists for his last 6 seasons. Both are paid to be elite two-way players. That's what they both are, but both struggle some scoring in the playoffs compared to their regular seasons. Over the past three years I'd say they're pretty close to even.

It doesn't take a genius a simply watch both players and see that Datsyuk is the more reliable player. Numbers aside, Datsyuk is simply better in almost every category. Especially in the playoffs. Hossa is on is ass swimming 10X more than Datsyuk.

Accusing people of being "jilted-lover-cry-ass-Penguin-fans" just because they acknowledge that Datsyuk is obviously the better playoff performer in recent years is silly. It just makes you sound like a jilted-cry-ass-Hossa-fan.

Yes, Datsyuk is a better overall player. That wasn't the point. The point was that Datsyuk also struggles to score in the playoffs relative to his regular season production. That is an undeniable fact. It is also a fact that his relative struggles are even worse than Hossa's. As is often said about Hossa, he's paid to produce and he hasn't. Yes, he contributes in other ways, but so does Hossa.

You saying that Datsyuk has been obviously better, and the double standard of praising Datsyuks non-scoring contributions while ignoring Hossa's is what makes me call you a jilted lover. You're a blatant homer. You're mad at Hossa because he left. If Datsyuk had left you'd be saying the same things about him.

Minus his 2002 season as a rookie on the third line his ppg is much better.

Their last three years:

Datsyuk ppg: 264/244 1.08 45/50 .9
Hossa's ppg: 188/203 .92 56/64 .875

He still has been at almost a ppg pace the last three years despite his poor 09 post-season.  This coming off a great cup win giving him two total for the career.  Hossa was without a cup, signed a one year deal in order to get that same cup, scored 40 goals in the regular season, and talked about wanting a long term deal while playing against his former team.  He severely underacheieved and in the goal scoring department suffered as well.

Also considering Datsyuk has been able to perform brilliantly offensively without 100+ point playmakers centering him (which was Hossa's only ppg post-season), I would say he is a bit more reliable in the playoffs than Hossa.

And there's still a bigger difference between Datsyuk's regular and playoff performance. And while Datsyuk does do things other than score, so does Hossa. Stop acting like a bunch of jilted-lover-cry-ass-Penguin-fans about Hossa. Both struggle scoring in the playoffs compared to the regular season. Both contribute a lot in other areas; defensively, creating opportunities, and pressuring the opposition. Both are elite players, and any team would love to have either one of them.

...

Before you say that most players numbers drop in the playoffs, look at other players numbers.  Nobody comes close...

Datsyuk
Regular season:
592 points, 606 games: .977 ppg
Playoffs:
76 points, 110 games: .691 ppg

So we are assuming that if Franzen hadn't touched the puck, Datsyuk still would have got it and made something happen? Interesting logic.

Mule earned every point he got.

Depends on your definition of 'earned'.

Personally, I think the title of 'best player in the playoffs' requires a little more than one incredible game. He was good, but nothing special for the majority of his shifts. Pav and Hank both had more impact than he did, and Flip, Nick, Jimmy, and Stuie were all pretty close.