Wishful thinking. Kopy will be on the 2nd line...
Stalberg on the 2nd line...
- LetsGoWings.com Forums
- → Viewing Profile: Likes: Buppy
BuppyMember Since 14 Feb 2009
Online Last Active Today, 03:32 PM
- Group Silver Booster
- Active Posts 2,060
- Profile Views 6,451
- Member Title Hall-of-Famer
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
Posted by Buppy on 17 August 2010 - 01:47 PM
I think 'other variables' was the premise.
Hitting is not the same as grit. Note that Philadelphia, which is a gritty team to the point of some here saying they were goonish, ranked 14th in hits.
Sure hitting has something to do with the other, but when people are wanting the Wings to be gritty, I don't think that means they're just wanting them to run around and hit guys more. If you look through any of the grit threads most of the talk isn't about hitting.
That blog is bad statistical analysis used to prove an idea the author already seemed to have in mind. If you asked anyone is there a direct correlation between hits and points, I think most people would say no.
He mentions some anomalies, but doesn't explain situations like with LA who was 2nd in hits and 27th in points in 2009, then only dropped three places to 5th in hits but jumped all the way up to 9th in points. There's too many other variables outside his oversimplified premise for it to mean anything.
It's not really a point that needed to be made, since as you said most people already know that hitting does not mean winning.
There may be a vocal crowd that preaches hitting an aggressiveness, but I think it's meant more in a 'play harder' way then a 'that's the key to victory' way, if you get my meaning. People also complain about turnovers, slowness, dumb penalties, missing open shots, etc. I'm sure if you asked people in Columbus what kind of players they'd want to add, more skill would be a priority. That doesn't mean they shouldn't expect their current players to play harder, finish their checks, clear the crease, etc... All in all, a pretty dumb article.
- ManLuv4Clears likes this
Posted by Buppy on 06 August 2010 - 05:31 AM
His one on one defense hasn't really ever been great, and has fallen off since the lockout took away his New Jersey-style grabbing, but he's generally sound positionally, skates and moves the puck well, and usually makes good decisions. He blocks shots, clogs passing and shooting lanes, has a pretty good stick, and can usually at least force people to the outside.
His defense has dropped significantly and his play with and without the puck in the defensive zone is abysmal. He is probably our 4th best defenseman with regards to overall ability. He is overrated by too many people.
He's a bit turnover prone and a little too old/small/weak to handle a fast/strong forward by himself. He's not a shutdown defender (even though he's used as one), but he's much better than abysmal. Much better than you give him credit for.
- Jasper84 likes this
Posted by Buppy on 04 August 2010 - 11:46 PM
Our team defense was very good last year. Maybe didn't seem like it without the offense we're used to having, but this year should help with that. Also, the possession game is a big key to our defense, and that should improve this year as well. I wouldn't say anything is missing.
Of course, you never pass up a chance to improve, and Pronger would be an improvement over Rafi, but he also has 6 more years (after this one) on his stupid contract. We do not want to be saddled with that.
Posted by Buppy on 03 August 2010 - 03:21 PM
According to which team does Modano still have it? To Dallas he is done with nothing left but Detorit there is still one more good year in him. Same situation but different name in Maltby. On one team he is done on another team he might provide something.
Modano's free love ran out in Dallas, as it seems Maltby's in Detroit. If Dallas is getting called out on how it treated Modano during this offseason then Detroit should get called out as well. People turn a blind eye depending on the name of a player. For Detroit to ask...well really demand that Maltby have shoulder surgery and possible end his career while on the IR then not have the decency to at least make him an offer is a slap in the face to Maltby.
Detroit pretty much tossing Maltby aside and forgetting about him is OK...but Modano getting tossed aside from Dallas is a no no. Which is it.. OK to walk away from a player that a GM thinks is done or be respectful and give him that 1 more year? That one more year to give him a chance to go out the way they want to.
One, it's not the name of the player, but their ability. Dallas surely doesn't think Modano is 'done'. (Or if they do, they're stupid) He scored 30 points in 59 games. They just decided to go in a different direction. Not sure anyone knows what direction that is, since they still apparently have an open forward spot and plenty of cap space, but...
Maltby, who has only twice in his career put up over 30 points (and never .5 ppg), hasn't scored more than 11 points in a season since the lockout. His last three years combined didn't match what Modano did last year. Given the two seasons prior to his last contract, the 3 year deal he got then was pretty generous, and that should have been more than sufficient for him to go out his own way. Sucks that all the injuries put us in such a bad spot last year, but well, s*** happens.
We can't just keep throwing contracts at players who have borderline NHLers for 5 straight seasons just because they've been here a long time. We have been more than loyal to Kirk, and as much as he might want to stay, he really has no right to any hard feelings.
Modano is not only still a pretty good player (better than half the Stars current roster), he was also a leader and face of the Stars/North Stars franchise for 20 years. They aren't up against the cap, nor have a roster full of superior talent. They basically replaced him with Adam Burish. He and his fans are perfectly justified in being a bit upset.
- EZBAKETHAGANGSTA likes this
Posted by Buppy on 02 August 2010 - 05:14 PM
It would have been tough, but Chicago could have fit Niemi in under the cap. This move makes it a little easier this year, but I'm not sure that it really improves their team (it could make them worse, if Turco continues to degrade). Apparently, there were some concerns about the future, since Niemi was awarded a one year deal and would have become UFA after this year. But I don't see how giving a one year deal to a 35 year old helps that situation.
Niemi had a very good rookie season, and overall his playoff performance was decent. With the bonus overage being just a one year thing, Chicago's cap situation next summer would be much better. With Seabrook and Brouwer the only other important FAs, keeping Niemi then wouldn't have been too hard.
Now they have to find another goalie next summer, and who knows what will be available. I think they're taking a big risk here for a pretty minor gain.
- wife-wings-pearl jam likes this
Posted by Buppy on 22 July 2010 - 11:56 PM
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.
- Z and D for the C likes this
Posted by Buppy on 21 July 2010 - 02:07 AM
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.
- dobbles likes this
Posted by Buppy on 20 July 2010 - 10:26 PM
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.
- Frozen-Man likes this
Posted by Buppy on 20 July 2010 - 03:24 PM
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.
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
Is a rather neat way of saying that violating the 'spirit of the law' is, in itself, against the rules.
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
Posted by Buppy on 20 July 2010 - 03:44 AM
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.
- dobbles likes this
Posted by Buppy on 19 July 2010 - 08:35 PM
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.
- EZBAKETHAGANGSTA likes this
Posted by Buppy on 19 July 2010 - 02:48 PM
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.
- Z and D for the C likes this