Jump to content

Buppy's Photo


Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 11:53 PM

#2330542 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Buppy on 02 October 2012 - 11:51 PM

...Once again, we don't know what would have happened with more time because we don't have it today. Its easy to dismiss this claim as a mere formality, but the simple fact of the matter is that with more time, this lockout could have been avoided. We don't know for sure one way or the other, ...

So you mean the PA could be partially to blame?

...As it turned out, we all saw two sides that were monumentally greedy. ...

I hate it when people talk about greed.

Would any of you walk up to a player on the street and demand that they give you $1 million, or $23 million from an owner, or half that from one of each? Would you label them greedy bastards if they refused? Aren't we as fans being just as greedy in demanding to be entertained regardless of what either side would have to give up? Their greed doesn't bother me in the slightest. I only expect them to be reasonable, and for owners to take some responsibility for their poor business decisions and lack of foresight.

#2330310 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Buppy on 29 September 2012 - 10:59 AM

I have to agree with you. Negotiating a CBA involves taking the best proposals from each side and taking small steps forward and meeting in the middle somewhere. As has been said in this thread, two sides whom have a good rapport with each other could hammer out a CBA in 2 hours. Fehr went down on his initial proposal, the NHL did not.

Now you mention that Fehr has went down on each and every proposal since the initial one, to which I am going to call you out on because there has been no evidence that Fehr has done that. There has been plenty of discussion on the initial proposals, but each subsequent proposal has not been shared in the level of depth that would bring me to conclude what you are saying. I asked for some sources from you, which you have not been able to reveal. Hell, it would be nice to hear about the subsequent proposals from the NHL as well because I have heard the NHL has come down from their unfair initial proposals with each subsequent proposal. I don't know if that is true or not though, as nothing has been revealed in the press.

One thing is certain, the NHLPA has a much more fair proposal initially. The NHL has got to back down from these crazy demands and offer something that is much more fair. Meet in the middle so to speak.

Ok, I call bullcrap on that. Bargaining is all about ping pong. The NHL said it gave ground in one of its counterproposals, to which I don't know if that is true or not. But, if true, why isn't the NHLPA giving ground? Or, is the problem more likely a disconnect or lack of trust?

I think another full season is a possibility. Both sides have got to work together to make it happen. So far, I just don't get the impression that they want to work together.

FYI: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405739 is the PAs second (and most recent) proposal. Details of the first were never all that clear, but it seems the first three years were very similar (maybe identical), but the first had a 4th year at 57% instead of the two years described in that link.

The owners initial offer was well documented, their second was reportedly mostly the same, but changed the players share to 46%. Their last offer has few details, other than it was "simplified". Revenue split is also given in the link above. However, according to Bettman, that offer was taken off the table when the lockout started so the details don't really matter.

The PA has made two proposals. The 2nd was around ~2% less than the first. (Hard to say for sure, since the players are asking for a set $ amount rather than a set %. The % will depend on actual growth.)

The owners have made 3 proposals. The last around 5% higher than the first, though really it was the only one that was at least somewhat realistic. Also, it is supposed to be off the table now.

#2330061 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Buppy on 25 September 2012 - 11:31 PM

I think a fair and equitable agreement could be made at 52% for the players and 48% for the owners on the core economics side of things.

I would like to know why you think that I expect the players to keep giving and giving until the owners agree? I have said numerous times that there is room for both sides to give something in these negotiations. The ownership can easily give back to the players just as much as the players can give back to the owners. Its not that hard to see that concessions can be made and they don't have to all come from one side.

Ok, so you think 52% would be fair. One would assume then that if the players were to propose that figure (and also agree to all the non-financial aspects proposed by the owners), and the owners refuse, you would change your stance and consider the owners to be wholly at fault for the continuing lockout.

Would that mean you would then have your head up the PAs ass, or you're some mindless sycophant blindly toeing the party line? You know, the same petty insults you want to hurl at everyone with a different opinion than yours.

By the way, if revenues were to grow at around 7.5%, the players proposal would work out to about 52%. And in any proposal, looked at from the perspective of where they were in the last CBA, ALL concessions are being made by the players. (Or at most, players might get a higher minimum salary, or rookie max. Their likely to give up money or rights on every other issue.) It's not really a concession just because the owners will settle for taking away less than they originally wanted to.

This is what I don't understand and maybe someone here can educate me.

I believe a fair and equitable agreement can be made between both sides. As has been pointed out numerous times, any two sides who were cooperative and were bargaining honestly could hammer out an agreement in a couple hours. I don't see many people on the sides of the owners here, and on the flip side I see many on the sides of the players. This makes sense due to the offers that were shelled out and Fehr's comments to the press. What I don't understand is why someone has to be either for or against one side. There is no looking at the big picture and seeing faults with both. There is no looking at the offers that were put forward and comparing/contrasting them.

I guess its a lot like religion or political preference. "If you aren't a (insert affiliate name here), then you are wrong" mentality. I guess that its time for fans to get mad, not take sides.

What I don't understand is why you think is has to be both sides at fault. Or why you think someone on one side or the other is suggesting that is "has" to be either/or. Speaking for myself, I don't think one side "has" to be right, I just think that in this situation, the PA "is" right. As I stated above, there seems to be a number at which you think the PA would be right, so...what makes your opinion on what that number is any more valid than mine? Who the f*** do you think you are that you want to throw insults at me because my idea of "fair" is a few percentage points higher than yours?

There is no objective "right" answer to a fair split. Personally, I believe the players are responsible for generating more of the revenue than the teams themselves. I think 4-5% is a fair profit margin for the owners, considering the team value is likely to appreciate at a similar rate (possibly higher if the team is profitable). I've looked at the numbers for recent years, and those numbers say that other expenses are around 40% or less of revenue. So I think 55-56% is a "fair" split. Under the PA proposal, it takes around 4.5% growth to realize a 5% margin (3.6 - 4.1% for 4%), which seems to be a realistic (maybe even conservative) growth estimate. (Though the longer the lockout lasts, the less realistic it is likely to be.)

I believe owners should be responsible for sticking to a budget their team can afford, or if they don't, they should accept the losses. I think it is the responsibility of the owners as a group to determine revenue sharing, and then to set the upper and lower limits accordingly to accommodate the revenue disparity between teams. If $8M below the midpoint (player's share) is too high a floor for too many teams, the owners have to lower the floor and raise the cap. Let the rich teams spend more to allow the poor teams to spend less. You shouldn't just ask the players to give up even more.

All that is why I am on the side of the players in this situation. If you want to disagree with my opinions, fine. But please stop insinuating that I (or others of similar opinion) are just mindless PA lickspittles. If you can't debate without resorting to childish insults, don't debate at all.

#2329942 Rebuild or retool?

Posted by Buppy on 24 September 2012 - 07:57 PM

... What do you think? Trade some of our top talent (not necessarily Dats or Z, in fact, don't even consider it because it won't happen) for up and coming prospects or trade some of our top prospects for proven talent?

No good reason to do either.

If we're talking rebuild, you have to consider moving Pav and/or Hank. Our 2nd tier is Franzen, Flip, Kronwall, maybe Jimmy...the return we'd get wouldn't make that big a difference. We'd just have more prospects and less room for potential UFAs. For Pav or Hank we could probably get a real potential stud (in addition to the top 5 pick we'd get for tanking the season).

We're in a bit of a tough spot, as we have several prospects with star potential, but who could end up being busts, or somewhere in between. By the time we really know which, our current top and 2nd-tier players will have lost much of their trade value. But that doesn't mean they'll be totally worthless and we should get out while we can. Nor that doing so necessarily means we'd be any better off in the future.

Better to just tough it out for now with what UFAs we can add and see what our current prospects will turn in to. Could be some players get made expendable, but we shouldn't go trading them until they are.

#2329666 Jimmy D Speaks out on Lockout, fined $250k

Posted by Buppy on 21 September 2012 - 08:57 PM

The percentages have no meaning unless we know what all the clubs expenses are. Without this information now can anybody say what is a good deal or bad deal for either side.
And maybe 50% for doctors is fair. I have no clue.

We do know what the expenses are. For the first 6 years of the last CBA, average league-wide a little under $1.1B. Increasing by an average of around $58M/5.3% per year, though the increases have been lower in the last few years than the first few. They've averaged about 40% of gross revenue, but they're growing slower than revenue, so the percentages have been decreasing (39% in 10-11, the most recent year we have data for).

Overall, the league showed a little over 4% profit for the 10-11 season, which is not a bad margin. Under the player's proposal, if the league continues decent growth (5% or more), the margin would increase to the 6-12% range. The high end of that is very good (and the disparity between revenue and "Hockey Related Revenue" could add a couple points to those margins). For comparison, MLB had about 6.8%, NBA about 4.5%, NFL about 15% (all the more strange that they were able to keep the player's share so low...) per the most recent data available.

According to every bit of data available to us, what the players are proposing is a fair split. The onus should be completely on the owners to make that split work for each franchise, either through revenue sharing, widening the payroll range, relocating, or folding some franchises. If it came to folding some teams, then go to the players and see if they want to make further concessions to preserve some jobs.

The only thing that might be missing from the player's offer (financially, not considering any contract limits, etc) is some form of stop-loss in the event that revenues decrease or increase by less than the needed amount.

For reference, http://money.cnn.com...stries/profits/. Old, but the most recent data I could find showing profit as % of revenue.

#2328529 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by Buppy on 13 September 2012 - 02:48 AM

Very true. Which is even more the reason why both sides are a fault. They are playing for themselves. Not for the good of the fans.

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I don't expect either side to show any special consideration for fans. At least not in financial discussions. I expect them to produce a quality product at a price the market can bear. That's all. It's not like any of us will be hurt in any meaningful way if there's an extended lockout (barring those few who work in an NHL-dependent industry). So we might need to find something new to entertain us for a while. If that's the worst of our problems, we should just call ourselves lucky and be done with it. Not to say I won't be upset if we lose some or all of the season, I just don't expect any concessions from either side for our benefit.

I just want them to negotiate in good faith, and make fair offers. I've seen nothing to suggest the league is actually doing so, while the numbers seem to fall in line with what the players want. Of course, none of us has all the information so it's really pointless to keep that debate going.

Regarding the timing of negotiations: there's a reason almost all collective bargaining is done at the last minute. If there is some middle ground where both sides can agree, negotiation is really only a matter of hours. If there isn't, then you could negotiate non-stop for years and never get anywhere but more firmly entrenched. If there's no middle-ground, there has to be some external influence, such as a lockout (or sometimes just the threat of an impending one), to start changing people's minds.

Case in point: "The enforcer debate". It's been raging for what? 15 years? Pretty much no one on either side has changed their opinion at all. We all just keep repeating the same things every time the topic comes up. There's no reason for any of us to concede anything. But if someone were to come here tomorrow and say none of us will collect a paycheck until we reach a consensus... then you'd see some minds change. But it's been a heated debate for a long time, and some people are just stubbornly dug in to their position. Fighting more out of a determination to win than any real consideration of the topic

Had CBA negotiations started 6 months ago, we'd very likely be in an even worse spot now.

One thing that I've been thinking is just how much of this all comes back to the low-revenue teams. The league want to cut spending on players, not because the league as a whole can't afford it, but because some teams can't afford it (and even more teams can't control themselves). The players don't want to give up what they've been contractually promised (because the league as a whole can afford it) and want the rich teams to do more to support the poor teams.

So the rich teams don't want to support the poor teams. The players don't want to support the poor teams. The fans don't want to support the poor teams (or they wouldn't be so poor). Who does want these teams? Why is no one other than a fairly small number of fans talking about getting rid of them? Is it fair to force pay cuts on the players while the Leafs could maybe see $100M+ in profit, and a handful more could see $30-50M, just so a few s***ty teams that apparently no one gives a damn about can also make a few million? On the other hand, is it fair to ask the rich teams to support the poor ones when they don't really benefit from doing so? The PA benefits from the extra jobs those teams create, but they'd benefit just as much if those teams were in better markets, and the players have no say in team location. Revenue disparity is really the biggest issue in the league, but it seems everyone accepts it as a handicap to be worked around rather than an infection to be cured.

There's a few ways to cure it:

Get rid of the cap system. Simplest solution, and I'm sure the players would love it. Each team free to spend as much or as little as they want. Players aren't guaranteed any percentage, and the market alone determines player salaries. There's no good reason that all 30 teams couldn't make a profit in this system. Owners are dead set against it, to the point that it's almost a joke to even suggest it. They like to say it's for "parity", but really it's because the NHL if full of owners who have proven they can't control themselves. MLB, for all intents, has no cap. But they do have smarter owners. Most MLB teams make a profit, and there's some decent parity. The Yankees spend over $140M more in player salary than the A's but have a worse record. Yeah, the spending gap is higher than most NHL teams' total revenue. Spending has almost zero correlation to standing. But the NHL has too many stupid owners, so it wouldn't work. Too bad.

Widen the cap-floor separation. Similar to the above. Let the poorer teams spend less, and the rich teams more. Leave the mid-point/player's share alone. The rich teams make up for the poor teams, but unlike profit sharing the rich teams see a tangible benefit. Player's still get what they consider a fair cut, and again no reason that every team couldn't make a profit. You can also do this indirectly via soft cap/tax system, trading cap space, etc. Unfortunately, it has basically the same problems as removing the cap. Owners would need to control themselves, which they've proven they can't do.

Move a few teams. Bit more complicated, but maybe easier than replacing half the owners. Phoenix and the Islanders have to go. They're failures just like Atlanta was. I'd say Carolina too. Columbus, Florida, and Nashville possible alternates. Maybe even St.Louis. Looking at the revenue numbers, the Toronto market needs another team, and could probably support a third. Montreal could likely support another, and/or put a team back in Quebec. Vancouver could maybe support a second, and even a tiny Canadian market like Saskatoon might do better than some current NHL cities (though I don't think that it should be tried). Point is, you could possibly put six more teams in Canada and the league would be better for it. A few US markets like Seattle, KC, Salt Lake, Vegas, Milwaukee, and Indianapolis might be worth a look. Move a few teams, improve the revenue gap, stagnate cap growth rather than rollback salaries, and the PA likely buys in for a lower percentage of a bigger pie. Owners (other than the few who would relocate, or face new market competition) shouldn't care where the other teams are. But it won't even be discussed because ??? doesn't want teams to move...

#2328193 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by Buppy on 10 September 2012 - 03:04 PM

Both sides are going to have to be open to move from their initial positions in order to get a deal done. So far, the movement away from their initial positions have been small to say the least. You mention that the owners already have, but that movement was just a blip on the radar. I find it funny how people who are dead set against the owners in this want to see them make the first major move. As if that would be the olive branch that the players need to make a deal. From what I have seen so far, neither side has it right. Neither side has put forward a proposal that would even come close to fixing the issues that are out there.

What we need are less fans siding with the owners or players and more fans getting angry at both sides and putting pressure on them to make a deal. The people who are siding with one camp or the other are typically blinded by their hatred of the other side so much that they cannot see the real problems. You, for instance, want to see the owners come forward with a meaningful proposal. That is all fine and dandy, but why can't both sides work together to get a deal done? Why does it have to be the owners alone? Why not the players? Oh, thats right, the players are right in your mind, and every proposal they put forward has the pulse of the league in mind right? :P

As for your questions on how I would know if the 57% would work or not or if the cap floor is a real problem, you are right in that these things could work in certain systems. Even I don't know what will work and what won't work in any given situation. All I do know is that there is a time to take sides and there is a time to stand with other fans and put pressure on both sides to get a deal done. That is where the fans should be sitting right now, not reading NHLPA or NHL propaganda and believing that your side is always in the right while the other one is always in the wrong.

If you cannot see how that approach makes someone ignorant and uninformed, then I cannot help you. :)

If you think Forbes data, attendance reports, other web reports regarding revenue, and math are "propaganda" then we probably should end this debate. I've looked at the numbers available and drew my own conclusion, it just happens to be pretty close to what the players seem to want. You seem to have just made up your mind that both sides are equally "wrong" without any sort of data, evidence, or analysis at all. You say neither side is right, and not even close to fixing the issues but you can't provide any rationale in support of what you think the issues are.

You're right that blindly accepting statements from either side is a poor way to form an opinion, but that doesn't mean both sides are equally wrong, or equally far from right.

I don't have any specific "evidence" that the floor is a problem to a lot of teams other than it being obvious....a lot of teams simply can't afford to pay to the floor. When you say the floor is based on cap hits, not actual salary, well.....the cap is based on actual salary, so it's the same thing. If you suggest Edmonton can end up paying almost $10 million less in salary than they have in cap hits, that just means they pay $10 million more in salary than in cap hits in the future, it's just a timing thing. In the end, total cap hit = total dollars spent, there is no difference.

Not really. Edmonton's situation is mostly the result of bonuses. Any bonus money that can potentially be earned counts against the cap, but if they are never earned they are never paid. Back-loading contracts can also lower the actual dollars spent, and then the player could be traded before the salary rises above the cap hit.

And you can say it's "obvious" that the floor is a problem, but as of the most recent numbers available to us, it wasn't. 26 teams should have been able to afford the floor in '10-11. One of those that couldn't moved, and reportedly did much better last year. The numbers we have suggest that probably 24-28 teams should be able to afford the floor now, and that's not even counting additional revenue sharing, or other methods to reduce spending.

#2328114 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by Buppy on 09 September 2012 - 02:44 PM

So, in your opinion, the players need not make any concessions because there are no issues with the league finances right now?

Lets face facts here, the NHL is in trouble. What the owners are proposing won't fix the problem and the NHLPA doesn't want to see the salary floor go down.

So far, the NHLPA just wants to keep everything they have right now and the owners don't want to address the problems that they have with their ownership group and clubs that are not financially secure. Its a dangerous mix, and one where both sides really need to address.

The greed on both sides is going to drive the league to initiate a lockout. Sure, the uninformed and the ignorant people will say the league is at fault for locking out the players. The ones who have looked at the issues that are dogging the league as a whole right now will be able to see greed and stupidity as the biggest problems right now.

The NHL is not in trouble, some teams are in trouble, and most of those wouldn't be if the owners were smarter..

And the players are willing to make concessions. They are willing to lower their share of the revenue. They're reportedly even flexible on the one option year. The players want to increase revenue sharing. They proposed allowing cap space to be traded, which would allow teams struggling to reach the floor to spend less and gain assets for doing so. How are they not trying to address the issues?

The players don't want to accept another salary rollback, and they shouldn't. League revenues will likely be around $3.5 billion, and as of now there's about $1.75B in salary commitments with almost all teams having full rosters. So it seems we're pretty close to a 50/50 split right now. It's not the players fault that the wrong teams are spending money. Buffalo is and has been hemorrhaging money but they have the highest salary payroll in the league. $20M this year for Myers and Ehrhoff. $6M for Leino. Minnesota, San Jose, Tampa Bay are no better. Middle of the pack in revenue but trying to spend at the top while teams that can afford it like the Wings, Leafs, Rangers, Canadiens, and Flyers can't get enough players worth spending anything on.

You want to call people uninformed and ignorant, but it seems you have no idea what the players are proposing and haven't looked at any of the numbers available. I think you just want to blame the players regardless of any facts.

#2325323 Holland losing his moxie? Is Detroit slipping as UFA destination?

Posted by Buppy on 15 August 2012 - 10:32 AM

Sure but you can't deny Holland operates in a different way then most other GM's. Holland is an extreme on the spectrum. Plays extremely close to the vest, conservative, long-term game. On the other end of the spectrum you have Holmgren. Plays balls to the wall, high-risk high-reward, blow up the team to get that cup now game. Everyone else falls somewhere in between.

Sure Holland chased Nash, and Suter, and blah blah blah.....price wasnt right though and so he didnt pull triggers on things. Thats him. He's not the kind of guy who gives up Zetterberg for *insert Dman here*.....Holmgren is that guy. Mike Richards and Jeff Carter is all I gotta say.

So yes this off season is due to his decisions....bad or good....but those decisions were made by him and his philosophy of hockey business

I don't think this is true. I think Holland has been conservative mostly because we haven't had the need to be otherwise. In the last few years, we were handcuffed for a couple by the cap, and once we did get some space the options were limited, and our trade assets have been limited. Most of our best/most-tradeable prospects have been picked in the last few drafts. We don't have a 23yo putting up 76 points to give us the option of trading our stars, nor have Pav and Hank been rumored to have off-ice issues.

Holland may not be as 'extreme' as Holmgren or Wilson in San Jose, but that doesn't mean he's the complete opposite either.

#2325276 Holland losing his moxie? Is Detroit slipping as UFA destination?

Posted by Buppy on 14 August 2012 - 10:05 PM


I think you're trying to divine a philosophy to fit what happened, as if it's all just part of the master plan.

I'd say the reality is far, far simpler. You can't always get what you want. And despite Jagger's claims to the contrary, trying won't necessarily get you what you need either. Given a mulligan for the last couple years, Kenny would likely take a different approach.

The better defense, in my opinion, is, "So what?". He made some decisions, passed on some options hoping for better, but it didn't work out. So what? There's nothing particularly bad about maybe not being one of the top contenders for a few years. Much of his job relies on making educated guesses about the future. Sometimes, the guesses will be wrong, or someone else will guess right quicker. So what? It isn't Holland's philosophy that put us in the spot we are now. It's that the rest of the league isn't required to follow it.

Some of his critics want to say they still support him: 'not saying he sucks, just that he could do better'... And they've been saying it at every opportunity for the past month and a half. I think if that's really all they wanted to say, they'd be satisfied at having said it innumerable times already, but whatever. There may be a big difference between "sucks" and "could have done better", but there's also a big difference between "could have" and "should have".

#2324342 Evander Kane is a Better Option than Zach Parise

Posted by Buppy on 08 August 2012 - 03:47 PM

Pavel Datyuk is paid $6.7Million and averages 70 points (23g) every year. Is he worth it?
Henrik Zetterberg is paid $6.1Million and averages 73 points (23g) every year. Is he worth it?
21 year old Kane scoring 68 points (25g) is not worth it?????

Datsyuk and Zetterberg are centers who play Selke defense, and even considering that, no. 20-odd goals and 70 points (playing ~80 games) is below what I think we should expect.

Datsyuk has scored 196 points in 206 games (.95 ppg) the last three seasons. His points were down in the injury-plagued 09-10 season, and goals were down last year, but I would expect him to get back to high-20s - low-30s goals, and stay close to or over a point/game for at least a couple more years.

Hank has 219 points in 236 games (.93 ppg). His goals have been down for three years, and he had a horrid start last year. I don't know if he can get his goals back up, but I think he can do better than his point totals last year. Maybe not for the duration of his contract, but it is less than what you'd need to offer Kane, and at least he had aproven track record to base it on. I'm not all that happy with his numbers since he signed his deal. I never expected him to be "worth" it in the later years, but I was hoping the early years would make up for it. Considering all the intangibles I can't complain too much though, so long as he doesn't degrade too much further too fast.

~$6.7M for 68 points (.83 ppg) for a winger who doesn't play Selke defense is overpaid. Not by a huge amount, but still overpaid. And you're banking on a big IF, in that he needs to continue to improve just to get to that point. And you have to give up a bunch of draft picks to get him. I still don't think we could get him for the compensation you think we could. Who knows what those picks could become. Edmonton gave up a chance at Tyler Myers, Justin Schultz, and a 3rd rounder (nothing special so far) for the right to overpay an underperforming Penner for a few years.

I wouldn't have a problem paying Kane that amount if we didn't have to give up anything for him. Good enough chance that he will improve. But there's too big a risk that he won't improve to justify paying that and giving up the picks.

#2323949 Evander Kane is a Better Option than Zach Parise

Posted by Buppy on 06 August 2012 - 05:01 AM

Byran Little averages 45 points each year. Last year was no different...Little scored 46 points.

Thomas Vanek on the other hand is a solid performer. Vanek averages 64 points every year...last year he scored 61.

Evander Kane on the other hand scored 26, 43, 57. Statistics show players are more productive at 23 to 26. I'll predict Kane scores 68 points next year.

At 21, his first full season, Little scored 31 goals and 51 points. The next season he scored 13g, 34p. The next 18g, 48p. 24g, 46p last year. Similar amount of games each year.

At 23, in his 2nd year, Vanek scored 43g, 84p. In the five years since, he's averages 32.4g, 63p. Again, no major time lost to skew the averages.

Thus far, neither player has matched their early production. Little's goal scoring regressed substantially, just starting to rebound 3 years later. Vanek's point totals regressed substantially, and given his age now he may never match those totals again. Both players regressed during that 23-26 age range. Kane follows that path, you should expect him to average ~45 points for the next few years.

Bobby Ryan is another example, though he's mostly just stagnated. 31g, 57p in 64 games as a 21yo rookie (40g, 73p pace for 82 games). Fairly similar the next two years, then a down year this one, where he scored the same 31g, 57p but in 82 games instead of 64. Again, he's in your magic age bracket.

What most players do doesn't mean Kane is certain to improve. He might, and I'd love to have him. But even if he does score ~68 points next year, paying him $6.5-7M is still overpayment (unless 50 of those points are goals). Especially considering he's not a center nor particularly good defensively. And you have to give up a bunch of draft picks for that right. And that's making the assumption that you could even get him that cheap. The Jets would know better than anyone his potential for further improvement, and how much it would hurt their team to lose him. If they think there's a reasonable chance he can live up to a deal like that, they'd match.

There's a reason few offer sheets are made. It's not some code of honor between GMs. It's the RFA rules.

#2323895 Our Current Defense / What Holland Can Do *merged

Posted by Buppy on 05 August 2012 - 01:13 PM

nothing is going to happen until the CBA details come out. then holland will dig through the bin to offer the best one left a small contract, and invite a handful of D-men to camp for tryouts.
during this he "might" call a few eastern teams to see if their overflow works with us without a player trade beyond kindl/emmerton/mursak and low picks.

we WILL have another mid-level d-man in the lineup on day one...but our offense is set. (after a few subtractions)


i am all for an offer sheet to evander kane, and matt gilroy on D. if the wings are going to try to stay "on top" they need to get bold & young.

the next few years are going to be a lull in success until our prospects start popping up, or we get aggresive in contracts.

Yeah, unless we somehow land Doan, I doubt anything happens until TC/preseason, other than maybe adding one of the vets like Hannan, Kubina, or Rozsival. Probably want to get a better idea of what Brunner and Nyquist can do before we do any more tinkering with the forwards.

Don't know much about Gilroy. The Hockey News makes him sound a little Lebda-ish, but I've also heard he has some potential. I think we really need another PKer on defense, so he doesn't sound like a good fit.

#2322525 Semin signs one year, $7m deal with Carolina

Posted by Buppy on 27 July 2012 - 03:47 PM

It's not panicking and oh no the sky is falling. It's our roster sucks, and what are you doing, Ken?, and hey it'd be nice to compete for the Cup this season but that's not happening which is stupid.

Too many high horses around here, if anything.

Our roster sucks but Semin makes us a contender?

Yeah, something is way too high...

#2321085 Flyers sign Weber to offer sheet: 14y/$110m ($56m 1st 4yrs)

Posted by Buppy on 22 July 2012 - 11:53 PM

Why would you need to use a personal attack?

Add Parise to that list as well. Since it was no secret that Suter was going wherever Parise went, you can add him to that list as well. So we have 4 players there, it seems the Wings have offers on the table for Doan and Semin and until the cards fall I will not say why they did or did not choose Detroit, but it seems Detroit as their destination is not a scale tipper for them anymore.

I find it difficult to avoid personal attacks because I get frustrated by people who I believe are unreasonable. I want to respond with rational debate, but I feel like it would be pointless.

Case in point: You say Suter and Parise did not want to play in Detroit. The truth is only that Detroit did not end up being their top choice. There's a big difference there. A player may want to play for multiple teams, but they can only choose one. Expecting everyone to want to play here more than they want to play anywhere else, and concluding that if they don't it means they didn't want to play here at all is irrational and unreasonable. I said as much in my previous reply and you still failed to grasp the concept. Hence why I feel rational debate is pointless.

There isn't any great organizational malfunction that needs to be addressed. No dereliction of duty. No flawed schemata. s*** does happen. We missed out on a couple free agents, s*** happens. It could be just a speed bump, or it could send us right off the track into a catastrophic crash. This is what is supposed to happen. This is how the system is designed. What goes up must come down. Since when is maintaining a top contender in perpetuity the new standard for adequacy in sports? What franchise, ever, in the history of any sport, has remained among the elite for nearly two decades without a single blemish?

Maybe it all isn't as easy as some think. Maybe things don't happen just because you want them to or because you can write them out on a message board and make them sound reasonable. Maybe when decisions are made, even those based on impeccable reasoning, they don't always work out. Maybe you give a solid effort but still fall short. Maybe sometimes those failures compound into situations that have no ready solution. Maybe speculating in hindsight on what might have been done better isn't the best way to evaluate performance. Maybe "consistently exceeding all reasonable expectations" shouldn't be what we expect from our management. Maybe a guy with such a sterling record deserves a little more respect. Maybe we can give a guy af****** break.

But I guess it makes us feel better to rant and finger-point. Have fun with it I guess. I'll continue trying to resist my more choleric urges.