Jump to content


Buppy's Photo

Buppy

Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 11:49 PM
****-

#2352408 Landon Ferraro or Sheahan?

Posted by Buppy on 07 February 2013 - 06:59 PM

Just for the sake of arguing if Tartar has something like 5 goals and a handful of assists when Sammy comes back. Who goes?

 

Depends on how many games, and how he gets the points.

 

If it's like 8 games, scoring mostly off his own skill and hard work, we'd probably try to move Eaves, either trade or slip him through waivers if we can't find one.

 

14 games benefitting from Datsyuk, Tots goes back to GR.




#2351953 Desjardin match penalty on clean hit against Mayers

Posted by Buppy on 06 February 2013 - 11:21 AM

At least there was some head contact on that one...

 

Major penalties, or at least match, need to be reviewable. Simple solution and they aren't so common that it would cause any real disruption.


  • Nev likes this


#2351245 Calle Jarnkrok - Does he have a chance to make next season's team?

Posted by Buppy on 05 February 2013 - 09:54 AM

This year about everyone in the Minors is better than Cleary, and Quincey. Why are we wasting roster spots for players like them, when you have kids that can play equal and provide energy while gaining experience at the same time. The problem is Detroit is going to have to start calling up the kids because this team isn't deep anymore, now they have reasons to call them up but they are still not doing it. I know they just called up Tatar but I believe it won't be long until he is sent back down even if he plays better than Cleary.

 

Who in the minors is better than Quincey? As for Cleary, you only assume Tatar or Nyquist would be any better. You can only assume they will be successful at all, especially if they're put in Cleary's role.

 

If Tatar comes in and makes a real impact, I think we'll find a way to keep him up. If not, it's better to leave him in GR, at least until the trade deadline. You don't dump assets to make lateral moves.




#2349024 Things that are better than the Wings special teams.

Posted by Buppy on 30 January 2013 - 01:05 AM

In keeping with the Star Wars theme...

 

Stormtrooper aim

The Empire's ability to keep Death Star plans secret

Chances of keeping a hand in a light saber duel

Reliability of the Millenium Falcon's hyperdrive

Han Solo's credit rating with the Hutts

AT-AT agility

Ewok technology




#2348363 Theme night GDT

Posted by Buppy on 29 January 2013 - 11:08 AM

Stole a couple from Euro. Several others are terrible...

 

Datsyuk Skywalker

Hanrik Zolo

Yodan Franzen

Wedge Valtteris

Brunner Fett

Qui-Todd Jinntuzzi

Count Danku Cleary

Darren Helmtrooper

Mikael Sarlaccsson

Darth Abdelkader

Drewbacca

CThrEavesPO

RTooDToo

Cory Leiammerton

Admiral MursAckbar

General Grievous Nyquist

 

Obi-Kron Wallobi

Jabba the Huskins

Emperor Brendentine, Dark Lord of the Smith / Darth Smithious

Jar-jarnthan Ericsson

Kyle QuincEwok

Lashoff Calrissian

Biggs DarkWhiter

2-1B Colaiacovo

Grand Moff Tarkindl

 

JimMace Howardu

Jawas Gustavsson




#2348092 Things that are better than the Wings special teams.

Posted by Buppy on 28 January 2013 - 10:45 AM

Riley Sheahan's decision making abilities on Halloween




#2345494 Red Wings sign D Kent Huskins to 1-year, $750k contract

Posted by Buppy on 23 January 2013 - 02:42 PM

"Every other Holland critic"? Really, Buppy? I expect better from you.

 

Look, we're all making this way more complicated than it needs to be, than it is.

 

I'll say it again: you lose Rafalski, Stuart, Lidstrom, you, at the very least, bring in a heavy. No way should Kronwall - Ericsson/Quincey/White/Smith/Huskins/Lashoff be our first pairing. Common sense, really. Why is it so hard to swallow/understand?

 

So many of us treat Holland as if he's utterly infallible, incapable of being in the wrong. "He mades a mistake? He dropped the ball? No, you're just a Holland critic. You're just spoiled." It's just as silly as The Holland Bashing.

 

Ken Holland is the best GM in the league. But the way he's handled our D corps (and, arguably, the team at large) lately borders, I think, on braindead. It's almost as if he really does want that first overall pick. I have no other explanation for the sheer lack of those trademark Ken Holland Smarts (see, e.g., "Lets save money and sit on it, and then do it again next season, and then do it again! OH NO, NOW WE'RE IN TROUBLE! SALO! CARLE! SUTER! HEY, Y'KNOW WHAT'S GREAT? BUILDING FROM WITHIN!)

 

It's weird. Really, really weird. (To which someone will say, "No, it's called parity/not having Nick Lidstrom/transition etc., and I need to adjust my expectations and reconcile them with Reality." To which I preemptively say: I know you, are but what am I?)

 

Yeah, I guess I forgot about that kid sitting outside the Joe with a box full of "heavies" and a sign saying, "Free to good home".

 

I'm not saying he's infallible. I'm not even saying he hasn't made mistakes. I'm saying you can't expect him to be perfect and solve every problem. No doubt you'll say you don't expect that, but in practical terms that's what all the bashing amounts to. Like it's OK for Kenny to make mistakes, so long as they don't have any negative impact on the team.

 

You say he's made mistakes. I say, so what, everyone does. Get over it.

 

The only trap is the "name me this" homework that people try to assign thoe who disagree with them, likely because it's easier to criticize someone else's point than make their own. 

 

Maybe spend less time telling me what I expect and more time making an actual point regarding Holland and the state of the current Red Wings defense.

 

Kronwall is basically our number on guy, which is a role he's never fulfilled.  Then look down the blueline.  It's a bunch of spare parts.  White is a good d-man, though it'll be interesting to see how he plays without Lids.  Plus he's a UFA at the end of this season and currently makes less then Kronwall, Quincey and Ericsson. 

 

If this collection of players were on another team, I don't think people would really be complimenting the GM on a job well done.  Just because Holland wasn't willing to give up enough for a trade or signing doesn't mean they couldn't ever have happened.

 

Again, I never said there was nothing that could have been done. Just that it isn't rational to expect someone to make all the right moves all the time. So he missed out on a few opportunities, and now the team is worse than it might otherwise have been. Do we really need to spend the better part of a year and a half whining about it every time there's a signing or trade around the league, or injury, or someone has a bad game, or someone we didn't get has a good game...




#2341582 TooToo - the lovable little Tasmanian Devil

Posted by Buppy on 19 January 2013 - 02:38 PM

...

On a full season expecting 5 goals and 15 assists seems more like the low end but people are saying thats aiming high?

 

Not "people", just me. And the question was in regard to this season. For this season I think those numbers are optimistic, though possible.

 

When I said those numbers would be fine for a full season, it wasn't meant as a criticism. Just trying to point out that we shouldn't be judging his value by how many points he scores.




#2339410 Brunner's nickname

Posted by Buppy on 11 January 2013 - 09:07 PM

I'm just dorky enough to love it.  More importantly, I wonder what number he will wear, he wore 96 for EV Zug and the Swiss Olympic team, I dont see them giving him Homer's old number so soon after his retirement.

At least 666 is out of the question. But if he goes with 63 (or 36) I'm checking his mother's grave for jackal remains.




#2339379 Brunner's nickname

Posted by Buppy on 11 January 2013 - 06:31 PM

The Omen™




#2335815 Why no youth injecton

Posted by Buppy on 10 December 2012 - 05:05 PM

Most likely we will se B. Smith this year (this year could be 2013-2014s li) but no regulars like Nyquist,Tatar, Shaehan. Why are we different? Compared to, say, SJS who injected Couture in 2010 and who scored one of the most deciding goals that series....

In the last few seasons we have brought up Helm, Abby, Ericsson, Howard, Kindl, Emmerton, and Mursak. We'll add Smith whenever the next season starts, with Nyquist, Brunner, and Tatar all likely in the competition, though they may need to wait a year.

Maybe if we'd had the 9th overall pick in one of our recent drafts we'd have someone like Couture. Tougher to find those guys at 19 or later.


#2334275 Sheahan arrested for "superdrunk" driving

Posted by Buppy on 19 November 2012 - 01:32 AM

Yes, everyone makes mistakes (god knows I made PLENTY at Riley's age)... but the issue people forgiving Sheahan aren't grasping is that while plenty of people do stupid things while their young, Riley endangered not only himself, but the people around him. I've been on-my-butt drunk plenty of times, but not one of those times did I ever sit behind the wheel. It isn't hard for you (or the establishment you're drinking at... or the DD at a party) to call a cab (and if you say the cab is too expensive, you probably can't afford your alcohol tab you just racked up). Don't you guys have loved ones (or at least care about yourselves)? I mean, double the legal limit or more is BAD NEWS BEARS. If I lived in Grand Rapids, I wouldn't want him driving in that state with my wife on the road, too...

Now, am I saying damn him to hell? Not hardly. Do I want him out of the Red Wings organ-i-zation? No (assuming he turns his act around in short order). But don't make excuses for the kid, either. Second offense - he already got his warning. I hope he doesn't get coddled by the law 'cause he's a big-shot hockey player and gets the book thrown at him so he learns the hard way (like most of us had to do).

I don't think anyone is suggesting that drunk driving is in any way OK. But it is just a dumb mistake. Alcohol impairs your judgement, so drinking responsibly usually means planning ahead; something young people are notorious for not doing. It seems he enjoys a party, so a .17-ish BAC isn't necessarily fall-down drunk. It could have had tragic consequences; fortunately it didn't. Hopefully, the legal process will serve its purpose and he'll learn his lesson. Throwing the book at him would mean jail time. I don't think his history suggests that is warranted.


#2333020 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Buppy on 29 October 2012 - 11:59 PM

The issue I have with the PA proposals are two fold.

First, the NHLPA didn't negotiate in good faith by dragging their feet through this entire process. It took them until June to even come to the table, and then 3 weeks after the NHL proposal to actually propose something of their own. So Fehr dragging his feet is the first thing I blame the NHLPA for.

Secondly, the NHLPA and NHL are both being greedy and not willing to compromise anything. In addition, there is no willingness to work together. If you read the deals, there is a deal to be made. Could the NHL be less greedy and not ask for so much? Yes. Could the NHLPA give up a little bit to make a deal happen? Yes. So why aren't either side willing to budge? Even worse, why are both sides just playing the media? The NHL says that they are willing to meet, but that the NHLPA doesn't want to talk their language. The same goes for the NHLPA. Lastly, there are no hard negotiation sessions happening.

So its a little bit of everything. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides in these negotiations. I believe that both sides should come to the middle a little bit in order to make that happen. I also believe that both sides are in the wrong by involving the media more and getting both sides to the table and negotiating less.

If anything, I am arguing that both leaders should be fired. Both sides have been a miserable failure to their sides and horrible to hockey fans. The respective leadership teams of both sides should also be fired. Its time to get a new group of leaders in these positions that are more willing to work together to achieve a goal.

Finally, I do have an issue with people taking sides on this issue. The NHL and NHLPA have both sinned in these negotiations. To claim that one side is more deserving than the other is a fallacy. Both sides together have failed the sport of hockey and the fans. Bettman is just as at fault for the lockout as Fehr. Its time to kick both these guys in the ass and out of their respective positions.
...

I was asking specifically about your objections to the players' proposals. I get the other stuff, even though I don't necessarily agree.

Though it's curious that the "dragging their feet" criticism is reserved solely for the PA. The league claims they were ready to start in January, but didn't make any proposals; didn't to anyone's knowledge try to schedule any meetings, or even express any particular concern over the timetable. It took them two weeks from the time of the first meeting to actually make an offer, and another two weeks after that to deliver the full details. It took them two weeks again to make a new proposal after the PA finally made their first. Neither side made a proposal for a month after the start of the lockout. Seems if you want to criticize for this, you'd criticize both sides.

Personally, I don't see the timeline as an issue at all. Nor pandering to the media (I don't really see any of that, to be honest), nor the lack or negotiating sessions. I see the cause-effect relationship the other way I guess. I believe the lack of negotiation is the result of the separation between the proposals, not the other way around. Likewise, I believe the time it has taken thus far is the result of the separation, rather than the continuing separation being due to the lack of time spent. The way I see it even if either side had waited until 11:59PM on 9/15, kicked down the other guy's door, spit in his eye, called his mother a *****, then laid a fair offer on the table...we should be watching hockey right now. I happen to think the PA offers have been fair.

As to the actual proposals, of course the PA could give up a little more, but should they? They have already made plenty of concessions. Their first offer was a concession. Their second offer went further, and the third set went further still. You can say the same for the owners, but you have to remember that their "compromises" are only relative to the arbitrary figure from their first proposal. Much easier to give up something you never had (and likely never had any expectation to get anywhere close to) than give up something you do. Also, there has been speculation that the 50/50 deal the owners offered was what they wanted all along, and the other offers were just to give the illusion of compromise without really compromising. You could speculate the same regarding the PA, but that seems far less plausible. In all their proposals, the first three years are very similar, with almost all the movement coming in the final two years. You might interpret that as stubbornness, but it seems more likely that they just started off as low as they think should be in those years. One might wonder where the negotiations would be now if the owners hadn't started off with such a hostile first offer.

Furthermore, the owners have yet to actually offer anything to the players, or even to maintain the status quo on anything. They are taking on every point. The only thing that sort of goes in the players' favor is the 2-year ELC, but that only affects a very small number of players, and has its own drawbacks as well. The players haven't asked to be given anything. They're offering to lower their share, and all they ask in return is to limit how much and what else is taken from them. Again, one might wonder where we'd be if the owners offered something other than imaginary concessions.

As to firing Fehr, I think you're doing him a disservice. When he came in the PA was in disarray. Many players were unhappy with how much the players gave up in 2004-05. They had one director spying on their emails, replaced him with a guy who many felt was too conciliatory toward the league, seemingly more interested in avoiding a work stoppage than acting in the players' best interests. A couple interim directors that no one seemed to have any faith in. No due diligence in auditing league HRR accounting. You may think a weak union or weak leadership is a positive, and maybe it would make a work stoppage less likely, but the players would never be happy with it. It's really best for all sides to have strong leadership on both sides, so long as they are reasonable. Both Fehr and Bettman are strong. How reasonable they are is up for debate. But looking at their records, it's clear that Fehr has the much better resume.

Bettman has now been party to three lockouts in three chances, resulting in two shortened seasons (presuming it's true we can no longer save a full season now) and one completely lost. His big victory last time really solved nothing, and we're locked out again. Fehr was party to a devastating strike, but his big victory in 94-95 helped broker a deal that left both sides healthy and happy enough that it hasn't been changed much in what has now been three straight CBA negotiations without a work stoppage. Baseball has flourished, and owners know they have to be accountable so spending on players is controlled without any need for a cap. Fehr helped accomplish that in an environment that was far more hostile, with a counterpart in Selig who was in part responsible for that hostility (Selig, as an owner, was one of those involved in the late-80's collusion). I think Fehr deserves a chance. Bettman has had his three strikes (or lockouts if you prefer), he should be out.

TL:DR synopsis: I disagree.


#2332927 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Buppy on 29 October 2012 - 12:17 AM

$250 million is the average value of an NHL team. It isn't some made up number. Please read the article I posted.

As for the numbers you posted, the revenues did show well, but those are not profits. The profts of $31 million per team for 6 years is very low. You are still looking at an average of 1.5%. Imagine how it is for the Red Wings who have a very successful franchise and Illitch is making less on his asset in comparison to others.

The point is that the profit in comparison to the asset is very low, which is what you are finally seeing. Now if it was a straight 50/50 split for the last 6 years, it would have been a lot more fair. Now, the owners are not going to get that true split for at least 6 years, but that is their own fault.

The owners can and should pay for every contract. The concept is very simple. If the split is 50-50, then the owners are responsible to pay the extra 7% out of pocket and off the salary cap to the players. i do get what you are saying though. In the salary cap era though, if the owners are shelling out the money for their decisions with a portion of it off the cap, then it can still work. All new contracts will be lower, and in future years, they will even out. Think of it as a 50/50 split from 2012-13 forward.
...

It's still an estimate. Regardless of the veracity of the number, comparing a single year of profit to the price you'd have to pay to buy the team doesn't mean anything. At least not anything relevant to this discussion. (Even using $250M value, the actual % would be 1.79. For reference, MLB is 2.38%, NFL is 3.71%, and NBA is 1.48%. All that really means is that as a rule, sports teams are considered more valuable than what might be indicated by profitability.)

Yearly profit (or actually, it's operating income, net profit would be less) has been around 5% of revenue. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes like a 5 year-old, that's your problem.

Yes, the owners can and should pay every contract. That is what I, the PA, and others that support the PA have been saying all along. The problem is that the owners aren't willing to do that. They want to pay 50%, and make future players pay the difference. Players want the owners to pay the difference. You can say it "works", but that's just a word. Anything can "work" if the two sides agree to it.

First off, the cap doesn't mean anything. The cap could be an octopus with a dollar sign in front of it and it wouldn't do anything but confuse people. What matters is the players' share. That is the amount of money that players actually get, regardless of what the cap numbers are, regardless of what contracts are...the players get the players' share.

Let's try an example:
Say we use an applicable % of 50%. Assume full season revenue of $3.4B. The players' share is $1.7B

From that share, you subtract benefits; league is estimating $95M. That leaves $1.605B for player salaries.

Current contracts are valued at $1.74B according to Capgeek, with most roster spots full. Capgeek shows around another $53M in potential bonuses. Fehr says player contracts are $1.776B. Seems close enough to use in an example. Using that we're left with $171M that someone has to pay. If the owners pay it, then for all practical purposes, the players' share is $1.871B, and the true % is ~55%. If we defer that payment instead...

Move on to year two:
Assume full season revenue of $3.57B. The players' share is $1.785B.

If you use a part of that to pay the year 1 shortfall, the amount actually earned by the players that year is only $1.614B (since $171M was earned the prior year), which gives a true % of ~45.2%. If the owners pay out of pocket, then the share is $1.956B and the % is ~54.8%.

And so on. It will never "even out". Either the owners pay more than 50%, or the players earn less. That is a mathematical fact. One or the other has to happen. The one and only possible way to avoid that is if revenues next year are $3.742B or more. Anything less and it is absolutely impossible to have a "true" 50/50 split, whether you go 2 years, or 5, or 500. Someone has to pay the difference. Neither side is willing to at this point.

I, the PA, and those who support the PA, say the owners should pay it. You say the owners should pay, but either you don't really mean it or you don't know what you're talking about.


#2332865 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Buppy on 27 October 2012 - 06:10 PM

...I believe that these investors should at least have the right to try to make a profit on their investment. A 1.5% profit is not fair in the least bit.
...

I really don't believe the "players were screwed" in the last contract. If you do not recall, the players were making a killing and a vast majority of people were on the owners side in that lockout. True, they took a rollback, but they also had 57% of the revenue in the length of the last CBA. In that time, the players salaries on average are up from 1.5 million to 2.5 million before the start of the 2011-2012 season. Today, it is even higher I am sure.

In the meantime, many people want to look at the Forbes report and say that it is bunk. The league made $110 million last year. That is all fine and dandy, but you if you split 30 teams between $110 million, that $3.66 million per franchise. If those are pure profits, the owners who have invested in a $250 million dollar investment would be making 1.5% on their investment. I know that the owners are viewed as billionaires and they can "lose some money", but if you had the opportunity to make 1.5% on your investment for a year, would you be happy about it?

IMHO, the players can and should take a pay cut of some kind, but every contract should be honored. There is more than enough for both sides in this negotiation.



Don't make up numbers and use them as if they were facts.

The league made $126.5M in 2010-11. About 4% of revenue. We don't know what the profit was last year, since Forbes doesn't have those numbers yet. (However, the numbers we do know, and growth trends for those we don't know, suggest it's very possible the league may have turned record profits last year.)

Secondly, the average purchase price for an NHL team was $139M. Average ownership length is 14 years. Average team value as of last November is $240M, for an appreciation average of $101M. Average profit for the first 6 years of the prior CBA, plus the last year of the CBA before that was $24.5M. Even if we assume profits for last year of only $110M, it brings that to $28.2. Profits or losses from '98-99 through '02-03 aren't available, but considering the league could have, but didn't (in fact, the league agreed to extend that deal 4 years beyond it's original end), open negotiations for a new CBA before each of those years it's hard to imagine any losses were significant. We'll just say the league broke even over that span.

So in total profits, income plus appreciation, the average owner has seen pretty close to (and possibly more than) a 100% return on investment minus whatever was lost in '04-05. Average annual ROI is probably at least 6%, and that's even with losing an entire season. Average annual return on revenue over the life of the last CBA is likely around 5%. And that was with a players' share of 54-57%. All the players' proposals have been less than that.

So you can continue to make up "facts", act like owners can't make any money, etc...but saying it doesn't make it true. Even at 57%, the league as a whole does decent. At 53-54%, the league as a whole would be doing better than the vast majority of industries in the US. The problem in the league is not player salaries, nor player contract rights. The problem is the revenue disparity. That is an issue the owners need to address among themselves. The players have offered to slow (almost stagnate) their salary growth for a time to help. The owners should be saying 'thank you'.

In regards to the bolded section, it simply isn't possible to take an immediate pay cut and honor every contract at the same time. They can take a relative cut in the future, and they have already offered to do so. But the owners are demanding both an immediate cut, and a larger relative cut in the future. Neither is justified by the numbers.

And here's something for the owners to think about, if they're already worried about their public image: Imagine how much worse it will be if we're still locked out in a month, and the Forbes numbers do come out showing record profits.