joshy207

Not really.  The point of the cap system is to make the traditionally lesser-spending teams more revenue.  Those teams make more money by winning more games and therefore there is parity in the league.  My point wasn't really about parity, but that a rapidly increasing salary cap creates an artificial over-inflation of player values and makes the league look silly by annually having to adjust the cap to compensate for spendthrift GMs.  Granted, the cap has done some good overall, but needs to be re-worked in the next CBA.

The point of the salary cap is to create a level playing field, where big-market, big-revenue teams like DET and NYR can't simply open their vaults and outspend small market teams every time a marquee player enters the free agent market.  While all teams are bound by their own financial constraints, the cap ensures there is a minimum and maximum amount each team is allowed to spend on players.  I think what you are talking about is revenue sharing, where some money is pooled together from the richer teams and distributed to the poorer teams.  That's what gives them more money to spend.
The salary cap is tied directly to league revenues (how much money the league brings in through ticket sales, merchandise sales, television contracts, etc.  It is adjusted up or down every year bases on these revenues.  The players collectively earn 57% of all money the league brings in.  The cap is DESIGNED to be adjusted every year!  If the cap was still at $39M, the players would only be making somewhere in the neighborhood of 35% of revenues, not 57% like they are supposed to.

I will go as far as saying that the salary cap saved the NHL.  Without it, we'd probably be looking at a 16 team league.

Bertuzzi's been good the last couple years, he was about the only guy producing for a stretch last year.  But I think this should have waited until early July (see what else is available), been for one year (he is 37), and been for less money.

My grade for Holland on this off-season so far?  C, maybe C-.  Based largely on this:  He said after the playoffs that the Wings "need to get better".  (Sorry, I don't have a source or a direct quote, but I think most of you remember him saying that after losing to San Jose again.)  Has this team gotten better?  I say NO.

The only change at forward is Conner for Draper.  Conner may not make tbe big club, so it could be Mursak or Emmerton instead.  You lose a little in intangibles with Draper's expected departure (faceoffs, experience) but you do get younger.  Unfortunately Mursak and Emmerton have very little experience in the NHL, but they haven't been able to bump anyone out of a spot in the lineup.  Whether or not they're NHL players remains to be seen.  I do like Eaves and Miller returning, both contracts are good too.  No moves have been made to improve the top 2 lines, but there weren't a lot of players available.  Nobody seemed to want what the Wings had to offer in a trade.  So for now we're the exact same as last year up front.

Losing Rafalski apparently was a surprise (I had heard a rumor from an insider in April or May that he'd be done) and he was not truly replaced.  White is nowhere near similar to Rafalski, but he is a defensive upgrade, so that's good.  Re-signing Lidstrom was an absolute no-brainer and required zero effort on Holland's part, so I'm not going to gush over how great of a job he did bringing Nick back.  As was already said, the choice was Lidstrom's.  I was honestly pissed to see Ericsson re-signed, especially at that price.  I don't think he's good at all and I think they'll regret that deal.  Maybe I'll be wrong though.  Commodore's a nice replacement for Salei.  Kindl needs to see more time or his development will stall or regress, and I hope there's a way to get Smith in a dozen or so games with decent icetime in all situations (15-18 minutes?)  After losing Rafalski, I was disappointed to see the Wings do nothing while impending free agents' rights were dealt before July 1.  Yes, some of the contracts are bloated.  So was the salary cap this year with the NBC/VS TV deal and the continued strength of the Canadian dollar.  If Ericsson's a "value" at his money, then most of the free agents were equal values at their deals.  IMO.  Overall, the Wings will lose some offense from the back end, but they'll be better in their own zone, which could pick up 5 or 6 points over the course of the year.  Less mistakes, less blown coverages, less turnovers... all would be nice to see.

Goaltending, Conklin's a decent backup and it really was time for Osgood to move on.  I'm not sure who was Holland's first choice though... notice it was left up to Osgood to "tell Holland he couldn't guarantee he'd stay healthy" this season.  So did Holland tell Ozzie he'd re-sign him if he wanted to come back, or did Holland let it seem like Osgood went out on his own terms?  I can honestly see both happening.  Either way, we can look at it as a noble move by one of the parties involved.

I was disappointed with the lack of activity in the days leading up to, and the first week or so of free agency.  The grade can go up if a trade or moderately significant signing is pulled off... but I stand by my C/C-.

Not at all surprised.  One can only ram his head into a wall so many times...  I just hope the highest (or ONLY) bidder is Quebecor and this whole charade is put to rest.  !Vive les Nordiques!

why did he have to trade down to get them? is my point.... they knew who they wanted..take them when you get the pick...  that's my point!

so many what ifs....

Holland turned one pick (#24) into two picks (#35 and #48).  Without making this move, the Wings only get one of those players.  THAT is the point!!

Did you know, the Red Wings have not lost one single game in the last 10 years?  Not one!  They have been beaten by the refs though, on multiple occasions.  Those games appear as "losses" in the standings because there's no other place to put them.  The Wings have never beaten the refs, though, or won a game with their help.  Must be some kind of Bush/Obama government conspiracy.

Just so everyone knows... this isn't a "nomination" for the Norris trophy, these 3 players are the "finalists", meaning they were the top 3 vote-getters.  Voters choose 5 defensemen and rank them 1-5.  A first-place vote gets 10 points, 2nd gets 7, 3rd gets 5 points, 4th 3, and 5th place gets 1 point.  The points are tallied and the top 3 are announced as finalists.  After the awards ceremony, The Hockey News used to (and I'm guessing still does?) publish the entire vote/points list for all NHL awards.

Looks a little Toronto-ish.  It's not bad, but I think some silver or grey stripes would have looked great.

Your post was just plain rude... To suggest a spell checker is one thing to make fun of someones educational background is another entirely. Heaven forbid someone inconveniences you with their grammar and spelling. I am pretty sure no where in the forum rules does it say that only those with solid writing skills are allowed to post.

Kids (and adults) need to know that proper English goes a long way.  That means spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

if u type like this no 1 gon take u serious cuz its hard to read n most ppl cant figur out wat u tryin 2 say n even if they can its gon take them 4ever 2 make cents of it.

However, if you type like this, most everyone can understand what it is that you are trying to say.  We have a lot of people on this site whose first language is not English, and I'm sure they can't understand our teenage slang and text-type.  It's hard to be taken seriously if you type like that.

All that said, to the original poster, cool story!

I LOVE After Hours.  Their interviews are great... in-depth, personal, a little playful, and not the typical fluff or scripted Q&A you'd see elsewhere.  I think if the NHL was able to expose more fans to a regular show like this, they'd have success in marketing players on a more personal level, not just by hype and highlights.  Hockey players are a different breed of athlete, and the NHL should take full advantage of that fact.

As much as I have enjoyed Maltby's years of service, this team and this game has gotten to young for him.  I am glad this team is finally pushing the issue with older players that are not as equipped as the young ones.  Nothing against Maltby, but it's time.  

There is no reason to lose another GR player in the fold, because they want to hold on to the past.

link

I thought his time should have been up 3 years ago...

Oh, he'll get in... if he buys a ticket, just like the rest of us.

The "FA" part of UFA and RFA means Free Agent.  So if you sign a player to a contract, he is no longer a free agent...