Russian sports paper "Sovetskiy Sport" quoted Ilya Kovalchuk's mom: "Pavel Datsyuk played in the Worlds with an injury."
I'm so happy for him. He got his first gold medal for Russia, and was one of the key players on that team. I didn't think I could admire this man any more
That is crap. Neither of them will be offered 10 million a year. They are great players but they aren't at the same level as the Crosbys and Stamkos's of the league.
Here are the comparable (in terms of production) players and their salaries: Zetterberg: actual salary next year 7.1 mil. cap hit 6.08 due to conrtact length gimmick that the league will not toleraate anymore, as they showed with Kovalchuk's contract. D.Sedin 6.1 mil./ 6.1 E.Staal 8.5 / 8.25 Kovalchuk 11.0 / 6.67 Iginla 7.0 /7.0 that contract was signed waay back. Sharp 6.0 / 5.9
Parise is younger than all of them, but Sharp, and to sign him long term would require an increase, at least 20%, over what those guys are making. So if we take a conservative route, average of all the above players, Parise's agent would ask for 10 and won't come down below 8.5. Given that Parise is THE premiere forward UFA this season, I would expect that he will get closer to the asking price than the minimum one. The final number will be modified by playing with throwaway years on the contract and such, but with the league shown displeasure with such doings, I expect that the cap number will be close to the real salary.
Now Suter. His comparables: Weber 7.5/7.5 (1 yr and RFA only would command way more for the long-term UFA contract) Hamhius 5.0 / 4.5 Letang 3.5 / 3.5 (signed as RFA, so UFA contract would be much higher) Keith 8.0 / 5.5 Seabrook 7.0 / 5.8
So an average of these 5 +20% is 7.5 and Weber's and Letangs number are too low. So Suter's agent will start with 9.5 and come down to no less than 8.25. Again, Suter is THE best UFA defenseman this year, so he is likely to command closer to 9 mil. than 8. Again, I assume that the real salary does not get too different from the cap hit.
So, assuming a long term contract, Parise will cost 9-10 mil, and Suter 8.5-9. Together they will command 17.5-19 mil. If they decide that Detroit only needs to add the two of them to win the Cup next season, they may agree to a one year package deal at significantly less, but if you were in their shoes, which team would be the most likely to win next year with their addition? I doubt it's Detroit. And any GM in a league will do a lot to add those two. Including trading away major players if the cap limit demands it.
Yes, a year. Comparables for a long term contract: Kovalchuk and Weber (who is on a short term arbitration award IIRC) 10+7.5(short term, lowball). With salaries expected to rise every year, a LT contracts of parise and Suter will at least 10% higher than the Kovy+Weber. That is 19+ mil.
And 7 million isn't such a discount. They are perhaps leaving a few million off the table to play together and for a team with a history of winning and a group of guys who know what it takes to win. You don't get that from many other clubs.
How about the Bruins? The Rangers? The Devils? The Kings? The Blues? The Preds? The Flyers even? Those all look like contenders to me.
Parise and Suter could both make 7 million with us still below the cap ceiling.
Perhaps, but there's no way they will both accept such a discount, unless it's for one year only, like Selanne and Kariya once did. But put yourself in their shoes, is Detroit the best place for their one shot at a Cup together? Because at that price (14 mil for both) they can have their pick of ANY NHL team they want. And right now Detroit doesn't look like the team most poised to win the Cup next year.
And to sign them both long-term, the price tag will START at 20 mil.
Stamkos, Crosby, Giroux, Neal, Thornton, St. Louis, Staal, Hartnell, Iginla, Seguin, Lupul, Parenteau, Couture, Pietrangelo, Campbell, Weber, Boyle, Bieksa, Letang, Burns, Subban, Fleury, Luongo, or Price could have helped the Canadian team (some might have been injured but not all of them were)
Stamkos, Staal (Eric)-hurt, Crosby-said, he needed to finish rehab, Giroux, Hartnell, Pietrangelo, Weber were still playing, Thornton, Iginla, St.Louis, Boyle are too old, considering Sochi, Campbell - if that is a Boston one, you must be joking, Lupul, Parenteau, Couture are not obviously better than the forwards who were there. I agree that D and to a degree G could be better with the players you mentioned, but Cam Ward is no slouch either.
For the US - Kessel, Pominville, Kane, Wheeler, Cole, Pavelski, Backes, Oshie, Legwand, Stafford, Kesler, Malone, Foligno, Higgins, Umburger, Byfuglien, Suter, Shattenkirk, Carle, Leddy, Carlson, Gardiner, Bogosian, Thomas and Miller all could have helped.
Thomas is too old for Sochi, Miller is not better than Howard this season. E.Kane was there, I don't know if P.Kane was healthy. Stafford, Kesler, Cole (Carolina one) were either hurt or fresh out of rehab. Byfuglien had legal issues. Wheeler, Foligno, Malone, Umburger, Leddy, Gardiner were not obviously better than the players already there, Carlson(IIRC), Suter, Shattenkirk, Oshie, Legwand, Backes were still playing. So that leaves Kessel, Pavelski, maybe P.Kane, Higgins. All good players but hardly any more valuable to their team than the players other teams were missing. More notable ones: Backstrom (G), Kiprusoff, Pitkanen, Hamrlik, T.Ruutu, Edler, Murray, Paajarvi, Enstrom, Hossa, Visnovsky, Jurcina, Meszaros, Halak, Hornquist, A.Markov, Radulov, Voynov and I'm sure i forgot many more.
I'm not sure why North American NHLers don't look at the WHC the same way their European counterparts do, but for whatever reason Canadian and American players don't seem to head overseas to represent their countries for the WHC. When every playoff round ends you seem to see European teams getting boosts to their rosters, but the North American's who get eliminated from the playoffs tend to stay home with a higher frequency.
That's true, but it's really your own internal problem. If Hockey USA or Hockey Canada can't assemble the best team possible, who's to blame?
Steve Yzerman had absolutely nothing to do with Canada's team this year, it was picked and managed by the Oilers Kevin Lowe, and it also wasn't the last chance to audition for the Olympics, next years WHC championship and the next season and a half of NHL play will be the audition's for the NA teams. This WHC was fairly meaningless as far as Sochi is concerned unless you care about your ranking.
http://www.tsn.ca/canadian_hockey/feature/?id=63060 According to this, Yzerman is an executive director, and Lowe is just one of a large management group. And I remember Yzerman saying that WHC participation will be an important consideration when determining the Olympic roster. After this WHC there's only one more left before the Olympics, and who knows what players will be able to go in 2013. They may be going deep into the playoffs, have injuries, or they just may not be picked next year. That's what I mean when i say this may have been the last chance at an Olympic audition for many NHLers.
Correct. The US and canada could have multiple international teas if all their top players showed up-hell Canada could have 3 or 4. But most don't go play. Most are looking forward to the time off and take it. The Olympics are the main international comp., and the top player show for it. Which is why the US and Canada win the gold and silver.
Correction, US and Canada won gold and silver only twice since 1998, and coincidentally, when the Olympics were held in North America. In Nagano and Turin Czech Republic and Sweden won gold, and Russia and Finland - silver. So Canada won some and Europeans won some. There's no clear advantage either way, and the sample size is too small anyway. As to the fact that Canada is deep, so what. There still are only 6 players on the ice at a time. In Turin, all that depth didn't help, did it? And if you actually look at Canada rosters at the Worlds, at least in the last 7-8 years, those are some pretty impressive rosters.
Are you kidding?
No. Do you even know who did play for Canada and the US this year?
I'm just saying better teams are more likely to lose games with less scoring and bigger goalie equipment internationally or in the NHL. Anybody paying in the AHL regardless of NHL experience weren't deemed good enough to make their respective teams The best veteran North Americans don't participate in the tournament
"Better" teams lost, so they were not "better". And they didn't lose 1-0. USA lost to Slovakia 2-4, and to Finland 2-3, Canada lost to Slovakia 3-4. Goaltender equipment was the same as in NHL. What "best veteran North Americans" didn't play that could have strengthened their teams? (Apart from the ones busy in the Stanley Cup playoffs or injured.) Remember, Steve Yzerman was the GM of this team Canada, surely the players must realize that this may have been their last chance to audition for Sochi-2014? On paper, Canada and USA were "better" than Slovakia, Finland, or even Russia. Unfortunately for them, ice is more slippery than paper.
Dude your crazy. I had a Fedorov jersey before i had an Yzerman jersey. I love love loved the Russian five and love Datsyuk. Of course Fedorov got some hate...he was a beloved wing and he left us for the Ducks...and of course Pavel got criticism as a young player....unless your Yzerman everyone does, Pavel proved himself though, just like Filppula is now. This has absolutely nothing do with someone being a Russian...It has everything to do with the KHL and players they've ruined like Radulov.
I didn't say that every single fan here hates Fedorov. But you can't deny that a lot, probably a significant majority, do. It does take several thousand fans to boo someone and be heard. The immediate reasons for hate vary, dependent on a player we are talking about, but there seems to be an underlying jealousy/hate toward KHL and Russian players, who do constitute a large majority of its players. As to whether KHL ruins players, the sample size is too small. There haven't been many players who played in KHL and then in the NHL. In fact, I suspect that your sample consists of Hudler and Radulov only. And Radulov has played too few games after his return, to judge. After all he had the most points of all players on both teams in the Nashville series, if he was ruined by the KHL, then who ruined the rest of the players in that series? And if you are referring to his discipline problems, it's not like he was a choir boy here before he left Nashville for the KHL. One might argue that it's the NHL that is turning its players into spoiled primadonnas. In fact, that is precisely the argument that's made on the Russian fan sites. And they have much larger sample size to base their conclusions on.
The issue with Fedorov stems from his 2003 antics when he left for the Ducks and put the Wings in a spot who tried negotiating with him and didn't sign anyone else when they should have. Has nothing to do with him being Russian. Most fans let go the fact that Fedorov had contract issues before, combined with a knack for putting forth very little effort once winning his first two Stanley Cups.
Pavel was criticized at one point for not producing enough in the playoffs, which he fixed, had nothing to do with the contract.
The players that were most bashed here on this forum are named Lilja, Filppula, Lang, and Osgood, and last I checked Sweden, Finland, Czech Republic, and Canada aren't Russia.
Man, you have been a member here longer than I have, but you seem to have a short memory. Pavel was bashed herer prior to signing his long term (and as it turned out bargain basement cheap) deal, precisely for the terms of that contract. The prevailing opinion was that he wasn't (as all Russians) a playoff performer and wasn't worth the money. I don't want to spend my time searching for those old threads, but if you wish, you can look it up and see if I'm right.
Fedorov was bashed before he left for not being consistent, being a primadonna etc., and after he left, well you know about that one.
Yes there were other players who were bashed here for various reasons, and some were bashed more than others. My point is that (especially after the start of the KHL) there seem to be extra hate for any Russian player who (blasphemy) doesn't drop all he's doing and rush to North America to play for (relative) peanuts, on a two-way rookie capped contract. Or for any European player who goes to KHL instead of here. Am I all that wrong?
Imaginary Russian-persecution on a Red Wings board is pretty comical. No other team in the league has had more reasons to love Russia than Detroit has over the last 20 years.
Oh, yeah. I remember all the "love" Pavel has gotten on this forum prior to signing his long-term contract. Also, you wanna see love for Russians, just try praising Fedorov. Yeah, the one who was booed every time he touched the puck. It seems that a Russian Red Wings (and even more so every other teams') player has to be perfect in all ways to not get bashed here. If Datsyuk wasn't far and away the best Red Wing this season, his name would have been dirt here, too.
P.S. If I missed sarcasm in your post, sorry for the rant, but if you were serious...
Listening to you guys hate on Kuznetsovm makes me wonder if you heard that the Cold War was over? I don't have any inside info but here's few reasons he might want to stay home for a couple more seasons:
He's 20, he doesn't yet have the muscle mass to withstand the NHL seson, and NHL hitting.
He had a shoulder surgery recently, so it would make sense to bulk up to avoid re-injury.
He got married just about 9 months ago, could a grandma availability be soon necessary?
Guys, this game is supposed to give us joy, not promote bile accumulation. Why so negative?
Entertainment: fans want to see fights. it's one of the things that hockey has that no other sport has (besides boxing/UFC). it makes hockey unique and it often intensifies rivalries and puts fans in seats. Traditional: getting rid of fighting in hockey is like making american football 2 hand touch Protection: turtling rarely happens, and when it does it's seen as quite shameful. at least in pre-lockout hockey you usually had to answer for dirty plays one way or another. heavyweight bouts are more of a sideshow, but do bring in fans and thus money. a win in a fight often boosts the energy and attitude of a team as well, occasionally changing the course of a game.
heavy suspensions for fighting is bad because it would change many dynamics of the game. i believe refs should return to their pre-lockout attitude of allowing enforcers to make dirty players "pay" thus curtailing many dirty plays.
fighting is very much a sideshow but also very functional
I'm trying to recall an instance where someone got beat up by an enforcer for something he did in the game, and I draw a blank. Could you give me an example? But I remember quite well Cooke and Tootoo antics, and how they never concede to fight anyone bigger then them. So I'm not convinced that fighting deters anything. It does please many fans, but as for being functional...
For a guy who didn't grow up in North America, would someone please explain a few things about hockey fighting to me?
I don't have any objection against fighting in hockey, but except for being entertaining and traditional, I don't see any useful function for it.
The way I see it, a cheap shot artist (like Cooke, Casparaitis) can always avoid being beat up by turtling (and does if the odds are unfavorable). So as a deterrent, I don't see fighting working.
Or if an agitator A(very) does something bad, and as a result heavyweight from the other team challenges an enforcer from A(very)'s team, then how is A(very) punished? He is not the one with the black eye.
Or if the two heavyweights line up for a faceoff and drop'em right away, what's that but a sideshow?
I understand when a spontaneous fight, especially by a scorer/team leader who doesn't normally fight, can change the momentum of the game, but that situation does not arise often, and the existing rules can deal with such adequately.
So my question is, what do we want fighting in hockey for, and why would heavy suspensions for fighting be bad?