Jump to content


toby91_ca's Photo

toby91_ca

Member Since 28 Jun 2002
Offline Last Active Today, 12:13 PM
**---

#2017521 NHL Rejects Kovalchuk's Contract

Posted by toby91_ca on 20 July 2010 - 08:52 PM

This is bulls***, if the NHL will not allow contracts like this then they at least need to make the salary cap a soft cap with a luxury tax.

How is it bulls***? How would you really see this different than a 50 year contract that the player gets paid most of the money in the first 10 years?

Easy to say a 50 year contract is absurd, but this contract is just as absurd. You can point to other "similar" contracts, but with those, there is at least a reasonable chance the players will play out the deals. There is a zero chance this contract would be played out. Also, 95% of the cash is paid a little over half way through the contract......just stupid and obvious circumvention.


#2017518 NHL Rejects Kovalchuk's Contract

Posted by toby91_ca on 20 July 2010 - 08:48 PM

I wonder how they're differentiating this from the other contracts like it.

No other contract took a player to the age of 44 and no other contract trailed off in later years quite as significantly.

Rejecting this deal was an absolute no brainer to me.


#2017285 Loophole

Posted by toby91_ca on 20 July 2010 - 12:42 PM

A quick suggested solution: ensure all $ paid to the player end up counting against the cap. This is how it works:

- If you sign a guy to a $50 million, 10 year contract, paying $5 million every year and he retires at the end of the 7th year, the cap would have been hit by $35 million (7 yrs at $5M per) and he would have been paid $35M, therefore, no issues.

- However, if you want to try and get sneaky and front load a deal, then you could get stuck with this: Kovalchuk as an example. He'll get paid $95M in the first 10 years of his 17 year contract. If he retires at the end of the years, the cap would have only been hit by $60 million ($6M cap hit per year). Therefore, they would need to take the $35M paid that didn't hit the cap and spread it over the remaining years of the initial contract (35/7yrs = $5M cap hit per year).

I understand you can't say you are stuck with a cap hit regardless of what happens because players will retire before the end of their deals and it's not fair, etc. However, if you choose to front load a contract and pay a guy all kinds of $ up front, it should count against the cap at some point. If you want to sign a guy to a 15 year contract, fine, if you pay him $6 million every single year, no problem, if he retires early, no cap hit after he's gone. However, if you get cute and pay him almost everything upfront, if he retires early, you are stuck with a cap hit and no player.


#2017259 Loophole

Posted by toby91_ca on 20 July 2010 - 10:56 AM

My issue is this:

What's to stop a team from signing a player to a 30 year contract? Of course the easy answer is to say that is unreasonable, there is no way a player would play for that long, etc. However, where is the line drawn?

How reasonable is it to expect Kovalchuk might play until he is 44. Consider that there has only been 1 player in the last 36 years to play to that age. The answer is that there is a 99.99% chance he doesn't play out the contract, which to me, makes it an unreasonable one.


#2016879 Kovalchuk Re-Signs with Devils

Posted by toby91_ca on 19 July 2010 - 02:38 PM

If it is true, as being reported, I'm not sure how the league can approve such a contract. A 17 year contract would mean he is 45 at completion. It is obvious that they have no intention of paying him until he is 45, clear circumvention of the cap.


#2016702 Mikko Koivu stays with Wild

Posted by toby91_ca on 19 July 2010 - 10:04 AM

I too saw this and thought huge overpayment, but if you want to compare to Datsyuk, I look at it this way:

- at the time Datsyuk signed his contract, he was a better player than Koivu is now, however, he was also 2 years older
- at the time Datsyuk signed his contract, the cap was about $44 million, for Koivu, it's about $57 million (this is the cap from the season just completed in each case). So by comparison, that's about a 30% difference. I think this is the most significant difference, which is probably being overlooked by most.

So, still overpayment today and risk involved, but with these types of deals, you hope the player continues to develop and make the cap hit look low later in his career.

When Datsyuk signed his contract, I thought it was overpayment, but now, not so much. Same thing can happen with Koivu.


#1997502 Toews: Most undeserving Conn Smyth winner in history?

Posted by toby91_ca on 10 June 2010 - 10:48 AM

Deserving or not it's an award than Crosby doesn't have, so Toews technically now has more accolades than Crybaby. I'm all for this.

Help me understand, Toews has an award that Crosby doesn't have.....so technically he now has more accolades than Crosby? How does that work.

So if Crosby has 1,000 awards and Toews has 1 award, but it's one Crosby doesn't have = Toews technically has more accolades?


#1995866 Why Holmstrom

Posted by toby91_ca on 07 June 2010 - 01:20 PM

Why Holmstrom? Holmstrom steps it up when needed. He has always been a playoff scorer, he seems to up his game then. If he can still net 25 goals regular season and 5-10 playoffs, then $1.8M is WELL worth it. Why do you think Draper and Maltby stuck around so long? They stepped it up in the playoffs consistently, now they are replaceable, right now, Tomas Holmstrom is NOT replaceable, well not unless you are gonna replace him with Ryan Smyth or Ryan Geztlaf and that's not gonna happen for less than $2M... Plus 10,000 points for Holland AND Holmstrom for this deal! (not to mention he could've easily gotten $3M on the market, that saves us $1.2M in Cap Space to spend elsewhere)

Lids for $6.2M
Holmstrom for $1.8M

That's TWO 4 time Stanley Cup Champs, who are the BEST at what they do for $4M a piece! When you think that Lids could've gotten $10M and Holmstrom $3M, that's FREAKIN AMAZING!

While I agree with most of what you are saying, this isn't true. He's only picked up the pace from the regular season in the playoffs in 3 of his 13 years in Detroit and hasn't done so in the past 7 years straight.


#1995777 The right way to be a prospect of the Wings

Posted by toby91_ca on 07 June 2010 - 10:34 AM

isnt he 19? but i agree, from what ive seen tatar looks like he has alot of potential to be a great player in the NHL and im excited to see him progress next year

oh nvm i guess he is 18

He'll be 20 later this year.


#1995775 Steve Yzerman

Posted by toby91_ca on 07 June 2010 - 10:27 AM

I don't get it. GMs and other members of management ask for permission to speak to other team's personnel. If you really want someone, that's what you have to do. It would such if you had to simply accept who's out there, out of job and looking. People ask for permission to speak to certain people all the time, sometimes the team says no, sometimes they say yes.

Do I have this correct...some people on here are okay with other GMs doing this with the wings, but not Steve? Makes no sense. He needs to fill positions, he can speak to the other 28 teams, but not the Wings? That's just stupid.


#1993841 please chicago win the stanley cup

Posted by toby91_ca on 03 June 2010 - 03:31 PM

I don't care either way. Why would anyone care if Pronger won the Conne Smythe or not?


#1990270 Stanley Cup Finals vs Superbowl

Posted by toby91_ca on 27 May 2010 - 08:11 AM

A neutral site works and makes sense for a game like football. It is a single game and it would probably be unfair for one of those teams to be playing on home field. For hockey and other sports (see baseball, basketball, etc.), it doesn't make sense and that's why it is not done. In a 7 games series, you are able to split the games so each team has home ice for different games, no unfair advantage to on of the teams. The team with the better regular season record gets an extra home game of course, but that's fair.


#1987050 WC in Pitt. pretty much a done deal for 2011

Posted by toby91_ca on 19 May 2010 - 07:54 AM

This love fest with these two players and teams is getting really old.

I can understand the issue most people have with the constant promotion of Crosby and Ovechkin, but I think people need to step back and appreciate just how good these players are.

As of right now (I know numbers could decline, but both are still years away from their primes):

Career points per game leaders in NHL history:

Gretzky - 1.921
Lemieux - 1.883
Bossy - 1.497
Orr - 1.393
Crosby - 1.364
Ovechkin - 1.336
Dionne - 1.314

Pretty impressive group to be included within. Again, over the long haul, their stats may begin to lag, but it is also important to point out that all the others on this list played in a much higher scorer era than today's NHL. While they have tried to increase scoring, scoring is still low and goalies are lightyears ahead of where they used to be.

People need to understand that these players are special and if the NHL doesn't market them as such, they are missing out. To NHL fans of other teams, it gets annoying, but I do think these guys draw in new fans.


#1986456 Luxury Tax System

Posted by toby91_ca on 17 May 2010 - 02:51 PM

Figured this would come up the next time the Wings lost a playoff series.

A luxury tax system is nice, but it still encourages more spending. Teams had proven when there was no system in place to curb their spending that they would spend themselves into bankruptcy to try and be competitive as far as having superstars and getting (at very least) into the playoffs is concerned. A luxury tax would, despite the "sharing" of tax revenues of those over a designated cap, still encourage reckless spending and thus pit the NHL into the same problem it had pre-cap era.

This is without foresight at all, and imo it's just a way to get the Wings out of a cap system so they can spend a lot more money and buy a lot more superstars again so we can see another roster like that of 2002.

I agree, the examples as described just shows total salaries increasing across the board. So, more money to players, but no more revenues to the league. Not sure how the owners would feel about that.


#1985049 Sidney Crosby - The most hated player in the NHL

Posted by toby91_ca on 14 May 2010 - 11:30 AM

It's not JUST about points either - Punching another guy in the junk from behind, taking all kinds of other cheapshots, not shaking hands and overall flopping around and acting like he's been shot with a shotgun over the smallest shots, just to return to the ice 2 shifts later... he portrays the game in a poor light and is a HORRIBLE role model for young players - THAT is not a face the league should market... hell, even though I can't stand him, how about Getzlaf? Even he plays the game with more honor - close to the same PPG, has a Stanley Cup, Olympic gold and is young as well... or even Bobby Ryan... my point is, there are plenty of others in the league that would represent the league better...

Did you just say that Getzlaf has close to the same PPG as Crosby?

Crosby's career PPG is 1.36, Getzlaf's is 0.93. Getzlaf's BEST season was 1.12, Crosby WORST season was 1.26.