Maybe the closest, but when it comes right down to it, no one dominated the way Gretzky did. You can try to twist and turn everything anyway you want by talking about illness and injuries and what ifs and on pace, etc., but at the end of the day, what you are left for is what actually happened.
Lemieux probably the had the potential and skill to challenge some of Gretzky's totals, but he never really did in the end.
Lemieux won the scoring title 6 times and the total margin he won by for the 6 years combined was 95pts. That compares to Gretzky's maring of 70+ pts, 5 years in a row and 79pts in a single year.
I undestand some of those years Lemieux may have still won the scoring race even missing a ton of games, but like I said, all I can go by at the end of the day is what actually happened.
Gretzky probably would have had a lot higher career stats too if he didn't seriously injur his back in the middle of his career.
The realistic part of his contract was about 95 mil. for 10 yrs. 9.5 per year. That is comparable with the other top players. And seeing that he is the only superstar UFA available this year, it is realistic to for him to expect to get OV/Crosby type money. He is as good or has a chance of being just as good as them, given a decent team to play for.
Why should Kovalchuk expect Crosby or Ovechkin money? He's a good player, but not on their level.
Also, Crosby only gets $8.7M for 5 years, quite a bit different than $9.5M for 10 years. It is comparable to Ovechkin though, who's getting $9.6 million for 13 years.
Stats wise though, Kovy doesn't compare.
Crosby and Ovechkin both have 4 - 100pt seasons out of 5 career years. The seasons they missed, Ovechkin had 92 pts and Crosby missed like 30 games, he was on pace for well over 100 and to lead the league. Kovy has never had a 100pt season.
Career ppg stats:
Crosby - 1.364 ~ 112pts over 82 games Ovechkin - 1.336 ~ 110pts over 82 games Kovalchuk - 1.034 ~ 85pts over 82 games
I agree with whoever asked why this guy thinks he's worth so much. Even if you think he's one of the best goal scorers, pure sniper, well, compare him to Crosby, a guy that most think doesn't score that much......their gpg stats are not that different.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.