Having had a better rookie season than Datsyuk's rookie season is absolutely meaningless, not sure why we are discussing it. Several players in NHL history have had better or even much better rookie seasons than Datsyuk and have gone on to have careers nowhere near the career Datsyuk has had. The opposite is true as well...there have been players that have had worse rookie years than Datsyuk and have gone on to have better careers than him. It is really a silly comparison.
I don't think Danny has come close to "earning" the same money Quincey got. People can argue whether he's just as good or better all they want, but that's not how contracts get done in the NHL at this stage of his career. If Danny was a star player and clearly better, it would be a different story, but the truth is he is simply one of the guys who is developing and who has some promise and could very likely end up being the better player.
Quincey put in many years to get to UFA status, which is what many players work towards and often only get the opportunity to experience once in their careers...that's when they cash in. If you are Danny, after putting in 70 odd games in NHL and looking to cash in the same way, then I'd be more than a bit annoyed.
Looking at what Quincey got is really not a good comparison due to his UFA status. UFA eligibility is a seriously negotiated term of the CBA as compensation coming out of UFA is significantly different than a RFA. That's just the way it is. It is something you need to "earn" - goes beyond just your ability on the ice. Danny has played a total of 76 games in the NHL, I'd be pretty hesitant in handing out a fat contract.
To respond to the earlier question around the shootout, I personally hate it because it has nothing to do with the game itself. It's like they finished the game and now we are going to do this thingy over here to decide the winner (skills comp).
In terms of comparison to soccer, showing stupidity in one sport is not a good argument as to why it should be implemented in another. It's not a great argument for me as I can't stand soccer. I played as a kid up until hockey commitments were too great to do much of anything else, but in terms of watching, no thanks. The big reason they have a shootout is because the number of goals scored is generally very, very low. The possibility of a game going for hours without a goal is fairly high. My opinion for it being the world's most popular sport is because it requires the least amount of money to get into, therefore, almost every country around the world can participate. Popularity in "richer" countries isn't as high.....this is my assumption anyway, not backed up by any research at all.
Back on topic, I don't think the NHL will look to remove the shootout, I think they simply want to try and limit the number of games that go to a shootout. I'm okay with that as I'm reasonable in thinking that they simply can't let games go on for too long waiting for someone to score. Even though that would be rare, they wouldn't want any going too long. And they don't want to get too goofy to avoid it (i.e. going to 3 on 3). This is, of course, if you really can't live with ties...which I personally have no problem with. The only problem the NHL has with ties is not that they don't have a winner, they can live with ties fine, the problem is that teams start to play not to lose so they can at least get the single point and offense basically dries up.
Frankgrimes....sorry, my quote button isn't working for some reason.
I can see arguing Toews as being top 5 (a lot of people have him pretty high). Looking at his offensive numbers, he's nowhere near that, but he brings much more to the table than offense and he provides good offense as well. I don't see Kane as bring too much beyond offense though and his offense is not at the very top of the league, so I have more of a problem stomaching him as highest paid player in the league.
In terms of Toews being top 5....that's fine, won't argue there, but he's being paid more than anyone else....by a good margin too.
Crosby making more in the next few years is irrelevant, it is cap hit that matters. Would you rather a contract that paid you $10 million every year for the next 5 years or a contract that paid you $12 million for the next 2 years and then $6 million for the remaining 3 years. Crosby makes more for a few years, but over the term, Toews will earn significantly more than Crosby.
From what I have seen from some people talking about how the owners are stupid and just driving salaries up again and again and tying the cap to revenues creates a problem, etc......It might be you guys that don't fully understand how it works. In terms of the cap and floor, I'd leave that to the owner's to figure out amongst themselves (I.e. some teams doing really well and some teams losing money....they need to figure out how to share revenues effectively).
At the player cost level, it really doesn't matter what contracts are signed, the players will always get 50% (or whatever the number is) of league revenues. As an example, if everyone in the league signed a contract for $500,000 a year and league revenues came in at $3B...every player in the league would actually earn about $4.3M ($3B / 30 teams / 23 players per team). The same is true if every player in the league signed for $10 million....they'd all be giving money back to the league (that is what the escrow system is meant to take care of). A particular player's contracted salary is simply used as a measure against all other player contracts to determine how much of the pie (revenues allocated to players) that he gets. I think this notation of salaries being driven up is a bit on the false side.
The bigger problem I have with these contracts though is that I would find it extremely difficult trying to argue why these 2 guys should be the highest paid players in the league.
It is typical of around here....complain about reffing....non-stop, even when the Wings aren't playing. It does get pretty tiresome.
I'll admit to not watching most of the game last night, but from what I saw, CBJ got away with taking a ton of liberties, there was definitely no favouritism going the Pens way from the little that I saw.
From a pure stats perspective, CBJ took a grand total of 3 penalties during the game (yup, gotta be a conspiracy here). Pens took 4 penalties by the way, theirs were all well deserved of course.
Can we be a bit more original around here (at least when the Wings aren't playing against them?)
What it really comes down to is, what does the coaching staff want from him. Do you want to take a 50 goal scorer and turn him into a 30 goal guy and improve his D? Tough one to answer. Most teams are looking for more O. Scoring in the NHL is down and trending further south.
I know a lot of people have the view that x player sacrifices offense by playing better D, but I really think that is a myth.
Playing great D should give you more options on offsensive. Getting the puck back quicker gives you greater possession time. If you are not chipping in on D, your teams will spend more time in your own end, which is very tough to score from.
I've always viewed him as an alternate reality Fedorov. What if Feds hadn't been drafted by the Wings, hadn't played under Bowman, hadn't played alongside a slew of future Hall of Famers across a slew of very deep Wings teams funded by Mike Ilitch and his whatever-it-takes mandate? Would he have become an Alex Ovechkin? Or, to flip it around, What if Ovechkin had been drafted (or, more realistically, somehow acquired via trade) by the Wings? Would he be what he is?
I don't know, I see them as completely different players, right from day 1.