Posted by toby91_ca
on 25 September 2014 - 08:42 AM
This probably isn't the best example of a hit to use to complain about not having someone to back up teammates and deter hits against the star players. This was a normal play that you see several times a game. I think part of the probably was Dats stretching out his arm and reaching around to try and get the puck, leaving the shoulder at the wrong angle to take impact.
In terms of "payback" for clean hits on star players....I really don't have much of a problem with it to be honest...to a point of course. Hitting is part of the game, but you still want your star players to avoid as many hits as you can and if you have the other team think twice before even laying a clean hit....then that's good. If you look back at the 80s, Gretzky had to deal with a lot of hooks and holds, but not hits. He barely got touched.
Posted by toby91_ca
on 22 September 2014 - 05:27 PM
I think it is a little too simplistic to look at Bowman getting Yzerman to focus on defense and that resulting in a drop in Yzerman's offensive production. My honest opinion is that I don't think his production was impacted too significantly from his attention to the defensive end. A lot of people might say that if you play great defense, it will give you more time with the puck to play offense.
I think Yzerman played in a unique era within the history of the game. A good part of his prime was during the highest scoring era in league history and his increased age came during the lowest scoring era in league history....which made his drop in production look more significant.
Posted by toby91_ca
on 08 September 2014 - 01:08 PM
In terms of his birthday...yes, if he was born 1 month earlier, he would have just finished his 4th full year in junior. He turned 18 before his 50 goal season even began (so it wasn't 50 goals as a 17/18 year old).
I kinda feel like I'm putting the guy down now, which is not the intent...I'm simply suggesting that I wouldn't put much stock in his junior stats.
Going back to his birthdate and other comments around size...I'd probably even those two out. I agree that it takes a bit longer for a guy his size to develop, so being close to 1 year older than a lot in his draft year may not be as big of a deal. However, one could look at his size and suggest it is easier for him to dominate against guys that are much smaller at 17 and 18 years old....but it likely won't help when he makes the jump to the next level.
Posted by toby91_ca
on 08 September 2014 - 10:50 AM
I'm cautiously excited about Mantha...however, I don't put much stock at all in his 120 points in the QMJHL. I am a bit excited though as the production didn't completely come out of nowhere...he was seen to have enough ability to be drafted at 20th overall.
In terms of Junior stats though, I almost always ignore them unless they are put up by someone in their first couple years in junior and are clearly leading the pack (e.g. Crosby, Lindros, etc.). If you have a look at Daigle as an example....I think most think he put up huge stats, blew everyone out of the water, was drafted 1st overall and was a bust. In reality, he never lead the league in scoring in Junior (was never top 2). He probably went 1st overall though and came with a lot of hype because he put up very high scoring stats as a 2nd year player (even though not leading the league).
If you go back and look at scoring stats in junior, most leading scorers are guys in their 3rd and 4th years and most of those guys don't go on to have spectacular NHL careers.......so I really look for the ones that are putting up huge stats early in junior or I most ignore the stats (which is tough to do).
1. In answering for myself, Fedorov was the better player. In terms of Wings fans in general, I wouldn't be surprised if more said Datsyuk, for several reasons: he didn't have a nasty exit from the team, for a long time now (at forward), the team has been him and Zetterberg, there were more greats around in Fedorov's day + timing thing, Datsyuk's more current.
2. Fedorov should get in fairly easily, but his offensive stats tailed off (under 1ppg, under 500 goals), but he was better all around than anyone + playoff stats are good and he has the major awards to back him up. Also, being the highest scoring Russian in league history will help. Ovechkin will likely pass him, Datsyuk won't, but either way, Fedorov will have held that title for many years.
3. I'm honestly not sure about Datsyuk getting in. Then again, it's always hard to say. There are worse players in than Datsyuk, but there are also better players that haven't made it.
The only problem I have with these types of deals is that the player will always earn more than they should. Sign for a few years that you grow into, then you sign your next deal that overpays early again for you to grow into it, etc. Perhaps they'll be a bargain by the end of the deal, but what about the years leading up to the end of the deal? I'm using hypotheticals now, but if a player signs for 5 years that turns out to be a bargain in the last year or 2, it doesn't change the fact that he was overpaid for the majority of the contract.
In Tatar's case, I don't think that is a big issue though as even if he is overpaid for the entire thing, a 3-year, $2.75M contract is not going to cause any issues. It's the long-term, high dollar contracts that suck.
I agree with you there, like I said, I don't think either is a bad deal. I think the Booth deal is a better one, but I certainly wouldn't look at that one as a steal and think of the Cleary one as a terrible deal. Both are low risk deals and while the Booth one is better (imo), it certainly isn't by a huge amount.
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.