View Full Version : These sort of dollars make no sense
Found this at another forum I hang out at, food for thought.
Sheesh do you really think that Bob the Knob really mihght not be the "Smartest man in hockey"????
By BUCKY GLEASON
8/3/2005
How long did it last, less than two full days? The National Hockey League spent a good two years crying about its problems, another one locking out its players, millions of dollars fighting the players' association, months demanding a salary cap and heaven knows how long insisting financial sanity would be restored.
Is this what the league had in mind?
In less than 48 hours, the league was back in the loony bin. The evidence was right there in the first round of free-agent contract signings. The system designed for bargain hunters already is failing, quickly caving to supply and demand and U-turning the NHL down the scary road from which it recently departed.
Take, for example, defenseman Adam Foote. He made $4.3 million in 2003-04, under the old collective bargaining agreement. Calculate the 24 percent salary rollback, assuming Foote was worth $4.3 million in the first place, and he should have signed a deal worth about $3.25 million this season. The Columbus Blue Jackets decided he improved so much during the lockout that he deserved $4.6 million a season.
Granted, he's a good player, but for Foote that's an arm and a leg, especially in today's game.
"It's a little scary," Sabres General Manager Darcy Regier said Tuesday. "I don't want to comment on another organization, but I can comment on what's taking place in the marketplace. These types of things are what got us in trouble in the first place."
The Sabres were among many teams intent on dipping their toes into free agency with the idea they could land a good player or two at a reasonable price. The system figured to work, but only if teams across the league adhered to the strengths of the CBA. It meant thinking twice before signing long-term deals for big money.
In no time, GMs were overspending for players while owners ignored the very reasons they stood firm during the lockout. They'll eventually meet a roadblock with the salary cap, but the market already has changed. The price for defensemen just skyrocketed beyond the realm of reality.
We knew all along that owners were half the problem because every contract included two signatures. Still, we sympathized with the owners because, in the old NHL, there were no inherent mechanisms to curb spending. Basically, owners needed to be saved from themselves. We applauded the 24 percent rollback, embraced the $39 million salary cap, welcomed the new CBA.
But if what happened in the first two days amounts to a salary cut, where do I sign up?
Adrian Aucoin made $3.25 million with the New York Islanders in 2003-04. Common sense suggested he should have been paid roughly $2.5 million. But why should he settle for such a pittance? The Chicago Blackhawks, among the loudest moaners under the previous system, agreed to pay him $4 million a year.
Derian Hatcher pocketed $13.2 million last month after the Detroit Red Wings bought out his contract. All told, he made about $18 million with the Wings and played 27 games, including the playoffs. Somehow, that production and a major injury warranted a four-year deal worth $14 million from Philadelphia.
Alexei Zhitnik would have earned about $3 million per season - including the rollback - if he had signed a deal last year. Instead, he signed a four-year, $14 million contract with the Islanders on Tuesday. With salary cutbacks like the ones we've witnessed, who needs raises?
Teams can spend whatever they want on whomever they want, so long as they know the ramifications. Overpaying for players now will hurt teams once they run out of cap room. Given the NHL's attitude toward cutting costs over the first two days, teams will eventually get what they deserve.
Just don't blame the players for taking what they can get.
Several bad contracts. Rathje, Hatcher, Morrison, Zhamnov, Kariya all come to mind. I suppose the idiots will never learn.
The Insider
8-07-05, 12:05 AM
It is a little weird to see teams which had been crying poor suddenly finding these huge dollars to sign big names. Pittsburgh for example looked like the walking dead when all of a sudden a 39 million dollar cap takes place and now they've got the dollars to be signing Palffy and Gonchar. But with the new revenue sharing system in place and with teams cutting costs to make room under the cap it isn't to surprising. And while the point can be made that players are getting pretty big contracts, you gotta look to see where most of these players are going: Columbus, Pittsburgh, Florida, Edmonton, Calgary, Chicago, Boston, Carolina, Long Island, etc. etc. etc. While the Flyers have been the only big spender to make big splashes in the past doing it again, let's remember that these teams had... I'll even go as far to say weak superstarless teams. But now under the new CBA, teams that had many all stars/superstar players are forced to create a more balanced league so you see guys like Foote going to play for Columbus, or Edmonton swinging a deal to bring in Pronger and Peca. This is the advantage under the new CBA, every team has been given the chance to sign a "superstar" to be the face of the franchise which under the old system wasn't available. So no more will the Wings, Leafs, Avs and Rangers stockpile all the huge names while teams like the Oilers, Panthers struggle to get by with borderline NHLers as their top forwards. So I ask you if these moves are really a big problem since it seems to me it has created a neat balance in the league which allows each team to sell at least one superstar and in order to be successful and draw isn't that what you need the most(besides a winning team) :confused:
TimmyTabasco
8-07-05, 12:52 AM
Several bad contracts. Morrison
Oh come on
Thats not a bad contract. Basically 3 million a season, for a top line center?
Alright, say he's not a top line center..but he is in Vancouver, and thats what matters to me.
If they paid him 4 million, then yeah..bad contract. But as it stands, good deal! :nod: :thumb:
skidmark
8-07-05, 12:53 AM
Just a thought. Before the lockout, clutching, grabbing and hooking allowed defencemen to contain forwards that were more athletic than they were rather easily. Now, with the new zero tolerance rules (let's hope), there should be fewer good defencemen in the league since their job has become so much more difficult. If this is true (not sure that it is), then the price of very good d-men should go up. The same would go for defensive forwards as well I think.
This is an exiting time for this industry. Would it ever be fun to work in it.
The Insider
8-07-05, 1:03 AM
Oh come on
Thats not a bad contract. Basically 3 million a season, for a top line center?
Alright, say he's not a top line center..but he is in Vancouver, and thats what matters to me.
If they paid him 4 million, then yeah..bad contract. But as it stands, good deal! :nod: :thumb:
Three Million does seem a little hefty for Morrison, but what do I know right, I cheer for a team that gave both Reichel and Renberg ridiculous contracts. I think that there were better players for that price, but Morrison knows the system and has chemistry with Naslund and Tuzzi so I guess it was the best choice.
swflyers25
8-07-05, 1:33 PM
Hatcher and Rathje both got less than Foote. Both will make 3.5 a year. With Rathje only 31, it works for me. I like him as a player. Same with Hatcher. Best years he had were with Hitch. I'm fine with it.
Newfie John
8-07-05, 3:40 PM
Hatcher and Rathje both got less than Foote. Both will make 3.5 a year. With Rathje only 31, it works for me. I like him as a player. Same with Hatcher. Best years he had were with Hitch. I'm fine with it.
Well of course you are. But the unbiased person would say that that kind of contract for Hatcher is rediculous. Next year you'll be trying to unload that big salary. 4 years for a guy who is past his prime is just plain stupid. To automatically assume he will make this rejuvinated comeback just because he's playing for his old coach, is juts being near sighted.
Rathje's contract is the same. 5 years for him gives him way too much security. Rathje thrives with obstruction, with the NHL getting rid of that, Rathje's game just got pretty thin. "The Smartest Man in Hockey" will be looking like an idiot when he's trying to unload these bloated contracts.
This article is exactly why I'm glad the Devils haven't joined in the free agent frenzy that seems to sweeping across the league (okay, the Malakhov deal is iffy). I know there are some very good players that were available in free agency this year, but there are going to be some even better players, and at a younger age in the next couple of years that will be available as well.
I don't know as if I'd sign guys like Foote, Hatcher, Rathje, etc. to longer term contracts with so much change going on in the league. There's no telling how the new rules will affect the players that were so effective in the old NHL. Quite honestly, there are just so many unknowns right now that I don't know if I'd take the risk of signing former (or current) stars to lengthy, or relatively high paying contracts right now. Some of these GM's will either look like geniuses or complete fools in the next couple of years...
swflyers25
8-08-05, 12:25 AM
4 years for a guy who is past his prime is just plain stupid.
How is he past his prime? He gets one knee injury and now he is suddenly past his prime. Yes, that makes sense. The summer he signed with Detroit he was one of the most sought after free agents out there. He is solid in his own, never been in - with plus/minus except for his real first full year. He was the captain of the Stars for I don't know how long. The guy is a good player and I'm sorry if I don't share the opinion that he is past his prime.
To automatically assume he will make this rejuvinated comeback just because he's playing for his old coach, is juts being near sighted.
Who says a guy like Hatcher needs to be rejuvenated? Tearing an ACL is not really something you have control over. Other than that, he basically plays the whole season.
Rathje thrives with obstruction, with the NHL getting rid of that, Rathje's game just got pretty thin.
You know this how? I'm asking seriously. Again, Rathje isn't the only one and defense. Also, I'm definitely not taking your word on his game. Sorry. :D
Hockey players hit their prime at 29.
Is Derian Hatcher 29 years old?
If not, he's past his prime!
swflyers25
8-08-05, 12:44 PM
Lovely, logical reasoning PDO. :laughing:
Madferret
8-08-05, 12:52 PM
This article is exactly why I'm glad the Devils haven't joined in the free agent frenzy that seems to sweeping across the league (okay, the Malakhov deal is iffy). I know there are some very good players that were available in free agency this year, but there are going to be some even better players, and at a younger age in the next couple of years that will be available as well.
I don't know as if I'd sign guys like Foote, Hatcher, Rathje, etc. to longer term contracts with so much change going on in the league. There's no telling how the new rules will affect the players that were so effective in the old NHL. Quite honestly, there are just so many unknowns right now that I don't know if I'd take the risk of signing former (or current) stars to lengthy, or relatively high paying contracts right now. Some of these GM's will either look like geniuses or complete fools in the next couple of years...
Doc, I give Lou Lams all the credit in the world, and he's usually one of the more 'responsible' GM's in the league, but the $$$ he gave McGillis (2.2) was a bit much for a 5th or 6th pairing defenseman. (IMO)
Leafs_Fa_Life
8-08-05, 1:14 PM
Lovely, logical reasoning PDO. :laughing:
Actually PDO is quite right. Most players are in their prime between I'd say 28-32. So to think 4 years from now Hatcher will be worth the 3.5M he's making is just incredibly biased on your part. Rathje isn't even worth the 3.5M he's making now, and your dumb GM signed him for 5 years :confused:
Actually PDO is quite right. Most players are in their prime between I'd say 28-32. So to think 4 years from now Hatcher will be worth the 3.5M he's making is just incredibly biased on your part. Rathje isn't even worth the 3.5M he's making now, and your dumb GM signed him for 5 years :confused:
Not if league revenues are up over $250.
Max Power
8-08-05, 3:21 PM
OK Rick Nash at 5+ million for 5 years is nuts. The guy is 21 years old and will not be UFA for over 2 years. Why sign him for so much right away? He's played two season in the NHL and has and has 90 points and -55
I know Rick Nash will be a great player but this is the whole problem with the NHL :conspire:
Funny how some things remain the same, even after all of the whining and crying from the Ownership side of the house about being so poor, then when they do sign a deal they go whole hog when a feeding frenzy starts!
Hypocrits....................
bluemeanie
8-08-05, 5:02 PM
I agree that many of these signings seem inappropriately expensive. I have a feeling that many owners are seeing this as an opportunity to get quality players at a bargain. In comparison to previous years, it's like there's a sale on players and everyone has an empty credit card to fill. I think that some teams are playing it smart however, and only time will tell if it pays off for them. But at the same time, teams filling their rosters with long term heavily weighted individual contracts will end up forcing a lot of sub-par bodies out of the league. This year and probably next will operate like a talent filtering system for the NHL - well let's hope anyway.
KB in Kelowna
8-08-05, 5:08 PM
Funny how some things remain the same, even after all of the whining and crying from the Ownership side of the house about being so poor, then when they do sign a deal they go whole hog when a feeding frenzy starts!
Hypocrits....................
No no, these owners and thier gms' are astute business people, who make wise business and hockey decisions. They no longer have that thug Goodenow pointing a gun at thier head and forcing them into bad monetary and player evaualtions. Those greedy players have learnt their lesson. Now where is that tongue in cheeck emoticon? :nod: :D
No no, these owners and thier gms' are astute business people, who make wise business and hockey decisions. They no longer have that thug Goodenow pointing a gun at thier head and forcing them into bad monetary and player evaualtions. Those greedy players have learnt their lesson. Now where is that tongue in cheeck emoticon? :nod: :DNow don't you 2 get me started!!
I was hoping you would chime in on this issue.
I just find it hypocritcal of oh lets say the Penguins, who cried poverty for the last couple of years and threatened to move the team to of all places Winnipeg, and now that the League got a deal done that favoured them, all of a sudden they are throwing money around like crazy.
I also find it funny how some of the big long term contracts that are being tossed around, are being tossed at individuals whom have been injured or are injury prone over the last couple of years............
And now we see Nash sign a huge deal for a kid who is just out of his teens.
It doesn't make any sense, there is no rhyme nor reason.
I just find it hypocrtical of the league/owners union to cry foul, then to turn around and act like a three year old with 10 bucks in a candy store, after they put up this big stink to get the money from their mom and dad.
And of course we the fans are sucked in by all of the hubbub and hooplaw, so some go around pounding thier chests and saying, "oooh I loved this guy all along" when in fact they openly criticised that guy for being a goon, but of course he is now on your team so he is the greatest thing since sliced bread...............blah blah blah.
You know what I mean?
Lovely, logical reasoning PDO. :laughing:
http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=131916&highlight=Prime+29
http://www.hfboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5593
There ya go.
Doc, I give Lou Lams all the credit in the world, and he's usually one of the more 'responsible' GM's in the league, but the $$$ he gave McGillis (2.2) was a bit much for a 5th or 6th pairing defenseman. (IMO)
Yeah, I'm not sure about the Malakhov or McGillis deals. They're not typical Lou Lamoriello. Knowing Lou though, I'm sure he's got something up his sleeve, and I doubt the current roster will be the same when October 5th rolls around. Depending on whether Stevens returns or not, at least one of those defensemen may be gone, they already have Rafalski, Martin, White, Matvichuk, Malakhov, McGillis, and Hale. That's 7 defensemen right there, not counting Stevens. It'll be interesting to say the least...
I was hoping you would chime in on this issue.Who?
I just find it hypocritcal of oh lets say the Penguins, who cried poverty for the last couple of years and threatened to move the team to of all places Winnipeg, and now that the League got a deal done that favoured them, all of a sudden they are throwing money around like crazy.Because they can. The new system allows small market teams like Edmonton and Pittsburgh to be competative again. The owners cried poverty, because they couldn't afford to spend money on big names free agents, something the big market Leafs never had a problem with. Now that Toronto can't spend and spend and spend, you complain. That's funny.
I also find it funny how some of the big long term contracts that are being tossed around, are being tossed at individuals whom have been injured or are injury prone over the last couple of years............That's up to the discretion of each team. How many times have we seen Toronto do just that? Signing old, over-the-hill guys, only to see them go down to injury. Remember Doug Gilmore last season? :laughing:
And now we see Nash sign a huge deal for a kid who is just out of his teens.He deserves it, in my opinion. Nash is the face of the franchise and if the Blue Jackets didn't re-sign him, they would have been in trouble.
It doesn't make any sense, there is no rhyme nor reason.There may not be rhyme (this isn't a song), but there is reason - to be competitive in the NHL.
I just find it hypocrtical of the league/owners union to cry foul, then to turn around and act like a three year old with 10 bucks in a candy store, after they put up this big stink to get the money from their mom and dad.Welcome to the new era of the NHL with a salary cap. The teams are like kids in a candy store, because they're used to losing big name players, but now all of a sudden they can afford to sign them. I can't blame them for spending to improve their team.
And of course we the fans are sucked in by all of the hubbub and hooplaw, so some go around pounding thier chests and saying, "oooh I loved this guy all along" when in fact they openly criticised that guy for being a goon, but of course he is now on your team so he is the greatest thing since sliced bread...............blah blah blah.Leafers do it all the time too. Don't be blind, Rusty.
You know what I mean?No, not really.
Max Power
8-09-05, 9:24 AM
He deserves it, in my opinion. Nash is the face of the franchise and if the Blue Jackets didn't re-sign him, they would have been in trouble.
I have problems swallowing this. Signing a guy like Nash for over 5 million raises the bar for every other similar player and makes life miserable for every other GM in the league. Players like Spezza, Havlat and even Hemsky who have much better or similar stats will use his 5 million as the president. This was a huge brain fart by the CBJ organization, at 21 and less then 2 years in the NHL no player should be signed to over a couple million in our new NHL age
Where the heck did I mention the Leafs JR???????????????
This article was posted from a Newspaper in Buffalo, nothing to do with the Leafs.
Jesus JR get off the Leafer bashing.
Madferret
8-09-05, 9:40 AM
I was hoping you would chime in on this issue.
I just find it hypocritcal of oh lets say the Penguins, who cried poverty for the last couple of years and threatened to move the team to of all places Winnipeg, and now that the League got a deal done that favoured them, all of a sudden they are throwing money around like crazy.
I also find it funny how some of the big long term contracts that are being tossed around, are being tossed at individuals whom have been injured or are injury prone over the last couple of years............
And now we see Nash sign a huge deal for a kid who is just out of his teens.
It doesn't make any sense, there is no rhyme nor reason.
I just find it hypocrtical of the league/owners union to cry foul, then to turn around and act like a three year old with 10 bucks in a candy store, after they put up this big stink to get the money from their mom and dad.
And of course we the fans are sucked in by all of the hubbub and hooplaw, so some go around pounding thier chests and saying, "oooh I loved this guy all along" when in fact they openly criticised that guy for being a goon, but of course he is now on your team so he is the greatest thing since sliced bread...............blah blah blah.
You know what I mean?
Keep it under 39 Million, and there is NO problem.
It's just as amusing to see the teams that used to have all kinds of money sitting on their thumbs, lost and clueless as to how to adopt to this new CBA. Bob Clarke excluded.
I was hoping you would chime in on this issue.
Who?
I just find it hypocritcal of oh lets say the Penguins, who cried poverty for the last couple of years and threatened to move the team to of all places Winnipeg, and now that the League got a deal done that favoured them, all of a sudden they are throwing money around like crazy.
Because they can. The new system allows small market teams like Edmonton and Pittsburgh to be competative again. The owners cried poverty, because they couldn't afford to spend money on big names free agents, something the big market Leafs never had a problem with. Now that Toronto can't spend and spend and spend, you complain. That's funny.
I also find it funny how some of the big long term contracts that are being tossed around, are being tossed at individuals whom have been injured or are injury prone over the last couple of years............
That's up to the discretion of each team. How many times have we seen Toronto do just that? Signing old, over-the-hill guys, only to see them go down to injury. Remember Doug Gilmore last season? :laughing:
And now we see Nash sign a huge deal for a kid who is just out of his teens.
He deserves it, in my opinion. Nash is the face of the franchise and if the Blue Jackets didn't re-sign him, they would have been in trouble.
It doesn't make any sense, there is no rhyme nor reason.
There may not be rhyme (this isn't a song), but there is reason - to be competitive in the NHL.
I just find it hypocrtical of the league/owners union to cry foul, then to turn around and act like a three year old with 10 bucks in a candy store, after they put up this big stink to get the money from their mom and dad.
Welcome to the new era of the NHL with a salary cap. The teams are like kids in a candy store, because they're used to losing big name players, but now all of a sudden they can afford to sign them. I can't blame them for spending to improve their team.
And of course we the fans are sucked in by all of the hubbub and hooplaw, so some go around pounding thier chests and saying, "oooh I loved this guy all along" when in fact they openly criticised that guy for being a goon, but of course he is now on your team so he is the greatest thing since sliced bread...............blah blah blah.
Leafers do it all the time too. Don't be blind, Rusty.
You know what I mean?
No, not really.
+1 J.R.
-1 Rusty
Okay I am sorry I brought this subject up, it is becoming painfully obvious that regardless of what I post you guys are going to revert back to the old SN mentality of bashing :doh:
Thanks alot.
And sorry for being a fan of the most hated franchise in history......................
I have problems swallowing this. Signing a guy like Nash for over 5 million raises the bar for every other similar player and makes life miserable for every other GM in the league. Players like Spezza, Havlat and even Hemsky who have much better or similar stats will use his 5 million as the president. This was a huge brain fart by the CBJ organization, at 21 and less then 2 years in the NHL no player should be signed to over a couple million in our new NHL age
True, but none of them have won the Rocket Richard.
I'm iffy on this contract.. but my guess is the Jackets gambeled (and fairly rightfully) that in 2-3 years he'll be underpaid. It's the risk you take with a long term contract. The Oilers are obviously on the other end with Pronger.
Max Power
8-09-05, 10:09 AM
True, but none of them have won the Rocket Richard.
A good point but I still think it's to much. He still has 3 years at being an RFA so the signing IMO was way too much. But in the long run teams who sign like this will suffer the most
Madferret
8-09-05, 10:10 AM
Okay I am sorry I brought this subject up, it is becoming painfully obvious that regardless of what I post you guys are going to revert back to the old SN mentality of bashing :doh:
Thanks alot.
And sorry for being a fan of the most hated franchise in history......................
You're kidding right Pots?
:shrug:
Nope, I am not kidding.
It is finally getting to me I guess. It is really getting tiresome to see people automatically come at me with the Leaf twist and slam me all because of what team I cheer for. How lame is that??????
It gauls me when someone shoots back at me continously with the old standard of "whining, crying, bitching Leafer crap". I started this thread because I thought that the issue should be discussed, I knew some would twist this thread and throw it back in my face. It's a hockey issue it has nothing at all to do with the Leafs and their dealings this FA frenzy, that's why I was careful to steer clear of the Leaf twist, but no, someone had to use the same old same old :rolleyes: .
If someone can't see that I am a fan of the game, then they obviously do not know me well enough, I do not go around trumpeting the Leafs have as bad as some who revel in bashing us and our team, if someone wants to be so narrow minded and of a one track mind then pay me the same courtesy and respect that I do to them!
Madferret
8-09-05, 11:20 AM
Nope, I am not kidding.
It is finally getting to me I guess. It is really getting tiresome to see people automatically come at me with the Leaf twist and slam me all because of what team I cheer for. How lame is that??????
It gauls me when someone shoots back at me continously with the old standard of "whining, crying, bitching Leafer crap". I started this thread because I thought that the issue should be discussed, I knew some would twist this thread and throw it back in my face. It's a hockey issue it has nothing at all to do with the Leafs and their dealings this FA frenzy, that's why I was careful to steer clear of the Leaf twist, but no, someone had to use the same old same old :rolleyes: .
If someone can't see that I am a fan of the game, then they obviously do not know me well enough, I do not go around trumpeting the Leafs have as bad as some who revel in bashing us and our team, if someone wants to be so narrow minded and of a one track mind then pay me the same courtesy and respect that I do to them!
So if you can point out your feelings and your side of the fence, why can't we give ours? I'm getting tired to have the term "Leaf Basher" thrown at myself and other posters who bring up valid counter-points to some of the elder Leaf fans who have cheered on the Leafs and sneered at other NHL teams because the team they supported was always able to and have now abused to death the old 'fix-it-with-our-money' routine. It's not our fault. Let's just say it's nice to see that hat on your (Leaf fans) heads finally.
No-one is bashing you, no-one is bashing the Leafs, we are simply debating our points compared to yours, and for someone who just last week said he wouldn't watch hockey anymore because JFJ wasn't signing anyone significant, well frankly that doesn't sound like someone who states to be a "fan of the game"..it sounds like someone who has sour grapes that the team they support is unprepared and has no idea how to operate in a league where their is a salary cap.
Devon I totally understand what you and others are getting at.
Everytime I post I have this huge monkey sitting there on my shoulder telling me steer clear of the Leaf angle, to the point where I have started to post a reply and decided after a little deliberation to not bother posting, it is almost like the time when I was posted to Germany in the mid 80's, I had the pleasure of being put beside a three year old kid, after being poked in the ribs by the kid in the airplane for 9 straight hours I finally came to the conclusion that killing the kid was not the solution.
Obviously you missed the point I was trying to make. It pains me to post sometimes knowing that what ever I say is twisted against me.
Yeah last week I was pissed, I admit it, mostly by the fact that Dumi was signed, but I have gotten over it and am moving on with life.
bluemeanie
8-09-05, 11:48 AM
..the team they support is unprepared and has no idea how to operate in a league where their is a salary cap.
I think it's a little premature to suggest that the Leafs have failed or are failing under the new CBA just because they didn't pull a Clark. You might be right, but until JFJ is done, and perhaps even until we see next year's landscape - I'm not personally going to judge the guy. Each team goes into this new era under diffrent circumstances. Anyhow, I'm inclined to sympathize with Rusty a bit here, there are a few guys around here that love to pull the "whiney ol' Leafer" card when ever they can and not in a good-natured way either. To Rusty's point, he should be able to have an opinion on an aspect of hockey without being counter-attacked with some pointless 'Leafer' arguments. All Leaf fans are not cut from the same stuff... our views probably differ amongst our selves as much anyone else, and just because we, or Rusty is a leaf fan doesn't mean that his opinion or point is voided. Many of us are fans of Hockey first, and not all opinion's formed have some dark hidden Leaf agenda.
But, you know all this already. Some people don't get it though.
skidmark
8-09-05, 11:56 AM
I think it's a little premature to suggest that the Leafs have failed or are failing under the new CBA just because they didn't pull a Clark. You might be right, but until JFJ is done, and perhaps even until we see next year's landscape - I'm not personally going to judge the guy. Each team goes into this new era under diffrent circumstances. Anyhow, I'm inclined to sympathize with Rusty a bit here, there are a few guys around here that love to pull the "whiney ol' Leafer" card when ever they can and not in a good-natured way either. To Rusty's point, he should be able to have an opinion on an aspect of hockey without being counter-attacked with some pointless 'Leafer' arguments. All Leaf fans are not cut from the same stuff... our views probably differ amongst our selves as much anyone else, and just because we, or Rusty is a leaf fan doesn't mean that his opinion or point is voided. Many of us are fans of Hockey first, and not all opinion's formed have some dark hidden Leaf agenda.
But, you know all this already. Some people don't get it though.
... ya ok. Take this with a grain of salt folks. Afterall, it is coming from a leaf fan.
KB in Kelowna
8-09-05, 11:59 AM
At another forum a Pens fan pointed out that the team has emerged from bankruptcy protection and thus can now spend money on players and player development. For the past few years much of the teams revenue had to go to pay off creditors of the old ownership, as specified by the court appointed trustee. In addition they are banking on the revenue sharing of the CBA.
Now I am sure Bettman (circa 2001/02/03) would remind us that the bankruptcy of the Pens, the Sens, the Sabres were not part of their owners hockey related operations but were part of thier outside business activities.
bluemeanie
8-09-05, 12:00 PM
... ya ok. Take this with a grain of salt folks. Afterall, it is coming from a leaf fan.
That's IT!!!
You!... Outside... NOW! I'm gonn'a go Domi on your as....
Found this at another forum I hang out at, food for thought.
Sheesh do you really think that Bob the Knob really mihght not be the "Smartest man in hockey"????
I'm having a hard time seeing it your way here Rusty. Why slam Pittsburg? There is a new level-playing-field NHL environment and Pittsburg might have decided to try to use the new parity to have a competitive team. Maybe make some money. They have $39 million. Just like Ottawa. Just like the Leafs. I don't understand why that makes you angry.
http://www4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/~msrex/images/how/shocked.gif
I'm not angry, I am just posting that I find it funny how some teams were crying poverty before the Lockout and are now spending more money then they were before the Lockout.
What angers me is that whenever I post in a hockey related thread or create a hockey thread someone automatically says I am a whining and crying Leaf fan.
It is starting to look like SN mentality is creeping back into some peoples modus operandi............
TimmyTabasco
8-09-05, 12:18 PM
Everytime I post I have this huge monkey sitting there on my shoulder telling me steer clear of the Leaf angle
Thats a pretty smart monkey. But I won't ask anymore about it :nod: :thumb:
skidmark
8-09-05, 12:19 PM
That's IT!!!
You!... Outside... NOW! I'm gonn'a go Domi on your as....
You'd actually take a guy who's paralized from the neck up outside, to beat the living behjesus out of him? Man, you are a meanie.
Everything is not so black and white, or in some peoples opinions, blue and white.
The signing of Nash can go eitherway, he IS a trophy winner, and he IS only 21, if he continues his ways, what will he be worth at the end of his contract when he is just 26 years of age? We don't know what league revuene will be in the next year or 2 so we don't know if 5 mil in a season is too high, too low or just right. What we will also will never know is, would Nash and his agent have accepted a 5 year 25 mil deal in the old CBA. The obvious answer is no, so that could lead some to say the new CBA is working. But don't you think a better plan of attack would be for owners and gms to wait for what the market is going to be next year rather then set the market as all of these recent signings have done?
The player agents are doing the smart thing, getting into the market for long term now, rather then wait. The owners and gms are the ones taking the risks once again, as they have in the past.
It is starting to look like SN mentality is creeping back into some peoples modus operandi............
SN Mentality? I went back and reread the posts in this thread. I don't see any "SN Mentality" at all. It must be your monkey communicating bad thoughts through telemonkeyism.
*Thread locked*
*Thread locked*
*D@mn it!*
I know you don't understand what I am getting at grimster so I am just going to drop it.
All I was doing was voicing my own personal opinion, not that of the dreaded Leaf nation..................
bluemeanie
8-09-05, 1:30 PM
*Thead re-opened*
SN Mentality? I went back and reread the posts in this thread. I don't see any "SN Mentality" at all.
+1 J.R.
-1 Rusty
Me neither.=]
I know you don't understand what I am getting at grimster so I am just going to drop it.
You are amazed/perplexed that fairly big sums of moola have started to flow from teams that had cried poor before the lockout?
All I was doing was voicing my own personal opinion, not that of the dreaded Leaf nation..................
As ever. But you had better properly vent that frustration or you are going to have a leafer stroke.
:]
Leafs_Fa_Life
8-09-05, 1:49 PM
You are amazed/perplexed that fairly big sums of moola have started to flow from teams that had cried poor before the lockout?
+2 Super Genius
:nod:
I am not amazed at all that many of the "poor" teams (and Chicago) are spending now. The financial playing field is now level and the increased investment may be seen to be more worthwhile now that Detroit and Toronto won't automatically buy a Stanley Cup. :] And their investment may well pay off nicely. Who knows? It is a gamble in a new and unknown system. With the benefit of fixed salary costs. Most of these owners are successful business people who are free to make their own (bad) choices. Long-term contracts like Nash's might work out. And if they don't... so what.
bluemeanie
8-09-05, 2:25 PM
I personally like to see these teams being able to contend for top players instead of just the usual suspects. It's not as though star-power has always equated to a Stanley Cup anyhow, so why not spread the wealth? I'm excited to see what this season holds, I think competition should be a whole lot tighter - and with the new scheduling format - anything can happen. I do however, think that some teams are being a little quick to sign ?question mark? players to long term and fairly expensive contracts though, some may pay off, but in their haste to secure certain players in fear of being out-bidded, they are forcing up the asking prices of similar players in years to come, and I don't think that the same spending frenzy that we saw this year will repeat it self again in future off seasons. That might leave many teams in a tough situation, when it comes to finding room for signing their RFA?s.
It is starting to look like SN mentality is creeping back into some peoples modus operandi............
Shame to see Rusty take the first hit. :]
Offense: Bashing Other Web Sites
Points: 4
Description: Making derogatory remarks about other web sites.
Comments: None
Forget about it grimster.
Forget about it grimster.
C'mon Rusty. Take one for the team. :]
TimmyTabasco
8-09-05, 5:59 PM
C'mon Rusty. Take one for the team. :]
http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~anthony/icons/large/troll.jpg
:nod: :laughing:
I reviewed this thread and no where did Rusty mention the Leafs before J.R. started in on him, and steering the discussion towards the Maple Leafs. Rusty's article and comments were about NHL ownership in general, I went back and double and triple checked. So what's the problem? We're big boys and girls aren't we? please. :rolleyes:
I too found it very curious that the Penguins who were among the biggest "poverty criers" and struggled with a $23 million payroll just 14 months ago suddenly found the cash to land Gonchar and Palffy, and were also very much in the running for the very expensive Scott Neidermayer (at least that was speculated). I didn't realize they had just emerged from bankruptcy until KB mentioned it. Now it makes a little more sense.
There have been some seemingly bad signings so far (new landscape or not). The worst of which, I feel, and many seem to agree... were made by none other than the large market Flyers. The length of the contracts to those two guys was poorly thought out if you ask me, and many other NHL observers.
Clarke does not have the revenue sharing excuse either, Philly will probably be one of those top 10 teams handing out cash to the bottom 15. Even in the unlikely scenario that Philly dropped into the "needy" group... they still cannot qualify to receive revenue sharing, being one of 8 NHL markets with over 2.5 million television households. (The other 7 are Rangers - Islanders - Devils - Blackhawks - Ducks - Kings).
Philly is not some former have-not that's now all giddy to be signing big names. That has nothing to do with the criticism. At the other end of the spectrum, another signing I seriously question is Chris Pronger. He's 30 years old. He'll be 31 when the season starts. (I read someone just above say that most NHL players peak at 28 - 32.) So signing Chris Pronger to five years at $6.25 million-per is a smart move? Hell no! It's a very risky move... especially now that they can't just sell him off to a big market to get out from underneath his contract whenever they want. There's nowhere to "dump" salary now, all teams have to worry about the cap! "Even playing field" is a 2 way street.
Pronger makes a lot of cap room devoted to one man from now until 2010. He's another hulking D-man who could very well find his effectiveness diminished between his aging legs and the new NHL rule changes. At least that's what any reasonable person should be cognizant of. Five years at that price is way too much time and money to risk. Also, he has had wrist problems that nearly forced his retirement not long ago. That could return. He has never scored more than 15 goals. Never more than 50 assists. Yes - one year he was a +52 and won the Norris and the Hart... that was 5 years ago.
Don't get me wrong, I still think Pronger is a top defensemen, that's not what I question. I question the contract length, and the assumption that he will still be worth some 15% of his entire team's payroll at age 35.
So do I lay this criticism because in past years the Rangers simply could have grabbed him and outspent the Oilers? Quite the contrary. I am cautiously optimistic that the Rangers will keep their word of building a team from youth. So far, they haven't chased any big names, nor made any notable long term expensive signings for aging veterans, that were so typical of their recent history under Glen Sather.
Madferret
8-09-05, 6:26 PM
I think it's a little premature to suggest that the Leafs have failed or are failing under the new CBA just because they didn't pull a Clark. You might be right, but until JFJ is done, and perhaps even until we see next year's landscape - I'm not personally going to judge the guy.
Then get that look off your face Leafer...
http://www.sparkimg.com/emoticons/brushteeth.gif
Newfie John
8-09-05, 9:53 PM
I find it hilarious that some people bash SN and HF(you know who you are, and it isn't Rusty) continuously but bring that exact same mentality to these great forums. With these kind of people around, it's going to turn every forum we start up into a piece of trash. It's like you people crave it!
Jeesh.. grow up people. Yes, a 17 year old is telling you to grow up. This is just rediculous. If we were all at Mel's house would we act this way? Man oh man. :rolleyes:
Where the heck did I mention the Leafs JR???????????????
This article was posted from a Newspaper in Buffalo, nothing to do with the Leafs.
Jesus JR get off the Leafer bashing.:laughing:
You are making me laugh again, Rusty.
You didn't mention the Leafs, I'll give you that. However, you are supposedly still a fan of that team and I find it quite funny that you're now whining about small market teams being able to spend like the Leafs. And now that the Leafs can no longer throw tens of millions of more dollars at free agents, because of a salary cap, the crying starts.
It's now an even playing field, so out comes that Tee-Oh inferiority complex.
:laughing:
You are making me laugh again, Rusty.
You didn't mention the Leafs, I'll give you that. However, you are supposedly still a fan of that team and I find it quite funny that you're now whining about small market teams being able to spend like the Leafs. And now that the Leafs can no longer throw tens of millions of more dollars at free agents, because of a salary cap, the crying starts.
It's now an even playing field, so out comes that Tee-Oh inferiority complex.
Can't take a hint JR? did you read my post?
Here it is in plain English... You are trolling. I even pointed you out by name - *HINT HINT* - You are projecting some kind of rivalry on to Rusty's posts, that Rusty didn't start. It's clear as day.
You have a lot of good to offer. Why don't you stick to that? Otherwise your points will catch up with you and you'll be disallowed from posting here.
Next time it's an official warning for trolling. And every time there after. That's the last "hint".
Can't take a hint JR? did you read my post?No, I didn't. Rusty's first reply was all that I read. Then I replied and moved on. Now that I do see what you wrote and understand it, please feel free to remove that second reply by me as well as this one. I'm sorry.
Therein lies the problem.
Regardless of what I do and what I say you will for ever look at my replies as whining/crying/bitching Leafer crap. For some strange reason I get this feeling that you are out to make life hard for me, you are satrting to sound an aweful lot like Hatred, which is sad because I used to enjoy reading your stuff.
And here I had thought that we had buried the hatchet when you came here?
I was never crying about anything, the only thing I was doing was pointing out (not crying, but POINTING OUT, which is the same thing as MAKING A POINT) the fact that some teams went out after crying poverty and are now spending more then before. Where in my diatribe did I sound like a depressed Leafer? Did you read my post? or did you assume I was crying?????
I could give a hoot whether there is parity in the salary structures between the big market teams and the Edmonchucks, what I want to see is parity on the ice!
KB in Kelowna
8-10-05, 12:01 AM
Remember when Goodenow made the 24% rollback proposal within the confines of the old CBA? Bettman rejected it as saying it would lead to salary escalation and in a few seasons they would be back to the same point. Well it seems that some guys never learn. Some of the gms and owners must be hoping that they can win some arbitration deals, or they really can grow revenues.
Therein lies the problem.
Regardless of what I do and what I say you will for ever look at my replies as whining/crying/bitching Leafer crap. For some strange reason I get this feeling that you are out to make life hard for me, you are satrting to sound an aweful lot like Hatred, which is sad because I used to enjoy reading your stuff.
And here I had thought that we had buried the hatchet when you came here?
I was never crying about anything, the only thing I was doing was pointing out (not crying, but POINTING OUT, which is the same thing as MAKING A POINT) the fact that some teams went out after crying poverty and are now spending more then before. Where in my diatribe did I sound like a depressed Leafer? Did you read my post? or did you assume I was crying?????
I could give a hoot whether there is parity in the salary structures between the big market teams and the Edmonchucks, what I want to see is parity on the ice! Rusty man, take it from me - Don't get mad, get even.
:thumb:
bluemeanie
8-10-05, 8:18 AM
Rusty man, take it from me - Don't get mad, get even.
:thumb:
...or you can just leave your Leaf trolling to other forums. ?
charlio lemieux
8-10-05, 1:14 PM
These poor small market teams that now are out grabbing UFA's are enjoying the new shared revenue. All GM's are operating under the assumtion that league revenues will cover the salary cap, and are spending what is expected to come. The cap ensures they will not be simply out-bid by a T.O. or NYR.
Actually the money that would have been used, under the old CBA, to out bid teams like Edmonton, is now being given to them by those same teams. At over 6 million dollars per season Pronger will not only be an Anchor on defence but an Anchor around Lowe's neck, when he has to start paying his young talent more, 2-3yrs from now.
As for the Leafs, I guess I'm the only one in the GTA who likes Jason Allison. Yes he has injury problems, but he still has skill. He may be the best 2nd line center Sundin has had behind him. Time will tell. Let's be realistic this is the first year in a while that the Leafs are not shoe-ins for the playoffs. An immediate and direct result of the new CBA. The only real sure bet in the East is a last place Washington.
Maybe this CBA will bring the parity that the league wants. Then again a bad GM is a bad GM. Bobby seems jinxed, and I wonder how much of the Sather mystique was from standing too close to Gretz and Messier and not his own personnal genius.
Give JFJ a break. $10 million for seven roster spots, how much is/was he supposed to do.
Rusty, does said monkey appear anything like this...
http://www.allthingschristie.com/archives/family-guy--evil-monkey_large.jpg
Charlo, welcome to a cap world, you build long term contracts up and go for it in any given year, and hope for the best. Dynasties are going to be rare, and most teams will go through cycles. Also.. Pronger will still be a very good defenseman at 35.
Newfie John
8-11-05, 10:34 AM
Rusty, does said monkey appear anything like this...
http://www.allthingschristie.com/archives/family-guy--evil-monkey_large.jpg
Charlo, welcome to a cap world, you build long term contracts up and go for it in any given year, and hope for the best. Dynasties are going to be rare, and most teams will go through cycles. Also.. Pronger will still be a very good defenseman at 35.
I think Pronger will be a good defencemen then too, but will he be worth the money he'll be making then? I don't think so. Also, with his injury concerns, there are a good few question marks. It was a gutsy move by Lowe, we'll see if it pays off. Right now, he looks like a genious though. 5 years from now may be a different story.
charlio lemieux
8-11-05, 1:48 PM
Pronger may win the norris at 34 I don't know. But his contract restricts the amount of money Lowe can now spend on other players.
I understand the cap world well enough to know that if you don't have the cap room to sign your emerging stars you will lose them. A large salary like Prongers will be impossible to move. If the contract was structured so that Pronger got 7.5 this year and only 4 in the last year of the deal it would be great. Who in their right mind is going to pay 6 mil for a 33 or 34 yr old injury prone defenseman 2-3 years from now. Nobody. The days of salary dumping are over, and all these long term contracts to older players will haunt GM's in 3 years or so. Long term contracts are for the young stars who you want to lock up until their 30 not for 30 year olds who are looking for stability and a fat cheque.
Nothing against Chris, he's great, but if the GM's were serious about controlling spending, and building a Dynasty, nobody would be getting more than 5mil. Remember that in future negotiations the highest paid players are used as a benchmark, and comparisons are made to determine the value of a player. So if Pronger is making over 6 mil how much can Smyth ask for, or if Conklin develops is there money for him. Even if Pronger helps Edm win the cup they can't use that added revenue to raise salaries.
The bottom line is that the game will return to the young talent. Veterans "leadership skills" which have been over valued for to long will become cheaper to find as teams are forced to choose between youth and experience.
Winning is now going to start with the scouts. Without good scouting you don't get good young and comparitively cheap talent. Player development is a key, while locking the young stars in for long term deals is a must.
Good luck to Edm, but in a cap world, 6mil is to much for one player if you want to keep your team competitive and together.
You want Proof take a look at New England in the NFL.
The bottom line is that the game will return to the young talent. Veterans "leadership skills" which have been over valued for to long will become cheaper to find as teams are forced to choose between youth and experience.
Winning is now going to start with the scouts. Without good scouting you don't get good young and comparitively cheap talent. Player development is a key, while locking the young stars in for long term deals is a must.
+2 Supergenius
All contracts are balanced by the total sum of money divided by the length. There's no backloading nor frontloading of contracts. Pronger will most likely be relatively cheap for 3 years, about average for one, and overpaid for one. Also.. he's only missed more than 10 games 3 times in a 11 year career, and played 80 games last season. Asides from a freak injury, he's been extremely healthy.
All contracts are balanced by the total sum of money divided by the length. There's no backloading nor frontloading of contracts. Pronger will most likely be relatively cheap for 3 years, about average for one, and overpaid for one. Also.. he's only missed more than 10 games 3 times in a 11 year career, and played 80 games last season. Asides from a freak injury, he's been extremely healthy.
For the year-by-year cap calculation, salaries are averaged - so there is no front loading of contracts. But that doesn't mean that a contract cannot be front loaded. For older players, it might be easier to trade them late in their contract if the contract was front-loaded. As Charli suggested for Pronger's case..."If the contract was structured so that Pronger got 7.5 this year and only 4 in the last year of the deal it would be great. Who in their right mind is going to pay 6 mil for a 33 or 34 yr old injury prone defenseman 2-3 years from now. Nobody."
bluemeanie
8-11-05, 2:40 PM
If the contract was structured so that Pronger got 7.5 this year and only 4 in the last year of the deal it would be great. Who in their right mind is going to pay 6 mil for a 33 or 34 yr old injury prone defenseman 2-3 years from now. Nobody. The days of salary dumping are over, and all these long term contracts to older players will haunt GM's in 3 years or so. Long term contracts are for the young stars who you want to lock up until their 30 not for 30 year olds who are looking for stability and a fat cheque.
Salaries CAN be structured in varying percentages over the term of the contract, but under the cap the total cost is divided up over the term. What I don't know is, whether a team that acquires a player under a contract through trade is subject to the same salary division. I'm not sure how Progers' pay is structured, but if he is getting paid $4M in his final year and he's traded to the Rangers, do the Rangers take the $6M average towards their cap even though they only have to pay him 4? Seems unlikely. In the past, most long term contracts, start off low and raise over the years, in order to seem more desirable to the player - and unless they're young these type of contracts can be deadly to a team. It'll be interesting to see how teams play this one out.
For the year-by-year cap calculation, salaries are averaged - so there is no front loading of contracts. But that doesn't mean that a contract cannot be front loaded. For older players, it might be easier to trade them late in their contract if the contract was front-loaded. As Charli suggested for Pronger's case..."If the contract was structured so that Pronger got 7.5 this year and only 4 in the last year of the deal it would be great. Who in their right mind is going to pay 6 mil for a 33 or 34 yr old injury prone defenseman 2-3 years from now. Nobody."
So you *could* pay him $4,000,000 / season, but it'd still count as $6,250,000 / season for the. Seems like a bit of a moot point to me... :confused: . How many teams would want a guy who'd be costing an extra $2,250,000 against the cap?
Also, just FTR, we don't actually know if the contract was front loaded or not, but I just don't see how it's a big deal since most teams will spend very close to the cap regardless? Atleast, most teams that'd be interested in acquiring a guy like Pronger in the first place.
bluemeanie
8-11-05, 2:50 PM
So you *could* pay him $4,000,000 / season, but it'd still count as $6,250,000 / season for the. Seems like a bit of a moot point to me... :confused: . How many teams would want a guy who'd be costing an extra $2,250,000 against the cap?
.
For a team like Washington who's going though a re-building stage, it could be very desirable. They don't plan on spending much more then the cap minimum this year according to their GM, so why not sign a player to a back loaded contract? They'll be paying less then the average for the first year or two, and when they feel competitive enough a few years down the road they'll be paying a key player let's say $7M, but it's only counting as 5 towards the cap... they can then go $2M "over" if they want to make a run fro the cup. A team like Toronto on the other hand, could benefit from a Front loaded contract.
For a team like Washington who's going though a re-building stage, it could be very desirable. They don't plan on spending much more then the cap minimum this year according to their GM, so why not sign a player to a back loaded contract? They'll be paying less then the average for the first year or two, and when they feel competitive enough a few years down the road they'll be paying a key player let's say $7M, but it's only counting as 5 towards the cap... they can then go $2M "over" if they want to make a run fro the cup. A team like Toronto on the other hand, could benefit from a Front loaded contract.
Fair enough. I'm still not sure if you can do that though.. seems like something that could be abused if cap space money like that could start disapearing from a trade. (Referring to your earlier post).
Anyway, it's far too early to judge his contract, because right now he's a #1 Defenseman, and as guys like Chelios and Leetch have shown, defenseman can age very nicely.
Also.. drafting defenseman and goalies may just be the dumbest thing you can do in the new CBA. They become good at 26, and a UFA at 27 :).
KB in Kelowna
8-11-05, 3:57 PM
The way I understand the CBA to be worded, player salaries cannot account for more than 54% of League revenues. The NHL has projected revenues around $1.7 Billion. 54% of that is appox $918 million. Divide that by 30 teams and you get $30.6 million. The salary cap is supposed to be no more than $8 million above and no less than $8 Million below give or take . So waht happens if 25 to 28 teams all come in close to the $38-39 million range? There is a real danger of violating that 54% of league revenues. What if revenues don't come in as projected? I would like to see some of the PA bashers at some other sites pin that one on Goodenow.
For accuracy sake I heard a commentator on the radio pose the first part of this question this morning, and my math may be fuzzy, but I think I am in the ball park.
The way I understand the CBA to be worded, player salaries cannot account for more than 54% of League revenues. The NHL has projected revenues around $1.7 Billion. 54% of that is appox $918 million. Divide that by 30 teams and you get $30.6 million. The salary cap is supposed to be no more than $8 million above and no less than $8 Million below give or take . So waht happens if 25 to 28 teams all come in close to the $38-39 million range? There is a real danger of violating that 54% of league revenues. What if revenues don't come in as projected? I would like to see some of the PA bashers at some other sites pin that one on Goodenow.
There is supposed to be an escrow account that holds a portion of all NHL salaries during the season. If it turns out that the players' percentage was exceeded (revenue fell short). Then the players escrow went back to the teams, else it was doled back out to the players. IIRC The NBA has a similar escrow system.
I believe they evaluate revenue at regular intervals throughout the season to determine if the escrow can be reduced or increased or given back to the players entirely.... but don't quote me on that.
KB in Kelowna
8-11-05, 5:30 PM
There is supposed to be an escrow account that holds a portion of all NHL salaries during the season. If it turns out that the players' percentage was exceeded (revenue fell short). Then the players escrow went back to the teams, else it was doled back out to the players. IIRC The NBA has a similar escrow system.
I believe they evaluate revenue at regular intervals throughout the season to determine if the escrow can be reduced or increased or given back to the players entirely.... but don't quote me on that.
Ah so maybe they did "Idiot Proof" it this time. Thanks Mel :thumb:
Max Power
8-12-05, 12:54 PM
I just don't understand how these owners and GM's can't be consistent in any way. Nash a 21 year old with 1 single impressive accomplishment and below average stats gets a 5+ million deal at 21. Luango at 26 years old can't get a deal done for 4 million a year over 5 years. That's a steal!!?? He's a free agent in one year and is arguably the best netminder in the league
I just don't get it
August 12, 2005
Luongo feels disrespected
TheFourthPeriod.com
Roberto Luongo wants to sign a long-term deal with the Panthers, but the team has opted to take their franchise goaltender to arbitration, reports the Palm Beach Post.
Luongo called the move "disrespectful," and this could move him closer to choosing unrestricted free agency when he becomes eligible in two years.
"In a way it's kind of disrespectful for a team to send you to arbitration after you've worked so hard for them over the last few years," Luongo told the Post.
Luongo's agent Gilles Lupien said he initially sought a five-year deal at about $4 million per year, basing it after Chicago signed Nikolai Khabibulin for four years at $6.75 million per.
He told the paper the Panthers countered with a two-year offer worth around $3.4 million per season.
"I said, 'Why do we want to sign for two years at a real low price?' " Lupien asked. "They said it would give them a chance to get a better idea about their team before going forward.
"I don't understand. This is a time when all the teams are trying to lock up their star players for a long time."
Panthers GM Mike Keenan felt quite the opposite, and said that the arbitration process will ensure that Luongo will have a signed.
"We tried a lot of different scenarios, and we just couldn't find the middle ground," he told the paper. "This is what the process is all about, to come to a fair and balanced figure for that particular individual at this point in his career. It takes any personal aspect out of it from both sides."
According to the Post, Lupien said he even went so far that he offered to seek a trade to another team that would pay his client what he deserves.
This re-ignites a rumor earlier in the week that suggested the Montreal Canadiens were interested in swapping Jose Theodore for Luongo.
"I would've thought they would have tried a little bit harder to lock me up long term," Luongo said.
The date of the arbitration hearing, which will take place between Aug. 22 and Sept. 1, will be set today.
Luongo feels disrespected
http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/images/smilies/cry2.gifhttp://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/images/smilies/cry2.gifhttp://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/images/smilies/cry2.gif
Mike Keenan is an idiot... enough said.
Best goalie in the world wants to sign to a 4 year deal for 4 million a year, and you say NO!? He's just hitting his prime. What's even worse is you consider he gave more than 4 million / season to Niewy and Roberts.. and I believe over 6 if you include Gelinas.
MORON.
Leafs_Fa_Life
8-12-05, 3:14 PM
Mike Keenan is an idiot... enough said.
Best goalie in the world wants to sign to a 4 year deal for 4 million a year, and you say NO!? He's just hitting his prime. What's even worse is you consider he gave more than 4 million / season to Niewy and Roberts.. and I believe over 6 if you include Gelinas.
MORON.
Agreed :doh:
charlio lemieux
8-12-05, 8:28 PM
Keenan's High! :smoke: Luongo is the next Great Goalie. Luongo to Van or Edm. :conspire: :shrug:
vBulletin® v3.6.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.