|
On July 05 2012 07:01 GolemMadness wrote:
Parise is definitely better than Nash. Right now, I could see Minnesota squeezing into the playoffs.
Saying Parise is better than Nash is a bit unfair. Nash played for the worst team in the league by far last year while Parise played on a Cup finalist team and scored just one more goal (31 vs 30). If you've ever watched Nash play with good players (ie on Team Canada) you'll see he's a force. I'd put them at best at even, but still say Nash is better.
Regardless great signings by Minni, not convinced Suter will live up to his contract but still a superb player, same with Parise. Not good for my Flames, but the Minni fan base is awesome and deserves some excitement.Also at least games against them this year should be more interesting!
|
I'm not even looking at what place they ended up this season man lmao.
All aound, Zach brings more to the table. The only advantage Nash has over him is his size. Still Parise has fantastic puck control and balance.
On July 05 2012 07:29 yakitate304 wrote:
So I know that the Suter and Parise deals are technically legal under the Kovalchuk amendment to the CBA... But they are bullshit and should be negated.
For those who will say "but they're legal according to the rules", so was Kovalchuk's and yet the Devils were docked 3 million dollars, a 1st round pick (which negates the player AND and potential revenue that player creates via merch, attendance boosts, and playoff revenue) and a 3rd round pick (ditto). The only thing the Kovalchuk contract broke was the "spirit of the CBA", which is bullshit since it wasn't defined and it simply followed the pattern of previous deals such as Hossa and Luongo, albeit to a greater degree. Despite the league doing a patchjob with the amended rules after the Kovalchuk situation, it still allows for blatant circumvention and breaking the "spirit of the CBA" as we see in these two contracts.
They should be docked a pair of 1st rounders. One for each contract. They can keep the combined 6 million and the 3rd rounders.
That won't happen.
|
On July 05 2012 08:34 StarStruck wrote:I'm not even looking at what place they ended up this season man lmao. All aound, Zach brings more to the table. The only advantage Nash has over him is his size. Still Parise has fantastic puck control and balance. Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 07:29 yakitate304 wrote:
So I know that the Suter and Parise deals are technically legal under the Kovalchuk amendment to the CBA... But they are bullshit and should be negated.
For those who will say "but they're legal according to the rules", so was Kovalchuk's and yet the Devils were docked 3 million dollars, a 1st round pick (which negates the player AND and potential revenue that player creates via merch, attendance boosts, and playoff revenue) and a 3rd round pick (ditto). The only thing the Kovalchuk contract broke was the "spirit of the CBA", which is bullshit since it wasn't defined and it simply followed the pattern of previous deals such as Hossa and Luongo, albeit to a greater degree. Despite the league doing a patchjob with the amended rules after the Kovalchuk situation, it still allows for blatant circumvention and breaking the "spirit of the CBA" as we see in these two contracts.
They should be docked a pair of 1st rounders. One for each contract. They can keep the combined 6 million and the 3rd rounders. That won't happen.
If I was NJ I'd lobby hard that it should
I hope the new CBA prevents teams from front-loading the contracts. If I was a player I'd want a contract that evenly split or back-loaded.
NHL Board of Governers needs to grandfather in a contract length cap too. All these rediculous term contracts are bad for everyone save the player
|
I hope so too because they're already a ton of loopholes that the GMs are abusing way too often.
Honestly this hard cap people speak of. Barely noticeable.
|
Floor is now where the cap was when they introduced it. Quite frankly we will once again be seeing teams bleeding cash and squeeling for cap. The more logical thing would be just to introduce equalization payments and make the rich teams pay a certain % of their spending to the poor teams or something like that.
Anyway all that these crazy contracts mean is that GMs are robbing themselves of flexibility so if they screw up and their highly prized FA isnt nearly as awesome as his salary suggest that team is boned for a long long time.
|
On July 05 2012 09:21 Sub40APM wrote:
Floor is now where the cap was when they introduced it. Quite frankly we will once again be seeing teams bleeding cash and squeeling for cap. The more logical thing would be just to introduce equalization payments and make the rich teams pay a certain % of their spending to the poor teams or something like that.
Anyway all that these crazy contracts mean is that GMs are robbing themselves of flexibility so if they screw up and their highly prized FA isnt nearly as awesome as his salary suggest that team is boned for a long long time.
They already do. The league already has this exact system in place.
The Salary cap is based on revenue sharing, its a formula that is something to the effect of 50% total revenue divided by all the teams.
|
On July 05 2012 02:26 Flaccid wrote:
1) Play with Shea Weber for a number of seasons
2) Inflate value
3) Profit!
Not saying Suter is bad - just saying that it'll be interesting to see how his effectiveness changes when not paired with one of the top-two guys in the league every time he's on the ice. "Welcome to Minnesota, Mr. Suter. Now meet Nate Prosser, lol."
Or we might discover that Suter was the guy making Weber look so good. Should be fun =)
My sense is that Suter made Weber look good.
I think they are both phenominal players, but IMO Suter is a true #1 where as Weber is a very good #2 that can be an offensive force if he has a solid D partner.
|
On July 05 2012 09:37 iCanada wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 09:21 Sub40APM wrote:
Floor is now where the cap was when they introduced it. Quite frankly we will once again be seeing teams bleeding cash and squeeling for cap. The more logical thing would be just to introduce equalization payments and make the rich teams pay a certain % of their spending to the poor teams or something like that.
Anyway all that these crazy contracts mean is that GMs are robbing themselves of flexibility so if they screw up and their highly prized FA isnt nearly as awesome as his salary suggest that team is boned for a long long time. They already do. The Salary cap is based on revenue sharing, its a formula that is something to the effect of 50% total revenue divided by all the teams.
Don't get me started on the revenue sharing. Look at teams like the Leafs and the Canadiens. These two teams alone make up for a big chunk of the difference and yet we still have teams in places where a franchise just doesn't belong.
It's still a stupid system. Thank you Gary Bettman and co.
|
On July 05 2012 09:37 iCanada wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 09:21 Sub40APM wrote:
Floor is now where the cap was when they introduced it. Quite frankly we will once again be seeing teams bleeding cash and squeeling for cap. The more logical thing would be just to introduce equalization payments and make the rich teams pay a certain % of their spending to the poor teams or something like that.
Anyway all that these crazy contracts mean is that GMs are robbing themselves of flexibility so if they screw up and their highly prized FA isnt nearly as awesome as his salary suggest that team is boned for a long long time. They already do. The league already has this exact system in place. The Salary cap is based on revenue sharing, its a formula that is something to the effect of 50% total revenue divided by all the teams.
Ya I guess I am saying I wish there was a higher penalty but no hard cap. So if the Rangers want to ice a 100m cap team they would pay out 150m for the privilege. With the 50 m being divided among poorer teams in some sort of proportion.
Anyway the two problems of this league are:
1) there are 10 teams who could easily spend 100m on the players and make the rest of the teams uncompetitive
2) there are teams whose owners make them less than useless (Hawks under their old owners, the Isles, the Thrashers), just a way for their division mates to pad their stats and they should also be punished
|
On July 05 2012 09:39 iCanada wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 02:26 Flaccid wrote:
1) Play with Shea Weber for a number of seasons
2) Inflate value
3) Profit!
Not saying Suter is bad - just saying that it'll be interesting to see how his effectiveness changes when not paired with one of the top-two guys in the league every time he's on the ice. "Welcome to Minnesota, Mr. Suter. Now meet Nate Prosser, lol."
Or we might discover that Suter was the guy making Weber look so good. Should be fun =) My sense is that Suter made Weber look good. I think they are both phenominal players, but IMO Suter is a true #1 where as Weber is a very good #2 that can be an offensive force if he has a solid D partner.
Yea thats an interesting view. Its hard to really see how good the d on teams like the Preds are because they play so defensively and they have guys like Rinne. Well, I guess we will all see what Suter can do without any legitimate defensemen around him.
|
On July 05 2012 09:45 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 09:37 iCanada wrote:On July 05 2012 09:21 Sub40APM wrote:
Floor is now where the cap was when they introduced it. Quite frankly we will once again be seeing teams bleeding cash and squeeling for cap. The more logical thing would be just to introduce equalization payments and make the rich teams pay a certain % of their spending to the poor teams or something like that.
Anyway all that these crazy contracts mean is that GMs are robbing themselves of flexibility so if they screw up and their highly prized FA isnt nearly as awesome as his salary suggest that team is boned for a long long time. They already do. The league already has this exact system in place. The Salary cap is based on revenue sharing, its a formula that is something to the effect of 50% total revenue divided by all the teams. Ya I guess I am saying I wish there was a higher penalty but no hard cap. So if the Rangers want to ice a 100m cap team they would pay out 150m for the privilege. With the 50 m being divided among poorer teams in some sort of proportion. Anyway the two problems of this league are: 1) there are 10 teams who could easily spend 100m on the players and make the rest of the teams uncompetitive 2) there are teams whose owners make them less than useless (Hawks under their old owners, the Isles, the Thrashers), just a way for their division mates to pad their stats and they should also be punished
So you're saying you want to watch the NBA? Why not just go watch the NBA?
On July 05 2012 09:48 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 09:39 iCanada wrote:On July 05 2012 02:26 Flaccid wrote:
1) Play with Shea Weber for a number of seasons
2) Inflate value
3) Profit!
Not saying Suter is bad - just saying that it'll be interesting to see how his effectiveness changes when not paired with one of the top-two guys in the league every time he's on the ice. "Welcome to Minnesota, Mr. Suter. Now meet Nate Prosser, lol."
Or we might discover that Suter was the guy making Weber look so good. Should be fun =) My sense is that Suter made Weber look good. I think they are both phenominal players, but IMO Suter is a true #1 where as Weber is a very good #2 that can be an offensive force if he has a solid D partner. Yea thats an interesting view. Its hard to really see how good the d on teams like the Preds are because they play so defensively and they have guys like Rinne. Well, I guess we will all see what Suter can do without any legitimate defensemen around him.
Well, I mean it is hard to know for sure, but Suter is one of those players that is just solid at everything he does. You can't watch Suter play and find a weakness in his game, because there just isn't.
Weber on the other hand is probably the most dominant defenceman on the boards in the league, a solid stride with the puck, and has a smart shot that also happens to be an absolute hand cannon. That being said Weber's passing game leaves a lot to be desired and his play in the offensive zone is pretty well "Hmmm, do I have a shot? Shoot. No? Okay I pass it to the forward at the hashmarks."
On one hand you have an elite player that is elite because he does no wrong, on the other you have a player that is elite because he has several skills that are so good they make up for his weaknesses... I find it more likely that the more complete guy is augmenting the less complete guy than the otherway around.
Realistically, they both probably better with eachother than without to some degree though.
|
On July 05 2012 08:57 StarStruck wrote:
I hope so too because they're already a ton of loopholes that the GMs are abusing way too often.
Honestly this hard cap people speak of. Barely noticeable.
It would fix a lot if they just made any contract years beyond a guy's 35th birthday treated just like a contract signed after a guy turns 35. Put the teams on the hook for lowering the cap hit by extending a contract beyond a guy's reasonable expiration date. Simple change that would cause owners to think really hard about making these deals.
Then again, foresight has never been a strong suit with NHL GMs. Hell, by the time those players are 40 it'll be someone else's problem.
edit: To clarify in case anyone isn't aware of the rule, currently any player signed after they turn 35 is 'on the books' for the length of that contract. Even if the guy retires, his cap hit remains with the team until the contract expires. It prevents ridiculously front loaded contracts for veteran players with added years to lower the cap hit when, realistically, the guy won't be player beyond a few years.
Now, on the contrary, guys like Suter or Parise signed before they turned 35. So the cap hit will remain on the books only as long as they are on the active roster. Now, if the rule was changed to treat ALL contract years beyond 35 the same, these guys would remain a 7.6M cap hit regardless of if or when they retire. Now, that would suck if you're the GM and you have 15M tied up a couple of 40 year olds who retired 5 years prior. It'd be a good thing.
|
Sigh, Canucks can't pad their points with the Northwest anymore :<
|
On July 05 2012 14:26 Taku wrote:
Sigh, Canucks can't pad their points with the Northwest anymore :<
Maybe without Luongo the Canucks can win a game in St. Paul.
|
On July 05 2012 14:58 GreenManalishi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 14:26 Taku wrote:
Sigh, Canucks can't pad their points with the Northwest anymore :< Maybe without Luongo the Canucks can win a game in St. Paul.
I think alot of teams are gonna lose alot of games in Minny next year. Edmonton will go the expected 0-4 like they always do there but everyones should se there record drop.
|
On July 05 2012 14:26 Taku wrote:
Sigh, Canucks can't pad their points with the Northwest anymore :<
As much as I hate the Canucks, they're still better than any other team in the NW, in my opinion still by a fair margin.
Flames sign Backlund for cheap, poor guy hasn't really had a full season to prove himself, hopefully we'll see the guy who helped lead Sweden to back-to-back WJC finals soon!
|
Signing two players does not make you a contender at all
Vancouver
St Louis
Detroit
Chicago
Nasville
San Jose
Los Angeles
Dallas
these will be next years Western conference playoff teams
|
On July 06 2012 15:33 Jepsyn wrote:
Signing two players does not make you a contender at all
Vancouver
St Louis
Detroit
Chicago
Nasville
San Jose
Los Angeles
Dallas
these will be next years Western conference playoff teams
You have a magic eight ball or something?
That's highly doubtful.
Go fish.
|
Glendale gave the NHL $50 million so their hockey team could sign guys like
Chipchura, Moss, and Miele
to 1 year contracts....
while hanging Yandle, Doan and Smith out to dry...
i tell ya... this is what will keep Westgate vibrant and alive ... a team of AHL 2nd liners.
might as well just skip the pretenses and get a complete AHL team to play at Jobing.com
roflmao
|
I don't understand how the people of Glendale have let those clowns continue to run their city.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
