The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Well, long-term contracts may be bad for many reasons, but I don't think most players with long-term deals suddenly start goofing off out there. It's a fallacy to think that players (or people) are primarily motivated by money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankhab Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 14 years!!! This is stupid. I repeat, the CBA better do something about this as GMs continue to screw not only themselves, but the rest of the GMs that have more sense. There is not a expectation among top players that they get a "career contract" with no remaining risk (or much incentive) to earn their pay. If Markov is a shadow of his former self (I hope not, but it could happen due to the knee), can you imagine having him locked up at a high cap for the next 10 years! Didn't the league strike down the first New Jersey-Kovalchuk deal because the life of the deal wasn't realistic? If so, this deal should also be struck down, and I'm hoping it is. What a terrible time for Philly to make such an offer, players are not dumb, you can't be telling them that the length and amount of these deals is way too much in negotiations, while one of your strongest franchises makes a totally stupid offer at the same time. Man, the owners really are a bunch of morons sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Didn't the league strike down the first New Jersey-Kovalchuk deal because the life of the deal wasn't realistic? If so, this deal should also be struck down, and I'm hoping it is. What a terrible time for Philly to make such an offer, players are not dumb, you can't be telling them that the length and amount of these deals is way too much in negotiations, while one of your strongest franchises makes a totally stupid offer at the same time. Man, the owners really are a bunch of morons sometimes. The Kovalchuk ruling set clear boundaries. The boundaries being that if your deal runs past the age of 40 (Kovalchuk's first deal took him to age 44) any year past that mark would not help to reduce the cap hit. This contract ends when WEber is 40. There is nothing wrong with it. If the league shoots it down, the NHLPA and Weber would grieve this thing so fast it wouldn't be funny. The fact that they conformed to all rules set out in the last grievance means this would be a slam dunk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankhab Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 The Kovalchuk ruling set clear boundaries. The boundaries being that if your deal runs past the age of 40 (Kovalchuk's first deal took him to age 44) any year past that mark would not help to reduce the cap hit. This contract ends when WEber is 40. There is nothing wrong with it. If the league shoots it down, the NHLPA and Weber would grieve this thing so fast it wouldn't be funny. The fact that they conformed to all rules set out in the last grievance means this would be a slam dunk. I was thinking Weber is older than he is, so I suppose you're right. The timing is really bad, though, the owners continue to be their own worst enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Yeah, I think a lot of knee-jerk criticisms of contracts is just that, knee-jerk. Look at people like Boone ripping Dallas for signing Jagr to a fat one year deal, as though this is some crippling blow (in fact, it's a great patch-up move by Dallas). Similarly, Philly is unlikely ever to regret signing Weber, any more than they regret having signed Pronger. Assuming Nashville doesn't match, they've locked up Weber for his entire playing career; and a player of his calibre is quite likely to be highly effective well into his late 30s. That's not a bad move at all. The way forward for Nashville is to sign him for one year - if they can at all afford it, at $27 mil - and then trade him when the year is up. You could surely get back better value than four #24 overall picks for that beast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Once you've dished out the 27 mill in the first year you might as well keep him indefinitely. I don't get where all the assumptions that Weber wants out come from though, between Sakic, Fedorov and Stevens, we see 6 Stanley Cups after their teams matched offer sheets on them. I think they were able to rehabilitate any rift in the player team relationship that might have been caused. Heck I don't even think one is caused.. this is just business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Once you've dished out the 27 mill in the first year you might as well keep him indefinitely. I don't get where all the assumptions that Weber wants out come from though, between Sakic, Fedorov and Stevens, we see 6 Stanley Cups after their teams matched offer sheets on them. I think they were able to rehabilitate any rift in the player team relationship that might have been caused. Heck I don't even think one is caused.. this is just business. Well, sure. If he is OK to stay after you've matched, then keep him. Conversely, if he really does want out, then it's still a matter of maximizing return for your asset. The Philly offer represents poor return for a franchise defenceman, so you're better off signing him for that year and then dealing him. Either way, their best move is to match the offer and go from there - but I don't know if their ownership has that kind of coin. What is true is that this could indeed be a Montreal Expos moment for that franchise, and in the long run they're probably better off taking the hit now and hoping that a new CBA helps them recover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Elliotte Friedman wrote a great article about long contracts: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2012/07/scrapping-long-term-nhl-contracts-is-a-bad-idea.html Basically, if you limit the length of the contracts you're going to cause player costs to skyrocket. Players are fine with sacrificing some money for job security. They know they can buy a house and raise a family with their long term deal, so long as things don't fall through with the team. If you move it to a five year limit, expect the top players to ask for maximum contracts (Malkin will probably take a cap hit of around $9.5M on his next contract if Pittsburgh gives him eight to 10 years but if he can only have high he'll likely ask for $13M for five seasons). A guy like Shea Weber wouldn't take a contract that would drop his cap to $7.8M but instead will ask for market and get $12M for five years. You know how Price took market at six years? There's a reason for it. Had we tried to get him to sign until he's 35, the cap would be lower. So you decide, do you want to sign a 23 year old Alex Galchenyuk after a 90 point season to a long term contract with a lower hit or deal with his agent telling Bergevin that he's going to take the first offer sheet that gives him $12M per year for five seasons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Less and less arbitration hearings are being heard. Here's my thoughts on why. http://lastwordonsports.com/2012/07/20/nhl-teams-avoid-arbitration-with-young-stars/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 There's really nothing wrong with long contracts as long as they are not obvious attempts to circumvent the cap. The upper limit for an elite talent would be to sign a guy until he's about 40 years old. (Players are able to stretch their careers out longer than ever before due to superior fitness and training, and truly gifted players like Jagr or Lidstrom can continue to be productive into their 40s now). It's when you sign a guy well into what will obviously be his retirement period that things get stupid. I understand the outrage over Philly's deliberate and predatory sabotaging of the Nashville franchise, but the griping over the length of the contract just seems like more cap-induced hysteria to me - rather like all the bitching about the Cole deal, as though the likelihood of one bad season in Year Four somehow overwhelms all other considerations, such as the incredible impact he brings over the remainder of the contract. If the Habs had a Weber and locked him up until 40, I wouldn't mind at all. Even if it becomes a problem when he's 39, you've gotten to enjoy 10, 12 years of awesomeness. I'll take it, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 Lubomir Visnovsky has filed a grievance to have an arbitrator overturn his trade to the Islanders, citing that his no-trade clause was still in effect at the time of the deal (and evidently he doesn't want to consent to join New York). He's in the last year of a front-loaded deal so he's making 'just' $3 million with a cap hit of $5.6 M (and now we see why the Isles wanted him, to save real dollars on the cap). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 Breaking - Rick Nash to the Rangers, trade call coming shortly per TSN. Sergei Kostitsyn gets 2 years, $6 M total from the Preds while Kris Versteeg gets 4 years, $17.6 M from Florida. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 Dubinsky, Anisimov, Erixon, and a 1st go to the Jackets. With Howson at the helm I knew this was going to be an underwhelming return but even with that said I thought they'd do at least a bit better here. The Jackets also have to give up a 3rd and an AHL D to get this done, even worse... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Dubinsky, Anisimov, Erixon, and a 1st go to the Jackets. With Howson at the helm I knew this was going to be an underwhelming return but even with that said I thought they'd do at least a bit better here. The Jackets also have to give up a 3rd and an AHL D to get this done, even worse... Sather must have given Howsen an under the table $$ kickback to make that deal. Almost looks as lopsided as a 1995 Hab-Ave deal, are Mike Milbury or Doug Mclean Blue Jacket consultants? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Instant Analysis from four of our writers http://lastwordonsports.com/2012/07/23/breaking-nash-traded-to-rangers/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 A year or two again and that trade would have really excited me. Now, it just looks like a couple of 2nd/3rd line centers and a moderate D prospect. I knew Howson would fail to bring back an instant impact player. I realize we wouldn't get another Nash back, but I was at least hoping for a guy who had put up 60+ points in his career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 A year or two again and that trade would have really excited me. Now, it just looks like a couple of 2nd/3rd line centers and a moderate D prospect. I knew Howson would fail to bring back an instant impact player. I realize we wouldn't get another Nash back, but I was at least hoping for a guy who had put up 60+ points in his career. Dubinsky had 54 points in 2010-2011 so it's not as though he cannot put up top six numbers. Still a terrible trade when you look at what Detroit offered (Filppula/Franzen/1st/Prospect). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Dubinsky had 54 points in 2010-2011 so it's not as though he cannot put up top six numbers. Still a terrible trade when you look at what Detroit offered (Filppula/Franzen/1st/Prospect). Division rival no ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Division rival no ? True but you take the best trade available. Word is that Howson played a waiting game and failed, since back at the trade deadline Sather offered Del Zotto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sakiqc Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 True but you take the best trade available. Word is that Howson played a waiting game and failed, since back at the trade deadline Sather offered Del Zotto. Very sad for the Rangers they couldn't pull the trade at the time. They didn't need much more to win the Cup this year. Nash is a very nice addition to a very balanced team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brobin Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 What is sad is that Nash had Columbus by the balls and everyone knew it, resulting in people low balling. The Rangers got a steal on the face of it. Before anyone wonders why we can't get a Nash, its because of the no trade clause. As far as I am concerned, when you ask for a trade, the NTC should be null and void. This was a drawn out version of the Roy deal. The team trading the superstar gets screwed every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 This was a drawn out version of the Roy deal. Everyone forgets that Roy apologized the next day and said he wanted to stay and Ronald Corey told him he was trading him no matter what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Everyone forgets that Roy apologized the next day and said he wanted to stay and Ronald Corey told him he was trading him no matter what. That is the public version. Do you sincerily think that Roy would have played for Tremblay again ? He wanted to stay if Tremblay was fired right away... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 That is the public version. Do you sincerily think that Roy would have played for Tremblay again ? He wanted to stay if Tremblay was fired right away... Would have been better to fire Mario Tremblay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Would have been better to fire Mario Tremblay. Amen, brother. This Nash deal most closely resembles Thornton to San Jose for spare parts, to my mind. I am slightly puzzled that Howson didn't dig in his heels and frigging insist on more...it's not like he had to pull the trigger right now, is it? Why not keep waiting? As for that Detroit offer, OUCH. A stupid GM can do immeasurable damage, as we learned in the Houle years. Too bad for the Columbus fans, they deserve so much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.