NHL 2012-2013: Tentative deal early Sunday January 6

FSeven wrote:

Crazy good article dissecting Semin.

In short, put him on a team with strong leadership and a line with a strong center and he may just be that 50-goal scorer everyone says he has the talent to be.

Good pickup for the Canes.

Wow, that was an interesting read.

I can say that going to a more easy-going market has helped a number of players *cough*Corvo*cough* so hopefully he'll do well with a change of pace.

FSeven wrote:

Crazy good article dissecting Semin.

In short, put him on a team with strong leadership and a line with a strong center and he may just be that 50-goal scorer everyone says he has the talent to be.

Good pickup for the Canes.

Crazy good isn't the half of it, the article is spot on with regards to Semin. There is, IMO, one glaring issue with it, and that's the 10%, the inconsistency. The author seems to want to gloss that over, and point out "look how good he is!". And that's fine. But what it fails to recognize is that when you have a player like that with such incredible talent, you need it to be reliable, consistent, and Semin's not. The bit about penalties is a lot bigger issue as well; taking an excess of lazy penalties the way he does can be a huge detractor to the team writ large.

Overall, Semin is, as that article, the numbers and folks here point out, a fantastic hockey player. The issue is that while he's fantastic, and could easily be one of the best to play the sport is that it's a team sport, and the hangups people have is that Semin isn't presenting as a team player.

IMAGE(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/016/leave-britney-alone-02.jpg)

LEAVE SEMIN ALONE!

Gravey wrote:

How does anyone (who isn't a player) (or their agent) still think these deals are a good idea?

Whatever it takes to keep Quick!

Although the Quick deal was less than even the 2009 Luongo one.

The Jets extended their deal with Enstrom for another 5 years 28.75 mill. Yay!

The internet is trying to make an updated version of this map: http://i.imgur.com/ZKoQ5.jpg

Take this survey to represent your team: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GXRJNNP

Here are the most recent results: http://i.imgur.com/YHiad.jpg

Help make a new map!!!! Two of my favorite things.. Hockey and maps!

goman wrote:

The internet is trying to make an updated version of this map: http://i.imgur.com/ZKoQ5.jpg

Take this survey to represent your team: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GXRJNNP

Here are the most recent results: http://i.imgur.com/YHiad.jpg

Help make a new map!!!! Two of my favorite things.. Hockey and maps!

I answered the survey and was even kind enough to put my in-laws postal code instead of mine...

goman wrote:

The internet is trying to make an updated version of this map: http://i.imgur.com/ZKoQ5.jpg

Take this survey to represent your team: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GXRJNNP

Here are the most recent results: http://i.imgur.com/YHiad.jpg

Help make a new map!!!! Two of my favorite things.. Hockey and maps!

How can the Canucks be the most-supported team, when everyone knows they are in fact the most hated team of all time ever?

goman wrote:

The internet is trying to make an updated version of this map: http://i.imgur.com/ZKoQ5.jpg

Take this survey to represent your team: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GXRJNNP

Here are the most recent results: http://i.imgur.com/YHiad.jpg

Help make a new map!!!! Two of my favorite things.. Hockey and maps!

Is there a source where he actually talks about asking people to do this? Even his blog on the web site in that first image makes no mention of it.

Ranger Rick wrote:
goman wrote:

The internet is trying to make an updated version of this map: http://i.imgur.com/ZKoQ5.jpg

Take this survey to represent your team: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GXRJNNP

Here are the most recent results: http://i.imgur.com/YHiad.jpg

Help make a new map!!!! Two of my favorite things.. Hockey and maps!

Is there a source where he actually talks about asking people to do this? Even his blog on the web site in that first image makes no mention of it.

http://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comme...

Military Hockey Fans: Throwing the curve since 2002 or earlier.

With contract-length caps rumored to be a high priority in the upcoming CBA negotiations, the Hurricanes wisely signed Jeff Skinner to a 6-year deal totalling $34.35 million.

A smart move. They now have both Staals and Skinner locked up for the long-term.

Edit: Link

B Dog wrote:

With contract-length caps rumored to be a high priority in the upcoming CBA negotiations, the Hurricanes wisely signed Jeff Skinner to a 6-year deal totalling $34.35 million.

A smart move. They now have both Staals and Skinner locked up for the long-term.

Edit: Link

Yeah, Minnesota may have had the flashiest offseason, but the Hurricanes did so damn much this summer I'm crazy excited. Let's just hope we're not locked out half the season so I can't enjoy it.

Another day goes by, another story about the Devils' ownership not having money. I even saw something about a move to a Toronto suburb. News is funny.

Something wicked this way comes.

Lockout if no deal by September 15th.

B Dog wrote:

Something wicked this way comes.

Lockout if no deal by September 15th.

Owners: You are all f*cking retarded.

XOXO,

AnimeJ

If early reports are to be believed, it appears that the NHL felt that the counter-proposal delivered by the NHLPA today was "better than expected."

Reason for optimism? We'll see...

The oddity of "trading cap space" is actually kind of interesting.

In terms of the actual hockey side I have absolutely no problem with the current CBA. I like a hard cap and I don't like the idea of trading cap space. You would run in to situations where poor teams will just trade their unused cap space to wealthy teams and the floor between powerhouses and have-nots would widen.

I think either direction for the cap trade is limited to $4 million.

I'm for anything that helps getting away from the sillyness of the cap floor. Phoenix might end up paying Doan a stupid amount of cash just to get reasonably close to the floor. A team like Ottawa who arguably don't need to spend anymore are under the floor.

Trading room would help solve this while both sides are satisfied. Small team owners don't have to pay players for the sake of reaching a arbitrary floor. Players are satisfied as the money still gets spent by bigger teams.

Or you know they could just go to a soft cap with a lower floor and let the teams sort this out themselves on an open market. Or you know no cap.... sigh.

MaxShrek wrote:

I think either direction for the cap trade is limited to $4 million.

I would be happy if the magic number was closer to $1-2 million. Just enough to help you in case you are coming in closer to the cap, but reasonable enough that the gulf "between powerhouses and have-nots would NOT widen"

Bonnonon wrote:
MaxShrek wrote:

I think either direction for the cap trade is limited to $4 million.

I would be happy if the magic number was closer to $1-2 million. Just enough to help you in case you are coming in closer to the cap, but reasonable enough that the gulf "between powerhouses and have-nots would NOT widen"

Why are people so afraid of this myth. Money matters but at the end of the day management trumps that. Cap or no cap you just have to look at the Toronto Maple Leafs and NY Rangers to an extent as teams that just kept spending and spending with laughable results. Thats just in hockey.

Salary caps are not in place for competitive balance. Thats what the owners say to sell it to the fans. Caps are in place so owners can prevent themselves from mismanaging their monopoly on their sport and taking losses.

.

jowner wrote:
Bonnonon wrote:
MaxShrek wrote:

I think either direction for the cap trade is limited to $4 million.

I would be happy if the magic number was closer to $1-2 million. Just enough to help you in case you are coming in closer to the cap, but reasonable enough that the gulf "between powerhouses and have-nots would NOT widen"

Why are people so afraid of this myth. Money matters but at the end of the day management trumps that. Cap or no cap you just have to look at the Toronto Maple Leafs and NY Rangers to an extent as teams that just kept spending and spending with laughable results. Thats just in hockey.

Salary caps are not in place for competitive balance. Thats what the owners say to sell it to the fans. Caps are in place so owners can prevent themselves from mismanaging their monopoly on their sport and taking losses.

I would agree with your comment to an extent, but $#%!@% dangnabit. I was about to make a comment about baseball and the Yankees, but then came across this article - http://seamheads.com/2011/03/24/can-you-buy-wins-in-baseball/ (that article is not the best one, but it sums it up pretty good) and of course other articles that support your point of view. I have been duped!

I've dealt with this argument for almost 20 years now, being both a Yankees and Rangers fan.

I've always argued that sports will be competitive without salary caps due to luxury taxes, poor teams getting top draft picks, and the general volatility of the players themselves (ie. you can pay them all the money in the world but they still have to perform). What people who argue against the Yankees forget is that they had a perfect storm of talent hit at the same time (Jeter, Posada, Pettitte, Mariano, Bernie Williams). A once in a lifetime crop of homegrown talent. Yet after those 4 championships in 5 years, the Yankees didn't win another until 2009. The far less funded Diamondbacks beat them in 2001 and the Marlins in 2003.

The Rangers were the case example for years of spending to bring in big names and having nothing to show for it. Just consider how competitive the league was last year. With 15 teams in the Eastern Conference where only 8 teams get into the playoffs, 8 points was all that separated the #7 and #8 team from the #12 team. Over the last few seasons, there were many playoff berths decided on the last few games of the season. The Senators, Coyotes, and the Blues have 3 of the 11 lowest payrolls in the game and how did they do? Conversely, the top 7 payrolls in the NHL, in order from 1 to 7 were: Flyers, Sabres, Blackhawks, Canucks, Capitals, Penguins, Maple Leafs. How did those teams fare?

I think what it all comes down to is there being 2 types of owners. One type of owner has a passion for their sports team and will spend money to give his/her team what they feel is the best chance to win. Think Steinbrenner of the Yankees, Cuban of the Dallas Mavericks, or Dolan of the NY Rangers. Then you have another type of owner who isn't as interested in their team winning as they are in profit margins and the kinds of tax breaks owning a professional sports team gives. Think Paul Allen whose net worth is more than Steinbrenner, Cuban, and Dolan combined. He owns the Trailblazers and Seahawks yet when was the last time you saw those teams compete? It's certainly not for a shortage of money. Or Drayton McLane who owns the Houston Astros.

Personally, I loved having Steinbrenner as my favorite teams' owner. After going through the torture that was the 1980's, success from 1996-2000 created a financial windfall for Steinbrenner and he realized the best way to make the most profit was to invest in the team. Winning teams create more profit than do losing teams. Just ask the Pittsburgh Pirates. Everyone loves a winner yet winning also breeds contempt.

For a perfect example, look at baseball after the 96-00 Yankee championships. When the Yankees realized those core few players were the key, they began rewarding them with lucrative contracts to keep them on the Yankees. How many teams suddenly grasped the whole concept and began spending to either bring in talent or resign current talent? Red Sox, Angels, Phillies, Cardinals, White Sox, Rangers, and most recently Detroit and Washington. Is it then any surprise that after investing oodles of money and fielding teams that people actually want to watch, the net worth of those teams has exploded? When the Tigers went on their recent spending spree, in the span of one year, the net worth of the team jumped 24%. Due in large part to increased merchandise sales, ticket sales, and concessions. John Henry bought the Red Sox in 2001 for $660 million. He then spent/spent/spent amassing consistently one of the best teams in baseball year after year since 2001 which included 2 Championship teams, and the Red Sox net worth is now $1 billion. Look at the bottom of that Forbes list. Athletics, Pirates, Royals, Indians, Blue Jays, Diamondbacks, Brewers, Padres, Orioles. How can we argue that it's all about money and small markets when the Steelers don't seem to have any problem with money residing in Pittsburgh? Or the Maple Leafs in Toronto? Baltimore a small market? Oakland? Kansas City?

There's a difference between reinvesting your profits into your company and taking those profits (not to mention the luxury taxes teams like the Yankees pay) and pocketing them. I'm glad the owners of the teams I love (Yanks/Rangers/Giants) are of the reinvesting mentality.

What type of owners does your favorite team have? Jowner is right on the money. This is about owner greed, risk assessment, and erring on the side of fiscal conservativism. Those owners may never really lose money but they're never going to make as much as they could and sadly, the sport and the fans are the ones who suffer the most.

FSeven wrote:

Awesome write up...

What type of owners does your favorite team have? Jowner is right on the money. This is about owner greed, risk assessment, and erring on the side of fiscal conservativism. Those owners may never really lose money but they're never going to make as much as they could and sadly, the sport and the fans are the ones who suffer the most.

Thanks for taking the time to type out that awesome post. I am now informed.

My owner is either bad with money or a swindler. Or both.

Look at the bottom of that Forbes list. Athletics, Pirates, Royals, Indians, Blue Jays, Diamondbacks, Brewers, Padres, Orioles. How can we argue that it's all about money and small markets when the Steelers don't seem to have any problem with money residing in Pittsburgh?

Yeah, I wonder how teams like Pittsburgh and Green Bay maintain competitive franchises.

I wonder why Beltran doesn't play for the Royals, like all of their other prospects that get traded instead of signed.