NHL Off-Season Thread 2010

[Asher]

So far word is it's a 17-year, $150M deal. Jesus christ.

[Flubber]

So far word is it's a 17-year, $150M deal. Jesus christ.

17 years would be insane. and 8.82 million average hit for 17 years has the potential of crippling a franchise

[Garth Vader]

Not hockey, but maybe someone who reads this thread will appreciate it...

The Green Riders are going to take a case of beer to the huddle this season. Whoever doesn't get a beer has to leave the field.

Haha, that's a good one

[Ben Kenobi]

Kipper was fantastic last season-- far better in his individual performances than either of the prior two playoff seasons

Kipper was about average. Nothing special. Iggy was one of the worst top scorers on any team. Bouwmeester was awful.

But Kipper-- he was often stellar last year-- slagging him shows complete ignorance of his performance last year

He's the best you've got which is why you'll see the cellar again.

[Asher]

Kipper was demonstrably above average and the phrase "worst top scorer" is awesomely stupid.

[Flubber]

So far word is it's a 17-year, $150M deal. Jesus christ.

TSN now says 17 years and 102 million paid this way

6, 6, 11.5, 11.5, 11.5, 11.5,11.5, 10.5, 8.5, 6.5 (so thats 95 million over 10 years

The last 7 years?

3.5, 0.75, 0.55, 0.55, 0.55, 0.55, 0.55

So the 17 years is a bit of a mirage since there is so little of the contract paid in those years

So presto a 9.5 million cap hit over the first 10 years turns into a 6 million hit over the life of the contract-- I am also hearing murmurings on the mssage boards that there are provisions in the CBA that allow NJ to lose that 6 million hit if/when Kovy retires but I have not looked into that .

Once again we see a cap-busting deal

perhaps the cap rules should be that the cap hit in the early years is the higher of the average of the contract and the actual cost for the year. I know the average rules were put in place to avoid tiny cap hits on someone who was on a ridiculous back-loaded contract.

Apart from all the cap stuff, I just don't see Kovalchuk being worth 11.5 million per season. He is a great offensive talent but talk to me when he's won something

[Flubber]

Kipper was about average.

hmmm-- in the top 10 in all of games played, wins, GAA and Sv %-- ya sounds really average to me

Iggy was one of the worst top scorers on any team. .

I will not defend Iggy's performance last year.

Bouwmeester was awful.

Actually he wasn't . He logged huge minutes on a good defensive team and was very solid defensively for the most part. Hardly awful. He wasdisappointing offensively though. Every now and again he rushed the puck, displaying his awesome skating ability and everyone wondered why he didn't do it more often

He's the best you've got which is why you'll see the cellar again.

Since I don't have a lot of faith in this team I fear another non-playoff year. It would occurr mainly due to the GMs failure to make any positive moves while stripping his cupboard of picks and prospects. I know among the fans, the knives are largely out for Sutter but ownership gives every indication of supporting him. If the Flames suck though through the first 20 games, the calls for Sutter's may be too shrill to ignore.

Maybe I will be shocked and no less than 6 or 7 Flames will return to better form. It could happen, but I am NOT counting on it

[Fake Boris]

Some random thoughts.

Isn't it disappointing what the Hawks had to do after winning the cup? It seems to me that the cap has put a lot of pressure on the teams, which forces them to be hiring mercenaries and trading players all the time. I don't think it's good for hockey. I'd rather see teams with a strong identity and the same players committed to it, for a long time.

I say reward the teams who build long term with their draft picks. Give teams a cap hit reduction when they sign long term a player they drafted.

[Fake Boris]

dp

[Ben Kenobi]

the phrase "worst top scorer" is awesomely stupid.

18 teams had a better top scorer. I don't find that very impressive at all, especially not when the Canucks had 4 scorers as good or better.

[Asher]

You need serious mental help for your pathological lying.

[Flubber]

18 teams had a better top scorer. I don't find that very impressive at all, especially not when the Canucks had 4 scorers as good or better.

Ben a simple question. Would not a player have to be the 30th best "top scorer" to be the "worst top scorer" in the league

[Fake Boris]

nm

[Flubber]

Some random thoughts.

Isn't it disappointing what the Hawks had to do after winning the cup? It seems to me that the cap has put a lot of pressure on the teams, which forces them to be hiring mercenaries and trading players all the time. I don't think it's good for hockey. I'd rather see teams with a strong identity and the same players committed to it, for a long time.

I say reward the teams who build long term with their draft picks. Give teams a cap hit reduction when they sign long term a player they drafted.

While it is a little disappointed the Hawks have to be somewhat dismantled, it is a predicted offshoot of the cap world. Dynasties are harder since if you accumulate too many stars, there comes a point where you cannot afford them.

While the most obvious example, the hawks are far from the only team that have had to dump salary-- Oh and the Hawks cap problems are not all due to good drafting. The rather fat contract of an overpriced Huet is a big part of their cap woes.

Overall my feelings on the cap are mixed. It is "tough" to see players dumped for non-hockey reasons. At the same time I would not want to see a return to the days when teams like the Leafs or Rangers can attempt to buy their way to a cup. In the current system shrewd drafting IS greatly rewarded as cheap younger players can be a key ingredient

[Asher]

Campbell is the real problem, not Huet

$7.140M cap hit & salary through 2014. That's just awful.