-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Official NHL 2010 |OT| Off-Season Thread of What If Winnipeg Never Left?
- Thread starter Manics
- Start date
- Status
KingHenrik30
Member
hahahahaha
I hate the devils!
i hope all the bad things in life happen to them and all their fans, and only them and all their fans
and by all their fan's, I mean all 10 of them.
I hate the devils!
i hope all the bad things in life happen to them and all their fans, and only them and all their fans
and by all their fan's, I mean all 10 of them.
KingHenrik30
Member
Kifimbo said:
they'll use statistics as evidence.
And this is going to an arbitrator. Each will argue their sides, but as far as hard evidence, not neccessary - this isn't going to court.
DopeyFish, I think your going overboard in what's going to come to the Devils. This is the first time they've rejected a deal because of cap circumvention, so I wouldn't expect anything that harsh. Basically they're drawing the line in the sand right now. If someone tries this again, then you might see the agent reprimanded and a salary cap fee imposed.
KingHenrik30
Member
Fei said:
exactly, all I'm expecting out of this is a contract restructuring. How big of one who knows
Pickles the Firecat
Banned
The Kovalchuk saga has officially gone from "unbelievably stressful" to "absurdly hilarious" for me. This is the absolute best offseason story ever.
KingHenrik30
Member
Kifimbo said:
Who knows? All I know is NHL will argue that the devils tried to circumvent the cap and then an arbiter will decide what happens. Arbiter will be independant and decided on by both the devils and the NHL. The NHL has never had a 17 year contract in the cap era, it's way too blatant.
Fei said:
how is anything that i said "overboard"
if the arbitrator rules in favour of the NHL, Kovalchuk will say he wants his $100ish million, devils must make it compliant therefore removing the final years of the contract. His cap hit then skyrockets. NHL has choice of it's penalty (which i said as POSSIBLE) the reason why the devils wanted the low cap hit in the first place was because parise is RFA next year meaning huge raise. that's why there will be a firesale. if NHL imposes a fine, it will be even worse.
it all depends on the NHLPA filing grievance though.... which is something else i've posted... and something they probably won't bother to do.
KingHenrik30
Member
Kifimbo said:Max Talbot was all right.
I know, he isn't a star player, but he was the star of the final game.
technically he IS a superstar
TemplaerDude
Member
That is the greasiest thing I've seen in a long time.
I thought handlebars were illegal.
I thought handlebars were illegal.
The Hossa contract is every bit as bad as the Kovalchuk contract, imo. 42 vs 44? Who gives a shit, neither will play that long. A 5.2 cap hit on Hossa and making only 3.5 million total over his final 4 years is as much cap circumvention as this is. Never should have been allowed. If this does go to an arbiter, I'd love to see how the NHL defends the difference
Dastardly Jerks
Banned
Ahhh Devils.. :lol saw this coming.
Kariya to (most of) Anaheim is what Pronger is to Edmonton. Screwed around the team, took Selanne to the Avs etc, wanted to be 'the' main #1 Duck for years to come then went on his merry way. Alot of Anaheim fans call it the worst betrayal to the franchise so far, and I tend to agree.
Even Neids and Selannes dicking around with retirement pales in comparison.
Acid08 said:
Kariya to (most of) Anaheim is what Pronger is to Edmonton. Screwed around the team, took Selanne to the Avs etc, wanted to be 'the' main #1 Duck for years to come then went on his merry way. Alot of Anaheim fans call it the worst betrayal to the franchise so far, and I tend to agree.
Even Neids and Selannes dicking around with retirement pales in comparison.
sefskillz said:
Difference is Hossas last two years are greater than 1 mil while kovalchuks last 6 are under 1 million - Huge difference... Technically speaking they could shave 4 years off and the contract is still worse than hossas - just to give you scope at how bad this contract really is
Kovalchuk can retire at 38 and the devils would have paid out $35 million more than their cap number, which is plain awful (thanks to the contract being signed before the age of 35)
I think the NHL should either make cap hit the actual salary or when the player hits 35 the contract auto reverts to a 35+ contract (so if they retire, cap hit remains)
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
DopeyFish said:
I don't like the idea of a contract auto reverting but I do like actual compensation hitting the cap. It would seem ridiculous to not have it that way. I'm not sure if I'm remembering right but is a team only required to pay a certain percentage each year of a player's contract each year for a loophole or are they required to pay the full agreed amount for that year? If that is so it opens another loophole.
Spectral Glider
Member
Well, whatever happens, I just hope the Devils get screwed.
CrazedArabMan
Member
To fix all this, we need to eliminate the salary cap. 
CrazedArabMan
Member
Marvie_3 said:
u mad?
The Internet
Member
sefskillz said:
I agree, I actually thought the NHL was going to step in with the Hossa contract and they didn't. It's going to be interesting to see them explain why Hossa's contract is allowed and Kovalchuk's isn't.
KingHenrik30
Member
Marvie_3 said:What do I have to be mad about? My team has the Cup and yours doesn't.
I just think, joking or not, the suggestion of no salary cap is pure stupidity.
Yet if there was no cap your team would be hands down favorites to repeat
you must feel some sort of confliction there
Not at all. Chicago probably wouldn't repeat anyway. I'm totally in favor of the salary cap. I think it's made the NHL a much better league overall and I'd rather see parity than see the same 4 or 5 times trying to buy the Cup every year. Makes things a lot more interesting.KingHenrik30 said:
I'm a leafs fan - a fan of the richest NHL team and I'll tell you the salary cap is absolutely necessary every day of the week
Yes, let's remove the cap and have a few teams competing every year - if the leafs finally win a cup in my lifetime, I want to know they worked their asses off to earn it instead of buying it. What's the fun in that? It's like watching mcdonalds crushing mom and pop restaurants - I don't see joy in that
Yes, let's remove the cap and have a few teams competing every year - if the leafs finally win a cup in my lifetime, I want to know they worked their asses off to earn it instead of buying it. What's the fun in that? It's like watching mcdonalds crushing mom and pop restaurants - I don't see joy in that
I like the salary cap since it makes the NHL so unpredictable and almost every team can make the playoffs, but even as a Leafs fan you must see the joy in pre-cap stuff like the Wings-Avs rivalry.DopeyFish said:
It's not like buying a cup was all that easy in the pre-cap era... and Chicago showed this year that it's very much possible in the cap-era as well.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
Removing the cap would only suck because the Wings would win every year. Every with no salary cap, you think the leafs or the rangers would know what to do with that money? :lol
KingHenrik30
Member
Socreges said:
Wouldnt really matter for the Rangers they couldn't win with sather with no cap anyways.
I am for a soft cap/luxury tax though.
Hey I know... Last time the leafs made the playoffs there was no cap
The roster we had was ridiculous too (for the playoffs)
Sundin, roberts, nieuwendyk, tucker, belfour, leetch, mogilny, kaberle, antropov, ponikarovsky, francis, mccabe, johanssen and fucking aki berg (ok maybe not the last one)
That's the kind of lineup you drool over but it was so disjointed - Ron Francis looked so confused on the ice - product of leafs management paying players for their past point levels instead of making hockey/team decisions... Actually we were sorta lucky unlike NYR where their teams didn't have any chemistry at all... We had... Some
But after we lost mogilny and nieuwendyk and Roberts (salary cap, yay) we had the muskoka 5 kill our chances for competing for awhile - we're still paying for Tucker ffs leafs will finally be geared to compete in the next couple years but it will be worth it. Leafs organization is getting stronger at all levels and finally making decisions based on the good of the team instead of the good of how the roster looks on paper
That's why I think the cap is important - we haven't fit full parity yet either as some teams are still recovering from pre cap era... (most teams out of the playoffs anyways) it takes awhile to purge the garbage and replace with quality players especially when some teams lived off the UFA market
The roster we had was ridiculous too (for the playoffs)
Sundin, roberts, nieuwendyk, tucker, belfour, leetch, mogilny, kaberle, antropov, ponikarovsky, francis, mccabe, johanssen and fucking aki berg (ok maybe not the last one)
That's the kind of lineup you drool over but it was so disjointed - Ron Francis looked so confused on the ice - product of leafs management paying players for their past point levels instead of making hockey/team decisions... Actually we were sorta lucky unlike NYR where their teams didn't have any chemistry at all... We had... Some
But after we lost mogilny and nieuwendyk and Roberts (salary cap, yay) we had the muskoka 5 kill our chances for competing for awhile - we're still paying for Tucker ffs leafs will finally be geared to compete in the next couple years but it will be worth it. Leafs organization is getting stronger at all levels and finally making decisions based on the good of the team instead of the good of how the roster looks on paper
That's why I think the cap is important - we haven't fit full parity yet either as some teams are still recovering from pre cap era... (most teams out of the playoffs anyways) it takes awhile to purge the garbage and replace with quality players especially when some teams lived off the UFA market
The Internet
Member
I love the salary-cap era but a part of me misses seeing the Oilers with a $25 million payroll almost upsetting the Dallas Stars with a $70 million payroll every single playoffs. It made being eliminated not as hard to take.
Hm? They did "buy" a cup. They knew they were gonna lose players this off-season due to various players getting raises, but they chose to sign Hossa on top of that and go all out for one year and take the consequences.Marvie_3 said:
You could say Detroit tried to do it the year before with Hossa, difference is they only signed Hossa to a 1-year deal which made the consequence a lot less severe for them. Had they signed Hossa long-term, they would have had a similar off-season that the Hawks are having now, the difference being that the Hawks won the cup so it's worth it.
It appears you don't understand the definition of "buying a Cup". The Blackhawks still had to play by the same cap rules as everyone else. It's not like Chicago was able to outspend all the other teams. Chicago was just lucky enough to have top players on the final years of reasonable cap hit ELC deals (Toews, Kane) and have great depth all fit in under the cap. Hardly what I'd call buying a Cup.pringles said:
As for your Detroit example, Detroit still had to stay under the cap. I don't quite understand your logic here.
I disagree, but it's obviously not the same as when the Wings iced the hall-of-fame team in 02. It's the closest thing to "buying" a cup as you can get in the salary cap era though.Plinko said:
Yeah like I said it's not the same as in the pre-cap times, they can't outspend everyone else now. But they knew full well that this year was their best chance at winning a cup, due to the entry-level deals on Kane and Toews and others. After this year they were gonna lose players no matter what they did. They could however have signed support players to 1-year deals, still had a good team and had a much easier time this off-season. Instead they chose to sign Hossa in order to make the most of the one-year window, and in a way "bought" a cup.Marvie<3 said:
Like I said, it's very similar to what Detroit did except they managed to get Hossa for only 1 year while Chicago had to sign him long-term. Their suffering the following off-season differs accordingly.
Finishing at the bottom of the standings for a couple of years to get good draft picks is also almost equivalent to buying a championship team.
- Status