The official 2007-08 NHL Season discussion thread.

Post by **Lidas** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:04 am

Post by **Tasku** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:16 am

Holy crapp! He's basically intending to play his whole career in Washington and own the team when he retires.

I'm generally against long contracts like that, but for a young guy like Ovechkin, I don't see it that much a risk for the team as some other players... Way to go Caps, I say!

Post by **batdad** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:41 am

And for 7 years he scores 20 goals, 3 years 30 goals two years 35 goals..and then either the Caps buy him out, or he gets 80 goals. God I hope not..but if you had a guarantee of $$$ like this for 13 years why the hell would you bust your arse at work?

I hope he has some class and desire, but a 13 year deal just does not ring right. Same for Richards. No motivation for these guys to go the extra mile. Same reason that DiPietro is not yet a superstar. A 3 year deal...Dipietro would be as good as Luongo right now. These deals are understandable considering the way the Cap is working and the CBA...but for hockey...BAD BAD BAD.

If 1 of 3 players begins to slack off because of a long term deal...this system is bad for the game. Cause it cheats fans and teams from being competitive and having excitement.

STUPID OWNERS. STUPID BETTMAN

Post by **Tasku** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:04 am

Yup, there is that possibility. I'm hoping Ovechkin isn't that type of player, and will prove worth the contract.

Hypnotist · Post by **Hypnotist** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:21 am

I am in complete agreement with batdad. During the lockout, the one thing that the players wouldn't budge on was guaranteed contracts. Personally, the way things have worked out it would have been better for the owners to drop the cap demand and deep six guaranteed money. It would almost eliminate "Contract Years" and give impetus for players to earn each paycheck. But long deals like this just scream "ALEXI CASH-IN"!!!!! This CBA was supposed to bring sanity to this aspect of the game. Just made it worse IMHO.

Plus I think a deal like this hurts the team in the long run. Having 1 guy eat up 20% of your cap isn't going to leave a lot left for the supporting cast. While Ovie is a top 5 player, imagine how nasty he would be with a top of the line playmaking center. This will be his and the Caps Achilles Heel as they will try to get by with cheap centers and hope they click with the superstar.

In order to be serious contenders, it is going to take star players willing to take less than market value so that their support is of a high calibre. Hockey has never been a one-man sport. Even Gretz's numbers would have been down if he didn't have Messier, Kurri, Coffey, et. al. to feed. Look at him in the LA years. Still the Great One, but even he couldn't win a Stanely Cup by himself.

Post by **batdad** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:10 am

But...the way the owners think the cap will be $150 million by 2021 when Ovenchicken's contract expires...so there should be no issue there. How did these guys make so much money? Did all 30 get lucky? Cause they certainly don't do anything that makes business sense.

Yes..ovi's contract expires in 2021. And wait til he keeps getting 10 day injuries..nothing long term, so no cap relief, no insurance. Won't that be fun for the Caps. God this system sucks.

Systemfel · Post by **Systemfel** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:42 pm

Hypnotist wrote:This CBA was supposed to bring sanity to this aspect of the game. Just made it worse IMHO.

No, it's supposed to keep player salaries from taking up more than 54% of the revenue. And it's working.

Post by **Shadd666** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:50 pm

I'm 200% against those huge contracts. Sure, in Ovechkin's case, it might not be a big gamble. He seems to play for the love of the game more than anything else and have a very good physical condition, so the risk is limited. But still!

Those big deals just make no sense to me. Sure, the Caps will have Ovechkin for his whole career and his jersey will probably be retired in Washington once he'll retire. But as mentionned, he's just one guy. One hell of a great player for sure, but just one guy, not a whole team.

And even if both the Caps and Ovi want to stick together on the long time, there's no need for such a huge deal. Did Yzerman or Lemieux had 10+ years contracts? No. And they stayed in the same team for their whole career. Iginla is doing the same with the Flames, Crosby will most likely do the same with the Pens. But not of them signed huge amazing deals. And the first ever 10+ years contract of history ended last summer after just 6 years, seeing Yashin being bought out and mostly ignored by all the NHL teams before going to Russia. Is Ovechkin more reliable and works harder than Yashin? Yes, no doubt. Does it justify such a monstruous contract? Never.

IMO, they should have locked him until his last season of group II eligibility, which should have been a 4-5 years reasonnable deal, until age 26 (if i'm right). And then decide if they keep him longer term, even up to age 35. It should already have been a huge 9 years contract. Or they should have locked him up to age 32-33, with a 6-7 years deal. Then if Ovechkin plays like a star with the Caps from age 19 to age 32, i doubt he will want to go anywhere else, and will probably agree to stay with the team and ask for some no-trade clauses until the end of his career. In the end, he would have spent his whole career in Washington, but in case of need the Caps should have get rid of him easily, or Alex should have go easier too. Now if one of them don't want to stay with the other, they barely can't do anything with a 13 years deal. Stupid deal

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:33 pm

I can't say I blame the Caps though. Ovechkin is one of the leagues top stars. He's a truly special player. The Caps wanted to make sure they kept him on their team, probably for his entire career. Sure, it's a risk to commit that much money for so long but I don't think they wanted to risk losing him once he was eligible for UFA status.

Post by **Shadd666** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:07 pm

I understand that, but they could have signed him just up to his last season of restricted FA and then work out on a big deal, maybe to keep him for the rest of his career. There was no need to rush things right now IMO.

However, i doubt they'll have any issue with Ovechkin, so it has decent chances to end as a winning deal. But really don't like those huge contracts.

darn, if every team sign all their players for 10-15 years, we'll have the exact same lineups for the next decade

Not really interesting for the fans

At least, it would give time to the players to have some nice chemistry... But IMO it doesn't worth it.

Post by **batdad** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:08 pm

Systemfel wrote:
Hypnotist wrote:This CBA was supposed to bring sanity to this aspect of the game. Just made it worse IMHO.
No, it's supposed to keep player salaries from taking up more than 54% of the revenue. And it's working.

Sorry but... that is rubbish. Cause there is no way you can predict in 13 years where revenue will be. Stupid, bad management by the owners and players. Bad. What happens to these guys with the deals so big that the team cannot pay em because revenues have dried up??? Hmm....shrinkage of the contract built in? I dunno. Bad deal for me.

Post by **B. Stinson** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:35 pm

What happens to these guys with the deals so big that the team cannot pay em because revenues have dried up???

I think we need to let them handle that during the 2020-'21 lockout.

Until then, let's just sit back and enjoy the 'per decade' contracts while they last!

Post by **batdad** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:54 am

Yeah I suppose.
Just not looking forward to Luongo negotiations in 2 years..what will he get? A 40 year deal worh $400 mill? Christ, he may get A Rod's contract.

Nice Gratton uni...changed the name to some weird guy I don't know though. On the other hand, that weird guy is probably better than Gratton.

BjornE · Post by **BjornE** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:46 am

I thought you were the "free economics" and we here in Europe those commie socialists

What is the big deal? All the cons are with the teams. They should know their economics (gain more then you spend). And if those players are that good, any team would like to sign them or won't matter at trades. There have been crazy deals before or not?

Post by **batdad** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:54 pm

Quite honestly Bjorn...BECAUSE IT SCREWS UP HOCKEY.

To me hockey comes 1st..then the league, then the team then the players. HOCKEY FIRST. Bad contracts...leads to more bad contracts...leads to worse hockey ...period.

And the hockey is bad enough as it is now.

Post by **B. Stinson** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 7:58 pm

What is the big deal? All the cons are with the teams.

True... but it's the teams we watch every night.

And it might not be so bad now, but like batdad said: what if revenues seize-up in a few years(which is by no means out of the question when it comes to the NHL), and the cap has to shrink from what it is now? Are we gonna be stuck watching teams who can't afford anyone else because of the player they threw all their money into a few years ago?

LW Alex Ovechkin - C Budget Player - RW Budget Player

That's not a very exciting top line.

BjornE · Post by **BjornE** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:24 am

Well, it still surprises me, since we're talking about a minority of deals. Will other teams follow up? It seems that everybody thought Snow was mad, but you seem to expect more. Is it really such a trend?

Post by **batdad** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:18 am

Dipietro, Yashin. Now Richards, Ovechkin, the offer sheet to Vanek, the offer and signing of Penner. The over the top front end loaded deals to guys like Regehr, Kiprusoff, Cammalleri,3 year deals to players like Sopel and Osgood(who is what 36?)

The Gomez, Drury, Briere deals. One could even say 6 years to Crosby is too much..although it at least makes some sense.

Umm yeah...clearly a trend of insanity. And yeah, I know those are not all long term deals...Sopel's is actually a normal deal..but 3 years for a guy who could not get anything but a tryout at the start of this season, is a lifetime of security.

Don't kid yourself...these deals are nutso. And somewhere down the road the teams that sign these deals will get bitten in the arse...and the buyout is going to be a fact of life...yet even that eats cap $ for years. Buyouts cost less per season of cap $ ... however they eat the $ for double or 4x the life of the original deal being bought out.

Each team can only afford 1 or 2 buyouts. A $10 mill buyout is still $2.5 mill per year of $ they could spend on another guy. At least.

Post by **Shadd666** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:31 am

Yeah, and we should be worried to see that the pace of those stupid deals is getting higher along the years. It started with just Yashin some years ago. Then DiPietro last year, and now many more since this summer. At this pace, how stupid the next off-season will be?

However batdad, what's wrong with Kiprusoff contract?

He is in his early 30s, is a top goalie (although never at the start of a season), wants to stay in Calgary, and the Flames have no talented youngster at the goaltending position. So locking him up for 6 years doesn't sound so insane to me

I'm more reserved about the Regher contract though... Not that much about the length of the contract than about the bucks. He'll be overpaid IMO. And the bucks used for Regher won't allow the Flames to bring a true n°1 center, or will be missing bucks when it'll be time to re-sign Phaneuf...

For Crosby's 6 years deal, will he end the contract RFA or UFA? If it's RFA, it's a good deal that makes sense to me. If it's UFA, not so sure...

Systemfel · Post by **Systemfel** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 2:52 pm

Shadd666 wrote:For Crosby's 6 years deal, will he end the contract RFA or UFA? If it's RFA, it's a good deal that makes sense to me. If it's UFA, not so sure...

UFA. It wasn't a six-year deal, though.

ELC
1: 2005-06
2: 2006-07
3: 2007-08

Extension
4: 2008-09
5: 2009-10
6: 2010-11
7: 2011-12
8: 2012-13

Post by **batdad** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:38 pm

No deal should be longer than 4 years. Ever. And yeah for Sid I could not recall if it was 5 or 6.

grazza · Post by **grazza** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:30 pm

I have to agree there should be a limit on amount of year a contract can be. I take into account the arguments for free trade and an open economy league. However signing a player up for over a decade has consequences. Ownership is the team is likely to alter in that time maybe not completely but certainly different shareholders will come into play.
Players may fall out with the organistion in that time. What if their deal is too long for other teams to take on? or worse if a no trade clause is in place.
Also the bargaining deal the settled the lockout is due for renewal in the next few years and the outcome of the next deal can not be accuratly foreseen. It does worry me that with teams starting to do this it is sending scare tactics to other teams and put pressure on them to tie up their key assets.
So on those grounds I would like to see a limit say 4 or even 5 years on a contract length. A compromise could come in that say after 4 or 5 years the team could have an option for another 4 years in the last year. I just feel that the players are getting a lot of power and while I am sure the guys that have signd the few monsterous long term deals are dedicated players that will give their all eventually someone will be there just for the money. I would really cheat the fans if you have a guy that has the most part of a decade signed with your team wasn't fully commited and just turning up.
Lets say ovechkin or someone with one of these big deals falls out with the GM or head coach who is gonna win. Well more likely to be the guy on the $100 million deal.
Business is a key element for NHL franchises and businesses want to tie down their key assets on the long term. However hockey is mroe than jsut business and the fans should not be cheated if a bad scenario were to happen. They were cheated in the lockout and I fear they might get cheated by this. It really depends if it gets out of hand but their needs to be some regulation of contract length to cover teams for a rainy day.

Post by **Shadd666** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:00 pm

grazza wrote:I just feel that the players are getting a lot of power and while I am sure the guys that have signd the few monsterous long term deals are dedicated players that will give their all eventually someone will be there just for the money. I would really cheat the fans if you have a guy that has the most part of a decade signed with your team wasn't fully commited and just turning up.

No need to talk about this as a future eventuality. Just look back to last summer and Yashin, and you have the first concrete example of what you say.

We should hope it's the last example, but i'm scared there will be others in the future...

Post by **Shadd666** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:55 am

I haven't payed attention to this before, but Samsonov is no longer in the AHL, as the Carolina Hurricanes acquired him on re-entry waivers on January 8th.

LINK (see at the "acquired" entry)

Potentially a good move for the Canes, as explained by Jim Rutherford:

"He's a real good character guy and an NHL player. He hasn't had the same production over the last few years for whatever reason, but in our situation with so many injuries and especially with Williams being out and not knowing when certain guys are coming back, he can come in and help." -- Hurricanes General Manager Jim Rutherford, News & Observer, Jan. 9, 2008

Post by **batdad** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:22 pm

HA! And he was a potentially good move for the Oilers, Habs, and Hawks before the Canes. Ha! Samsonov is donezo