View Single Post
Old
06-24-2010, 12:54 PM
  #102
Chruceg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 868
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
There is SOME luck involved but you make a whole lot of assumptions. LIke the Hossa situation, how do you know Nashville would have won that game if Hossa was kicked out? That makes no sense. I think that was the first goal of the playoffs wasn't it? Chicago is a good team, a favorite going into the playoffs and there is no luck involved in that.

Wanna talk about luck? Talk about Montreal. Sure they played great and they earned their way to the Conference finals but they got REALLY lucky that both Pittsburgh and Washington **** the bed.

We don't have to overspend for one chance. I don't get this whole doom and gloom scenario around the 2011/2012 season. I posted the numbers in the last thread, please show me where the problem is. The biggest problem is Smyth's salary but even he could be worked in if necessary and it doesn't rely upon the Kings filling the roster with prospects. The Kings can sign Kovalchuk this season and remain competitive through 11/12. After 2011/2012 and Smyth's contract comes off the books, they'll be in very good shape. The Kings would be no where near Chicago's situation.
First of all, please don't omit paragraphs where I completely agree with you just to prove a point. I agreed that Chicago was the best team going into the season and the best team going into the playoffs. But my larger point is that there ARE so many hypothetical situations that things are never a lock. Look at Washington. Why couldn't Washington's failure happened to Chicago? There is a reason the games are played and it is because so much can happen. Chicago was by no means a lock to win the Stanley Cup at any point of the playoffs. (Well except after the Kane OT winner).

But to the larger topic at hand about spending. There needs to be a limit on what the Kings will spend on Kovalchuk. There has to be. After Marleau taking what some people are calling a discount at 6.9, Kovalchuk indicating he wants to get paid, and raises due for Doughty, Johnson, and Simmonds where do you cap it out at?

I'm just really uncomfortable giving Kovalchuk 8 million a year or more when Doughty can command upwards of 7, Jack around 5 or 6, Simmonds around 3, and a premiere goalie and backup upwards of 5. The Kings would right up against the cap with little to no flexibility.

The reason I'm so hesitant to give Kovalchuk a large sum of money is because the Kings only needed to score fourteen more goals during five on five play to be one of the top ten teams in the league. Kovalchuk would be nice ... but the Kings aren't as desperate as everyone makes them out to be.

Chruceg is offline