View Single Post
Old
09-01-2010, 06:25 PM
  #27
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 15,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
If you look at that way then basically every contract out there, whether it be two years or 17 years, is basically the same. The age and length are two very big parts of the contract.

The league gets to determine when a contract gets too egregious and they obviously decided that the line in the sand is right around the Hossa contract.

If you actually believe that the initial Kovalchuk contract was somehow comparable to other contracts out there then just looks at this article.

http://www.behindthenethockey.com/20...s-contract-was

There's no way that any person with knowledge on the subject can look at me with a straight face and say that the initial Kovalchuk contract had any comparable out there.
Good breakdown.

(semantics warning) It's still similar. The writer even suggests that a 15-year contract instead of a 17-year contact, for the same amount, would be accepted based on past contracts. That's not a huge difference, given the length.


Quote:
I think the process has been handled fine.

If you want to blame someone for dragging this whole thing out and making it "ugly" then the blame should be directed at Kovalchuk and the Devils. Kovalchuk is the one who won't settle for anything less then 100 mil apparently and the Devils are the ones who keep sending in contracts that are putting the NHL in the spot-light. Hell, even Lou Lamiorello admitted that he thought the first contract would get rejected yet he sent the contract in anyway.
I do blame the Devils, especially Lou, but the NHL gets my thumbs down, too.


Quote:
Niitty and Greiss are legitimate NHL goalies and are both have the potential to be starters (albeit, a small potential in Niitty's case). That's more then can be said for Leighton and Boucher.

Niemi is an average starter. Greiss is a good backup with potential to be a starter. Niitty is a good backup/pseudo-starter. Whatever upgrade they made is a slight upgrade and it'll probably be at the cost of both cap space and Greiss since they now have to get rid of someone.

As long as you admit that you're in the minority here, I have no qualms with what you're saying though.

Their goalies are average to below average, their defense is flat-out bad, and their offense is well-rounded, but nothing special when compared to some of the top offenses out there.

I've been saying it all summer long, the Sharks are getting massively overrated and are just getting the benefit of the doubt in this upcoming regular season just like the Devils and Red Wings always do. I can't even remember if I expect the Sharks to be a playoff team or not.

Again, as long as you're admitting that you're in the minority here, I'm okay with what you're saying.
For the goalie argument, we'll have to agree to disagree; I like Niemi as their starter, given that they want to win now.

As for the defense....

The Sharks defense only has one hole from last season, a season where they appeared in their first Western Conference Final. They lost Blake, which will hurt much more in the locker room than on the blueline at this stage in his career.

Amongst the rest of the core, they don't have to spread around too many minutes, except on the powerplay. Six guys are used to playing more than 15 minutes per game and Blake averaged 21 minutes last year. It's not a 'knock you off your socks' top six, but it's more well-rounded than it gets credit for.

CanadianFlyer88 is offline