View Single Post
Old
10-12-2006, 01:40 PM
  #135
Catch-22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shabutie View Post
Personally I like what Lamoriello has done. You might find the Elias contract bad...but he's arguably a top 10 (top 20 at least) guy in the league, and he's now with the team for a few years.

I've always said that Gainey is a good GM but he's made some questionable calls, which is all I'm saying. It'll be interesting to see what he does this off-season with 4 of our D being UFAs. If he offers Rivet anything over than 2.5m, I'll once again be surprised...If he offers Markov over 5m, I'll be surprised...so on.

Shabutie, I was saying for years that Theodore was a mediocre goaltender who had a three month hot streak in 2002. But even I fully understand why Gainey signed Theodore for that big time contract. The simple reason is he had no choice. Consider the scenario:

We had no other legitimate goaltender to take his spot if he didn't sign. Huet was considered to be a nothing at the time. If Gainey didn't sign Theodore, goaltending would have been even a greater liability than it already was. Essentially, Theodore was free to use this reality as leverage in the negotiations and he left Gainey no choice. Furthermore, at that time most of the media, fans and "expert" pundits were still pro-Theodore. Their glass was always half full. He hadn't had one good year. He'd had only one bad year. I'm sure Gainey knew that some idiot would take Theodore thinking that "all he needs is a change of environment". Even Tie Domi said it the other night after Theo's first period this season..."he looks more comfortable" Foot in mouth disease followed quickly because Theodore stunk up the join the last two periods. But the fact remains that the hockey "experts" in many places still haven't given up on Jose, even at $5.5 million. Gainey obviously knew this.


I think too many people do not understand the notion of value. Values are not static across the league. The value of a player fluctuates according to a team's wants and needs. Let's use Kovalev as an example. For a team that is low on offense, Kovalev has a higher value than he does to a team like Detroit which is already stacked up front. That means that Bob Gainey would be willing to pay Kovalev more than Detroit would be willing to pay for him. While it helps to look at comparables across the league, it is also important to take into account all of the variables, including Kovalev's leadership (fact), his strength and his big-game mentality. Montreal does not have a lot of big game players and most other players of Kovalev's talent do not have all of those qualities. IMO, to Montreal Kovalev is worth every cent of the $4 million we pay him. But he probably is worth a little less in Detroit.

Just for fun, let's do an indiscriminate search for comparables (some better, some worse), look what we find:
Yashin $7.6 million - I would not trade Garth Murray for this guy.
Naslund: $6 million - his leadership is also questionable.
In Vancouver the Sedin twins are gettgin $3.75M each!! Kovalev is much better than both of these guys in every respect.
Lecavalier: $7.1M - Kovalev had similar PPG and neither is a better two-way player or leader.
M. St-Louis: $6M - and Kovalev had more pts and higher PPG and is in many ways better.

VALUES ARE NOT STATIC. In a lot of ways these players are worth it to their teams. In some cases they are not but a small unrefined search will show you that for Montreal, paying $4 million for a player with Kovalev's set of tools is not unreasonable. It's certainly no basis for calling Gainey an "average contract negotiator". Ferguson Jr. in Toronto is an average-below average contract negotiator.



And I am sorry to say that anybody who says Kovalev is a floater doesn't watch him very closely. He may not have the mentality to be the Selke Trophy winner but then again we don't pay him for that. If he did he would cost us $5-6 million.


Last edited by Catch-22: 10-12-2006 at 01:49 PM.
Catch-22 is offline   Reply With Quote