View Single Post
02-16-2007, 01:24 PM
Registered User
417's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 20,412
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
$5m a year is about right for a player who's fundamentally solid and productive offensively. 65 points is productive, in my view, especially given Montreal's (continued) offensive woes. And he's not to blame for that.

Look around the league at comparable players and salaries.

If you're heading into a playoff series, do you want Marc Savard, or Koivu? Do you prefer Savard to build around, or Koivu? In my mind, it's Koivu without a doubt. A telling quote on Savard from Kozlov after Savard left Atlanta is that (roughly) 'some players played for personal statistics, and those players are gone now'.

Bobby Holik makes a little less than Koivu, while providing a whole lot less.

Briere makes a bit more than Koivu while only having one season under his belt that was ever better than Koivu's. Now he's proving this year that he's a PPG player, but he's also on an offense that's substantially better than Koivu's. I do think Briere's more talented offensively than Koivu, but I don't think he's a much better player. If I'm building a team, I'd likely take Briere, but not by much. And consider the fact that Briere's likely due for a major raise this coming offseason (where he's a UFA).

Tanguay makes a fair bit more than Koivu. Is he substantially better? This was a RFA contract, too. People didn't tend to think Tanguay was substantially overpaid in his contract either...

Arnott's a great comparison because he was just signed last summer. He's making roughly the same amount as Koivu. Personally, I'd take Koivu any day over Arnott. He's more productive and he's more of a warrior.

At the time of Koivu's contract signing, I wasn't ecstatic. I thought it was a bit of an overpayment. But when you look around the league, it isn't. I was hoping for a bit of a bargain is all, and if Montreal had another elite player at the time then it would've been possible, but considering Koivu was/is Montreal's best forward and deserved to be paid as such, he received that salary...

On the three points...

I maintain that the core is too small to be blamed. It'd be the equivalent of sticking Elias on an offense-starved club then blaming him for producing less than he did with Gomez and Gionta by his side. It's not a realistic expectation. By having such a small core to build around, they're being set up for failure.
Again Mike8...great read, I can't really challenge your intelligence when it comes to hockey knowledge, I just sit back read and learn.

However, you used Arnott as a comparison...Arnott has the same amount of points as Koivu this year, IN ABOUT 15 LESS GAMES, so they're production isn't similar.

Bobby Holike as a huge mistake, Don Waddell I think is drunk when he's making half his deals anyway, so no need to expand on that.

Marc Savard is a good example, i'm not sure what he makes..but I'm sure it's similar... While I agree with you that i'd rather have Koivu going into a playoff series, if you're talking player vs. player, Savard is better in the role that Koivu has...which is # 1 center. hopefully if you're a team with March Savard, you've got vets that can surround him to make sure he's stays on course with his attitude, but in terms of their roles on their respective teams...there's no comparison.

Again, my point isn't to belittle Koivu...However, with his salary and role, I have an expectation for Koivu, and he's simply not meeting those expectations and I suspect Gainey feels the same way.

If Koivu getting 65pts yearly is good enough for you, which is an average production, than that's what this team will always be...average. That was fine 2 or 3 years ago, but my expectations have raised, ever so slightly, but still they've raised.

417 is offline   Reply With Quote