HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Detroit Red Wings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2009 Roster Moves and Contract Talks. Contract Numbers (Post #1/#826).

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-22-2009, 12:00 AM
  #951
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottwood View Post
Homer becoming less valuable makes Franzen and Cleary more important on our PP b/c of the net presence and the ability to play on the top line. I don't see how that relates to Hudler.
If Tomas Holmstrom can handle a scoring line role, then so can Hudler. Whether or not Hudler stays on line 3 or moves up to a second or first line job, he's still a valuable powerplay asset.
Say you've got no Holmstrom and No Hossa. What's your top three lines? Who is on the powerplay? Your six powerplay forwards are Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Franzen, say Cleary, and then what? Filppula? Hudler? Leino? I think Hudler is a far better powerplay guy than Flip. And Leino is still an unknown.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 04:53 AM
  #952
norrisnick
Registered User
 
norrisnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
As it happens, that would be dumb.

Go here:

http://www.redwingscentral.com/featu...calculator.php

And run some of those numbers.

If the Wings bought out Maltby, they'd have 383k and 250k in dead cap space.
If the Wings bought out Homer, they'd have 750k of dead cap space for two years.
Buying out Draper is impossible, or at least pointless, because he signed his multi-year deal past the age of 35.

So, add on those dead cap numbers to whomever you dudes had in mind to replace those older forwards, and then try and make the cap numbers work. What ends up happening is that rather than paying Maltby 883k, you'd be 'paying' more than that to replace him with Helm, and way more than that to replace him with Abdelkader.



They are certainly younger. They are not certainly better. Not right now. Not yet.



Except as I've pointed out... it's really not. Right now Homer, Maltby and Draper cost a combined total of like 4.6 mil. If you bought those three out and replaced them with Helm, Abdelkader and Leino... even at the dollar numbers you listed... it would cost a combined total of 4.9 million the first year and 4.7ish million the second.

So, more expensive, not less.

The only way you could dodge those cap numbers is for the Wings to be incredibly classless and try and force Maltby and Homer to retire out from under their deals. They are stuck with Draper's cap hit regardless.

And, even then, even after completely humiliating themselves as an organization by throwing guys like Homer and Maltby under the bus, you're only talking about saving 700k in net cap space, which isn't nearly enough to be impactful on the larger scheme of things.
Scott's typo didn't register as "buy" to me. No way in hell would I advocate buying them out. Trade, waive, bury in minors (obviously this wouldn't work for Draper), etc... whatever you have to do to get them off the cap number.

norrisnick is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 05:39 AM
  #953
r0bert8841
Registered User
 
r0bert8841's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,428
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to r0bert8841
Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick View Post
Scott's typo didn't register as "buy" to me. No way in hell would I advocate buying them out. Trade, waive, bury in minors (obviously this wouldn't work for Draper), etc... whatever you have to do to get them off the cap number.
I agree, why can't we just bury them in the minors? We have already sent McCarty and Downey to the minors, I don't see how that is any different from sending Maltby and Holmstrom down their. We can still keep Draper up with his face-off abilities.

r0bert8841 is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 09:09 AM
  #954
Heaton
Moderator
#disapointment
 
Heaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Rochester, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 16,930
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Heaton
Quote:
Originally Posted by r0bert8841 View Post
I agree, why can't we just bury them in the minors? We have already sent McCarty and Downey to the minors, I don't see how that is any different from sending Maltby and Holmstrom down their. We can still keep Draper up with his face-off abilities.
You really don't see the difference?

Heaton is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 09:15 AM
  #955
67coach
Registered User
 
67coach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Detroit MI
Country: England
Posts: 900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by r0bert8841 View Post
I agree, why can't we just bury them in the minors? We have already sent McCarty and Downey to the minors, I don't see how that is any different from sending Maltby and Holmstrom down their. We can still keep Draper up with his face-off abilities.
Reported By Ansar Khan on "Skate 2 Stick"

Quote:
Darren McCarty has signed a one-year contract with the Wings tonight. Itís a two-way deal that will pay him $575,000 in the NHL or $100,000 in Grand Rapids (AHL). Itís the same contract Aaron Downey signed.
This is why the Wings could bury these two guys in the minors, the longer they play in Grand Rapids the lower the cost.

67coach is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 10:17 AM
  #956
HenrikZ40
Registered User
 
HenrikZ40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: HockeyTown
Country: United States
Posts: 1,288
vCash: 500
I don't see why people are bickering over Maltby (and Draper to a lesser extent)... it's not like these guys have huge cap numbers (yes, Draper's is significant, but I feel he still plays an important role on the team). Holmstrom is the guy that needs to go, in all seriousness. He's too banged up and old to dig in in front of the net consistently these days, his puck retrieving skills are on the decline, and he's slowing down that first line (he's never been able to keep up with the skill guys, but now he's turning the puck over like its his job).

And the problem with him is, he's only useful on a scoring line... the guy is a straightup defensive liability and could not serve the team any purpose on a checking line (not to mention, he's really, really slow). And for all of that, he takes up $2.25 million of the cap... I'm telling you, Holland needs to hire some guy to take a sledge hammer to Holmstrom's back after the playoffs and get him to retire.

HenrikZ40 is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 10:41 AM
  #957
sarcastro
Registered User
 
sarcastro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,245
vCash: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
Nah, I don't agree at all with your impression of the Wings motivation. I think the Wings did those mega contracts because they think those terms are a viable tool in the salary cap system. I mean, if they are presuming that guys like Zetterberg and Franzen (and Datsyuk next, just wait) are guys they want on the team their whole playing careers, well, since there's an obvious cap benefit for doing so, why not just lock them up till they are all 40+?

Yes, I have some concerns about the ethics of those contracts, but I'm looking at this from the Wings perspective, as you are.

If the Wings were as you suggest looking to max out the Lidstrom window, they probably would have signed Hossa to a multi-year deal right at the start, right?
They certainly weren't about to put themselves in that cap situation unless they were certain Hossa would fit in. He could have been completely wrong for the team and they would have been stuck with each other for years. I don't think giving him a long-term contract right off the bat was ever even considered.

Quote:
That's not exactly an accurate representation of my position. I merely pointed out that after Lang the team would struggle to replace his offensive contribution... and for almost half of the following season they certainly did. If you would recall, that was right around the time ZDH was in effect, and for quite a while there it was the only line that did anything. Remember when Babcock kept trying to split Pavel and Hank up to try and jump-start that Lang-less second line?

I don't believe I ever presented an argument that Detroit would never be able to find a replacement for Robert Lang, ever. I merely pointed out that for all of Lang's flaws (and they were not insignificant) one positive thing he could be counted on was to provide a significant offensive punch from the center spot on the second line... and that was something the Wings did without for quite a while as a result.
I would prefer the Wings use that "almost half a season" to develop and evaluate replacements for Sammy, and then have those guys ready to roll in the playoffs.

Look at all the guys that got a turn at 2nd line center, or got increased ice time due to Lang's departure - Filppula matched Lang's 2007 goal total with 19. Franzen went from grinder and PKer to 27 goal scorer and legit offensive threat. Cleary got going offensively before he hurt his knee in March.

If Lang is still there putzing around the ice for 15-18 minutes a game, those guys may not make those strides. Lang was not a long-term piece of this team, and I don't believe Sammy has to be or should be either. He's a role player.

Quote:
Again, if all you do is distill Sammy's game down to his raw offensive production during the regular season... sure, it's not an insurmountable thing to replace.

Is that all you think Sammy provides?
It's not like he is an expert PKer.

It's not like he is a punishing physical player or a guy that sticks up for his teammates and drops the gloves.

You lose Sammy, you lose a decent middle-six forward who's probably a good "room" guy. Darren Helm is at least a decent middle-six forward. Ville Leino is at least a decent middle-six forward. Justin Abdelkader may be ready to be a decent middle-six forward. If they re-sign him, Tomas Kopecky was showing signs of being a decent middle-six forward. They have a lot of options, and none of them will cost $2-3-4 mil a year.

Quote:
I don't believe you are accurately representing the reaction to the possibility of Sammy leaving/being left by the the Wings. But, perhaps I missed the posts where people were 'freaking out'. I trust you'll point them out to me.
I'm going off the sheer volume of "how-can-we-keep-Sammy"-related posts in this thread.

Quote:
At any rate, I think it's a valid concern to wonder about the ability to replace a player who Babcock feels confident enough to use in so many different situations, and who in addition to providing timely offense also has some sandpaper to his game.

Now, maybe there are 416 players just like Sammy or better just walking the streets. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, though. I don't believe it prudent to significantly overpay to retain him, but a contract in the neighboorhood of 2-2.5 a mil cap-wise may make some real sense.
It's only a valid concern if the Wings have nothing in the system, and we know that they have several quality forwards that are NHL ready.

Would you have paid $5.5 mil to keep Schneider, since we didn't know if Kronwall could step up his game?

Would you have paid $4 mil to keep Markov, since we didn't have Stuart to take his place?

Would you have kept Jason Williams, since we didn't know if there was another right hand shot for the 2nd PP unit?

The answer to all of these questions (assuming, dangerously, that you are not stupid) is OF COURSE NOT. Making a bad decision because you're afraid that your alternatives might be worse is bad business. And in this case, the Wings have every reason to believe that they have the pieces in place to pick up any slack that might occur if Sammy walks.

If you know that the bushes are full of birds, you don't just automatically keep the one in your hand. Especially when you know the birds in the bush are less expensive and at least as delicious and nutritious.

sarcastro is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 10:46 AM
  #958
Heaton
Moderator
#disapointment
 
Heaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Rochester, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 16,930
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Heaton
Hossa was offered a long-term deal in the summer before the 1 year deal. He declined.

Heaton is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 11:36 AM
  #959
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heaton View Post
Would you have paid $5.5 mil to keep Schneider, since we didn't know if Kronwall could step up his game?

Would you have paid $4 mil to keep Markov, since we didn't have Stuart to take his place?

Would you have kept Jason Williams, since we didn't know if there was another right hand shot for the 2nd PP unit?

The answer to all of these questions (assuming, dangerously, that you are not stupid) is OF COURSE NOT. Making a bad decision because you're afraid that your alternatives might be worse is bad business. And in this case, the Wings have every reason to believe that they have the pieces in place to pick up any slack that might occur if Sammy walks.

If you know that the bushes are full of birds, you don't just automatically keep the one in your hand. Especially when you know the birds in the bush are less expensive and at least as delicious and nutritious.
Going off of this thinking, and to tie into something I think Heater wanted to say but changed his mind...

There are examples of players that were given very nice contracts instead of being let go, but whose value to the team isn't exactly irreplaceable by your definition.

How do you decide that Maltby has more value than Sammy, for example? People are very defensive of the guys who simply have been here longer it seems. Isn't that a bit unfair to someone homegrown, for example, like Hudler? He's just as much a Red Wing but by virtue of having come up on the team about a decade later, you have shed the young guys to prove loyalty? In a sense, it's like a parent saying they're always going to favor the first born just because he got there first. ??? Hasn't Sammy contributed just as much, if not more than some of the guys who seem to be getting preferential treatment by some loyalty factor.

At the end of the day, sarcastro's case about who is in fact dispensable could be made for most of the roster. What's the differentiating factor then?

 
Old
05-22-2009, 11:38 AM
  #960
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heaton View Post
Hossa was offered a long-term deal in the summer before the 1 year deal. He declined.
Wasn't it something like 5 yrs and Datsyuk money? I think he wasn't saying he should get more, but wanted to be sure he liked it here if he did take a 'hometown' discount. It also doesn't seem like Kenny was ready to do the 12 yr deals last year. I think one thing that was restraining him a bit was the tagging issue too, and knowing he'd have Z and Franzen coming up for renewal.

 
Old
05-22-2009, 11:47 AM
  #961
Heaton
Moderator
#disapointment
 
Heaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Rochester, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 16,930
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Heaton
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Going off of this thinking, and to tie into something I think Heater wanted to say but changed his mind...

There are examples of players that were given very nice contracts instead of being let go, but whose value to the team isn't exactly irreplaceable by your definition.

How do you decide that Maltby has more value than Sammy, for example? People are very defensive of the guys who simply have been here longer it seems. Isn't that a bit unfair to someone homegrown, for example, like Hudler? He's just as much a Red Wing but by virtue of having come up on the team about a decade later, you have shed the young guys to prove loyalty? In a sense, it's like a parent saying they're always going to favor the first born just because he got there first. ??? Hasn't Sammy contributed just as much, if not more than some of the guys who seem to be getting preferential treatment by some loyalty factor.

At the end of the day, sarcastro's case about who is in fact dispensable could be made for most of the roster. What's the differentiating factor then?
You put my name in that quote though it was sarcasto who said that.

Anyway, the whole 'loyal to a fault' thing with Holland the entire organization has been preached for a long time now. Obviously some guys think that even though Maltby's physical abilities can be replaced by Abdelkader or whoever it's justification enough to just basically burn the bridge and be done with it. Bury him in the minors, basically go back on everything that this organization is built on which is more family than anything else. The reason players like Hossa want to come here is for winning, but the winning is because of the way the players are treated.

This is a business, it's Holland's job to get the best players to play for this team. But it's not that black and white. Holland and Babcock always glow when talking about the good people in the organization.

I just think it's silly to ignore the obvious impact these guys like Maltby, Draper and Holmstrom obviously have on the team that aren't always backed up by stats. I'm not trying to romanticize the way the Wings are but I just can't understand why team chemistry and the overall team morale is something that is almost irrelevant or something that couldn't really affect the way the team is.

It's a professional group for sure, but simply burning the bridge to 3 extremely loyal and popular guys like that is extremely bad for business.

It all goes back to doing everything possible to keep Hudler. Which is fine. If it were just Samuelsson would anyone really be coming up with these less than classy decisions? At the end of the day if we're asking everyone else to make concessions, why not just simply get Hudler to sign a deal that doesn't jeopardize a bunch of other players?

Heaton is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 01:15 PM
  #962
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
I understand what you're saying about loyalty, and how it's perceived. What you're not answering though is why a Red Wings of say 15 yrs is more valuable than a Wing of 10 yrs is more valuable than one of 5 yrs. Even leaving Sammy out of it and just sticking to the homegrown guys--- exactly WHY does Maltby deserve more loyalty than Hudler (just to pick on those two guys). Both are or can be - more or less - life long Wings. Yet, do you risk your future because somehow the guy who got here first, but isn't contributing as much to the team as the younger guys?

Are you saying that getting here first is the trump card?

 
Old
05-22-2009, 01:41 PM
  #963
Heaton
Moderator
#disapointment
 
Heaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Rochester, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 16,930
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Heaton
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I understand what you're saying about loyalty, and how it's perceived. What you're not answering though is why a Red Wings of say 15 yrs is more valuable than a Wing of 10 yrs is more valuable than one of 5 yrs. Even leaving Sammy out of it and just sticking to the homegrown guys--- exactly WHY does Maltby deserve more loyalty than Hudler (just to pick on those two guys). Both are or can be - more or less - life long Wings. Yet, do you risk your future because somehow the guy who got here first, but isn't contributing as much to the team as the younger guys?

Are you saying that getting here first is the trump card?
Nope. And I'm not saying it's either/or. Seniority definitely plays a part, just like in every business. And why do guys like Maltby 'deserve' more loyalty? Because there's a longer track record of them being loyal, you get out what you put in. Why does Bob who works in accounting and has been for 20 years get to stay while Steve who's only worked for 5 years gets laid off.

But we all know it's not going to come down to any of these scenarios. Hudler will be kept if his demands are in sync with what Holland deems his worth to be.


Last edited by Heaton: 05-22-2009 at 02:15 PM.
Heaton is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 02:26 PM
  #964
sarcastro
Registered User
 
sarcastro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,245
vCash: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Going off of this thinking, and to tie into something I think Heater wanted to say but changed his mind...

There are examples of players that were given very nice contracts instead of being let go, but whose value to the team isn't exactly irreplaceable by your definition.

How do you decide that Maltby has more value than Sammy, for example? People are very defensive of the guys who simply have been here longer it seems. Isn't that a bit unfair to someone homegrown, for example, like Hudler? He's just as much a Red Wing but by virtue of having come up on the team about a decade later, you have shed the young guys to prove loyalty? In a sense, it's like a parent saying they're always going to favor the first born just because he got there first. ??? Hasn't Sammy contributed just as much, if not more than some of the guys who seem to be getting preferential treatment by some loyalty factor.

At the end of the day, sarcastro's case about who is in fact dispensable could be made for most of the roster. What's the differentiating factor then?
Sammy and Maltby are not both zero-sum players though.

If you let Sammy walk, you gain nothing and lose nothing, and Sammy has already indicated that he knows the cap score and there would be no hard feelings.

Maltby still has years and $ left on his contract, so to get rid of him would be an active move. They would have to trade him or waive him and demote him or buy him out or try to talk him into retirement. Any of these are going to cause financial and locker room repercussions (probably negative).

And comparing Sammy's contributions to the franchise and city to Maltby's or Draper's is not valid IMO, because with those two you're talking about 12-15 years of service. Sammy has been here 4 seasons.

The Wings brought him in off the scrap heap, gave him a real shot, and gave him the support, training, coaching, and opportunity to turn himself into a solid NHL player. He will walk away to a multi-million dollar contract - his second, after the multi-million dollar deal the Wings gave him 3 years ago. I have a hard time seeing how anyone could think that the Wings owe him another contract, or anything else for that matter.

sarcastro is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 02:45 PM
  #965
doublejack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Detroit
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,123
vCash: 500
Wow are we spoiled. The conference finals are in full swing, and there's a raging debate about the futures of.... Maltby and Draper. What's wrong with that picture?

doublejack is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 03:28 PM
  #966
jacK
Registered User
 
jacK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 2,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublejack View Post
Wow are we spoiled. The conference finals are in full swing, and there's a raging debate about the futures of.... Maltby and Draper. What's wrong with that picture?
some people think Maltby and Draper have futures, that's what's wrong

jacK is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 04:38 PM
  #967
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Some people know the team will spend ~$5 million on players they apparently don't need, while we argue whether Hudler and Sammy deserve $4 million between the two of them.

@dj. Yes, I think Wings fans are spoiled, but it will be sad to lose better guys than some who will stay. The luck of the way the contracts fall when the cap does funny things....

 
Old
05-22-2009, 06:36 PM
  #968
Winger98
Moderator
powers combined
 
Winger98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 13,825
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Winger98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heaton View Post
Nope. And I'm not saying it's either/or. Seniority definitely plays a part, just like in every business. And why do guys like Maltby 'deserve' more loyalty? Because there's a longer track record of them being loyal, you get out what you put in. Why does Bob who works in accounting and has been for 20 years get to stay while Steve who's only worked for 5 years gets laid off.

But we all know it's not going to come down to any of these scenarios. Hudler will be kept if his demands are in sync with what Holland deems his worth to be.
And Holland will do what is necessary to make that contract fit. I don't think he's being given enough credit for making personnel decisions on this front. If Hudler (or anyone, really) isn't re-signed, it seems it'll be chalked up to "too many old guys and their dead weight" rather than Holland looking at it and deciding the value doesn't match the demands.

Winger98 is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 06:47 PM
  #969
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winger98 View Post
And Holland will do what is necessary to make that contract fit. I don't think he's being given enough credit for making personnel decisions on this front. If Hudler (or anyone, really) isn't re-signed, it seems it'll be chalked up to "too many old guys and their dead weight" rather than Holland looking at it and deciding the value doesn't match the demands.
It's possible that it's a bit of both. Realistically, no one expected the cap to perhaps have to decline due to a recession.

The players he has released in the past... Schneider, Lang, Williams, Bertuzzi, Calder. Shanahan could have been an overpayment, but fortunately he decided to leave. The other contracts are ~relatively~ small in the grand scheme of things.

 
Old
05-22-2009, 09:46 PM
  #970
Yemack
Registered User
 
Yemack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,176
vCash: 500
Dump Hossa

Yemack is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 11:10 PM
  #971
VooX
Registered User
 
VooX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,290
vCash: 500
There have been some great discussions and debate in this thread, which remains open and never stickied.

This thread getting full and Fugu is getting jittery, so I have reposted the contract numbers and tables and opened a new thread here:

http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=644746

There are some comments posted recently I want to quote, but I will do it in the new thread.

Hey Fugu... clean up around here, and lock it up when you are done.

VooX is offline  
Old
05-23-2009, 08:02 AM
  #972
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by VooX View Post
There have been some great discussions and debate in this thread, which remains open and never stickied.

This thread getting full and Fugu is getting jittery, so I have reposted the contract numbers and tables and opened a new thread here:

http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=644746

There are some comments posted recently I want to quote, but I will do it in the new thread.

Hey Fugu... clean up around here, and lock it up when you are done.
Ha! I have helpers for that kind of thing. By the time I got up, one of the night owls had it take care of... Hey, I can post in a locked thread! Woo hoo!

 
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:35 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.