HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Stamkos Agrees To Five-year, $37.5m Contract With Lightning

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-20-2011, 04:36 PM
  #476
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Don't read too much into hockeypete, that's ignorance in action. All empirical evidence (especially for goal scorers) sets the expected decline in productivity to the late 20s.

He doesn't like to accept it because it doesn't jive with him talking out of his ass.

Iginla is the ONLY player to hit 50 in the last few years after he turned 27. The last player to hit 50 goals at age 27? Peter Bondra.

Stamkos will get an absurd contract, but whoever signs him will not get the production that Tampa will have gotten.
Stamkos may have the potential to score fifty goals beyond 27 years old. Not consistently, but he has the potential to get there once.

I agree that whoever signs him probably won't get the same production that Tampa will on this contract. I expect his production will taper downward as he gets older yes, but not significantly. Is it absurd to think that Stamkos can put up 35-40 goal seasons into his early thirties?

Flyerfan808 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2011, 04:44 PM
  #477
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,558
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpyD View Post
Upcoming season vs. Jagr.

Not career vs. Hartnell.
If my math is right, his career NHL +/- is +275. He's only had 5 minus seasons since 1990, including on Euro teams.

Malone has 4 minus seasons and 4 plus seasons, which came on good Pitt teams. His last two seasons have been minus, and his team hasn't done much to improve their defense or goaltending. Meanwhile, Jagr will be on a team with a very good goaltender and a good defensive corps.

I'd bet Jagr will have a higher +/- than Malone.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2011, 04:55 PM
  #478
DumpyD
Registered User
 
DumpyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
If my math is right, his career NHL +/- is +275. He's only had 5 minus seasons since 1990, including on Euro teams.

Malone has 4 minus seasons and 4 plus seasons, which came on good Pitt teams.
Wrong. But regardless of that, citing Jagr's career +/- is irrelevant. Even the most optimistic of homers won't be expecting the kinds of points he used to put up.

I am personally of the opinion that his defense will be sub-par and offensive output will be on the lower end of expectations. Of course, Bryz could be fantastic and Timonen and Pronger could have bounce back years. Who knows? If TB's goaltending craps the bed, then I'll be in a lot of trouble. But who cares about $5.

DumpyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2011, 05:01 PM
  #479
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,558
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpyD View Post
Wrong. But regardless of that, citing Jagr's career +/- is irrelevant. Even the most optimistic of homers won't be expecting the kinds of points he used to put up.

I am personally of the opinion that his defense will be sub-par and offensive output will be on the lower end of expectations. Of course, Bryz could be fantastic and Timonen and Pronger could have bounce back years. Who knows? If TB's goaltending craps the bed, then I'll be in a lot of trouble. But who cares about $5.
Which part of that is wrong?

I'm not saying that Jagr is going to blow the league out of the water, but it's a pretty safe bet that he can at LEAST beat Malone in the +/- department.

I don't expect Jagr to be incredible, but I expect he'll at least be better than Malone.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2011, 05:04 PM
  #480
DumpyD
Registered User
 
DumpyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Malone has 4 minus seasons and 4 plus seasons, which came on good Pitt teams.
That part. Not like it's a big deal though.

Do you think Philly will finish ahead of Tampa in the standings?

DumpyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2011, 05:08 PM
  #481
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,558
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpyD View Post
That part. Not like it's a big deal though.

Do you think Philly will finish ahead of Tampa in the standings?

Nope.

But I think Jagr will finish ahead of Malone in +/-. Also, it seems Malone has only had 3 + seasons and 4 - seasons.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2011, 05:11 PM
  #482
DumpyD
Registered User
 
DumpyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Nope.

But I think Jagr will finish ahead of Malone in +/-. Also, it seems Malone has only had 3 + seasons and 4 - seasons.
And he pretty much matched his best output on a good Pittsburgh team in his first year on a terrible TB team. What does this mean and how does this apply to next year? No idea.

DumpyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2011, 05:53 PM
  #483
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
Stamkos may have the potential to score fifty goals beyond 27 years old. Not consistently, but he has the potential to get there once.

I agree that whoever signs him probably won't get the same production that Tampa will on this contract. I expect his production will taper downward as he gets older yes, but not significantly. Is it absurd to think that Stamkos can put up 35-40 goal seasons into his early thirties?
No. Is it absurd to pay him like he is 50-goal guy through his early 30s? Yes.

Same reason the bidding war on Kovalchuk was idiotic, and why the draft is so damn important.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2011, 05:54 PM
  #484
SolidSnakeUS
Registered User
 
SolidSnakeUS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Pipersville, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 29,466
vCash: 500
How the hell is this almost at 500 posts in the Flyers section?

SolidSnakeUS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2011, 06:41 PM
  #485
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
No. Is it absurd to pay him like he is 50-goal guy through his early 30s? Yes.

Same reason the bidding war on Kovalchuk was idiotic, and why the draft is so damn important.
It is absurd, but long term front loaded deals seem like they're the culture of NHL Free Agency now and for the foreseeable future.

Flyerfan808 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2011, 06:53 PM
  #486
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
It is absurd, but long term front loaded deals seem like they're the culture of NHL Free Agency now and for the foreseeable future.
Until the next CBA. Teams have also come to regret a few of these long deals quickly.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2011, 10:22 PM
  #487
Hockeypete49
How you like me now!
 
Hockeypete49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Jersey
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 4,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
It is absurd, but long term front loaded deals seem like they're the culture of NHL Free Agency now and for the foreseeable future.
I agree with you 100%. However I feel that players who are 23 to 28 still have a lot to offer in this league and are not on the downside of putting up points in their careers like certain individuals have stated in the past. What was the average age of the top ten in points this season? 30? So there is life after 28 in this league I guess.


Texas Rig 6" Blue Fleck Power Worm 4-0 hook.

Hockeypete49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2011, 10:26 PM
  #488
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
People that use small samples to make big arguments probably didn't pass intro stat.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 03:51 AM
  #489
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
They have to make a change to the contract rules. I put up a big post on the main board but can't find it.

You make it so that the cap hit stays on the books regardless of retirement. Get rid of the 35+ rule. Esentially make it a 18+ rule.

All one way contracts over 2 million count against your cap regardless if they are in the NHL or AHL.

This would go a long way to stopping these stupid contracts i think.

Spongolium* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 09:16 AM
  #490
MrHockey1982
Registered User
 
MrHockey1982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,180
vCash: 500
I just noticed on Capgeek that Crosby and Malkin have the exact same contracts as Stamkos. NMC in the last year of their contracts and then UFA. WTF??

MrHockey1982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 09:19 AM
  #491
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHockey1982 View Post
I just noticed on Capgeek that Crosby and Malkin have the exact same contracts as Stamkos. NMC in the last year of their contracts and then UFA. WTF??
Everyone was getting them then. At some point you figure that teams will learn.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 09:20 AM
  #492
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
They have to make a change to the contract rules. I put up a big post on the main board but can't find it.

You make it so that the cap hit stays on the books regardless of retirement. Get rid of the 35+ rule. Esentially make it a 18+ rule.

All one way contracts over 2 million count against your cap regardless if they are in the NHL or AHL.

This would go a long way to stopping these stupid contracts i think.
The NHLPA would never agree to that. It wouldn't have much impact either, only a few big contracts have been dropped to the AHL.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 07:08 PM
  #493
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
They have to make a change to the contract rules. I put up a big post on the main board but can't find it.

You make it so that the cap hit stays on the books regardless of retirement. Get rid of the 35+ rule. Esentially make it a 18+ rule.

All one way contracts over 2 million count against your cap regardless if they are in the NHL or AHL.

This would go a long way to stopping these stupid contracts i think.
I think the NHL and NHLPA should just get rid of the 35+ rule entirely.

Flyerfan808 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2011, 04:09 AM
  #494
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
The NHLPA would never agree to that. It wouldn't have much impact either, only a few big contracts have been dropped to the AHL.
I can't understand why the NHLPA wouldn't accept the second rule of all contracts over 2 million count against your cap. This would theoretically save the players they represent from being demoted to the AHL. Surely this is something that they want?

I can understand the 35+ rule in theory, but it just doesn't work. I can't understand why you should be allowed to retire and have the cap come off the books unless it's through injury. All players should be signing contracts that they believe that they will play out. The Bryz and Pronger contracts are a joke, as they were put in place with the understanding that the player would never playing in the last years. Same as the Kovy one.

Spongolium* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2011, 06:40 AM
  #495
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
I look at what 35+ contracts have become. There is so much risk involved that it becomes counter intuitive for teams to give them. I see a lot of vets signing for 1 or 2 years max and for less money and I try to imagine what it must be like.

That you're pretty much limited to one year deals, two years if you're lucky before you have to renegotiate your contract or look for a new team in a new city. On top of that you're almost sure to sign for less money.

Pack up the family you're moving from Philly to Chicago. Sell the old house, find/buy a new house, get the kids settled into new schools. I imagine it gets real old... real fast.

As of now teams simply do not have any recourse against 35+ contracts. I think teams should at least be able to buy them out and if that player is injured and forced to retire that salary should come off the cap.

Flyerfan808 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2011, 07:14 AM
  #496
mja
Negative Creep
 
mja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
I look at what 35+ contracts have become. There is so much risk involved that it becomes counter intuitive for teams to give them. I see a lot of vets signing for 1 or 2 years max and for less money and I try to imagine what it must be like.

That you're pretty much limited to one year deals, two years if you're lucky before you have to renegotiate your contract or look for a new team in a new city. On top of that you're almost sure to sign for less money.

Pack up the family you're moving from Philly to Chicago. Sell the old house, find/buy a new house, get the kids settled into new schools. I imagine it gets real old... real fast.

As of now teams simply do not have any recourse against 35+ contracts. I think teams should at least be able to buy them out and if that player is injured and forced to retire that salary should come off the cap.
I hate the rule. I understand why it exists, but all it does is end up punishing guys for being older. Tim Thomas was just untradeable a year ago and the only damned reason was the 35+ rule.

mja is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 03:03 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.