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

Will Bryzgalov ever be worth his contract? All Bryz Discussion Here. Part Two

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-13-2012, 04:11 PM
  #101
Brozgalov
Registered User
 
Brozgalov's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bucks County, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimmofan44 View Post
i personally think we need to give bryz a season to see what we are really getting, if he craps the bed this year and then rights the ship next year with an outstanding performance, yes it sucks that we wasted 10 mill on a seasons worth of goalie juggling, but in the end it would have been worth it. we just have to wait and see how it pans out bc like it or not we are stuck with him
Yes.

The chances of us winning the cup this year with even a stellar Bryz aren't all that great. I think you really need to ride him until he gets more confident, and also this shows more than ever we need a good #2 defensemen... I know it'll cost a ton, but Shea Weber... is he going to solve all the problems? No, but he is still young and so dominant... That shot on the PP with Giroux feeding him the puck? Oh babies...

I agree with others, Bryz isn't playing great, but the system is failing right now. Either we don't have the right D pieces for the system to work or what... All I know is they shouldn't be getting a 3 on 1 on Bryz when we are up by 2 in the 3rd period... Stop forcing plays to score more goals and defend a lead for once... You can't blame everything on a goalie when that is the team mentality... We are still playing like we have Boucher/Leighton in net.

Brozgalov is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 04:23 PM
  #102
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,968
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
Edit: Basically, what I'm getting at, is that you essentially place the same amount of importance on every single role in a hockey team. If Claude Giroux wasn't here we wouldn't have won. If Jody Shelley was here, we wouldn't have won. One of those players is far more important than the other. One of their jobs is significantly more difficult than the other's. Yet you absolve them both, and treat them as if they were equally critical in any success or failure. Winning means everyone did their job after all right?!
No that is not what I am saying. Obviously Giroux means more to this team than Shelley. What I am saying is that if you take Shelley out and plug in a different player or use his salary elsewhere, the season will be different. Could be better, could be worse. Since we are predicting the future here, it is easy to say that changing Giroux with a different player would have a bigger effect than changing Shelley. But in the Huet scenario we have been using, we aren't talking about the future, we are talking about the past. We have actual results. To say they would have been better if they changed the goalie that won half their games and used his cap space on other players is just as impossible to prove as me saying they wouldn't have been better. Yet your conclusion is valid and mine is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Do you seriously not grasp how dumb that argument is? If Bob is the starter, we could have spent that money on a player that may have improved the team even more. Unlike a skater, if you're a goalie riding the pine during the playoffs, you're irrelevant to the final result.
That is where you don't understand what I am saying. You have a $64 mil cap or whatever. You spend your money and win the Cup, everyone has done their job. If you are an all star or if you are the worst player on the team with the worst contract if you win the Cup, you have achieved the only goal that you have as a hockey club.

Quote:
You were talking about Huet earlier... the Hawks ended up paying for him to play for another team! How can you seriously argue that he was worth his contract to the Hawks? They had to dismantle key components of their team BECAUSE OF HIS CONTRACT and he wasn't even a key component of their team at that point.
He played for the team for two years of a four year contract and won half their games and the team won a Stanley Cup. So what if he got traded/released/waived/tarred and feathered after that? Once again, ask a Hawks if they could back to before 2009 and trade Huet's contract and the Cup for a different goalie. I'd be willing to bet that they'd rather have Huet and their first Cup since the 60s than a chance to win one.

Quote:
It would be one thing like with the Bruins a couple of years ago when Rask simply outplayed Thomas (who was injured, but still a very solid goalie). It's an entirely other matter when you are literally producing at a rate well below the standard of an average starting goalie -- let alone an elite one, which Bryz is paid to be.
If the team is winning, nothing else matters.

Quote:
What's truly fascinating is your black-and-white view of the world that results justify all means, and, more importantly, absolve all sins. In this very post you went on to talk about how teams need to get "lucky." Luck works both ways... luck can mask the fact that people aren't doing their jobs.
How does that invalidate my opinion? Yes luck can go both ways. I don't think I argued otherwise. I was using it to illustrate how much needs to go right to win a Cup and if you change something it may have a negative effect somewhere else. I'm not saying if the Hawks didn't have Huet they wouldn't have won, I'm just saying when they won with Huet it is silly to say they would have been somehow better than 1 point off of the President's Trophy and Stanley Cup champions if they didn't have him. Yes it is possible, but you can't argue it like it is a fact.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 07:15 PM
  #103
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 15,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
That is where you don't understand what I am saying. You have a $64 mil cap or whatever. You spend your money and win the Cup, everyone has done their job. If you are an all star or if you are the worst player on the team with the worst contract if you win the Cup, you have achieved the only goal that you have as a hockey club.
If you honestly believe that then there are 29 teams every season that have full rosters of players that haven't done their job.

How can you not see the difference between individual achievement and team achievement?

DFF logic: The Sedins have back-to-back scoring titles, but no Cup rings. I guess they're not worth their contract. Cristobal Huet sat on the bench while his team won 16 games in the spring, but he was clearly worth his contract because his teammates won him a Cup ring.

Outstanding.

Some players on winning teams don't pull their weight; some players on losing teams exceed expectations. Is it really that difficult to understand?

__________________
I deride your truth handling abilities
CanadianFlyer88 is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 07:23 PM
  #104
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,968
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
If you honestly believe that then there are 29 teams every season that have full rosters of players that haven't done their job.

How can you not see the difference between individual achievement and team achievement?

DFF logic: The Sedins have back-to-back scoring titles, but no Cup rings. I guess they're not worth their contract. Cristobal Huet sat on the bench while his team won 16 games in the spring, but he was clearly worth his contract because his teammates won him a Cup ring.

Outstanding.

Some players on winning teams don't pull their weight; some players on losing teams exceed expectations. Is it really that difficult to understand?
But that is not what I am saying. In fact I have said in this thread and the previous thread that there is more than one way to earn your contract. One way is winning a Cup. Another way is putting up good stats. Another way is providing the team with intangibles. Let me just quote my response from the last page:

"A player can earn his contract in a number of ways. Winning a Cup isn't the only way, but it is certainly one way. He can earn it with stats and leadership and all those other good things as well. In short a player is worth his contract if he does his job (winning a Cup, putting up good stats, etc). He doesn't have to do all of them. I really didn't think this was a difficult concept. Apparently many of you are not familiar with the saying that there is "more than one way to skin a cat.""

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 07:35 PM
  #105
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 15,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
But that is not what I am saying. In fact I have said in this thread and the previous thread that there is more than one way to earn your contract. One way is winning a Cup. Another way is putting up good stats. Another way is providing the team with intangibles. Let me just quote my response from the last page:

"A player can earn his contract in a number of ways. Winning a Cup isn't the only way, but it is certainly one way. He can earn it with stats and leadership and all those other good things as well. In short a player is worth his contract if he does his job (winning a Cup, putting up good stats, etc). He doesn't have to do all of them. I really didn't think this was a difficult concept. Apparently many of you are not familiar with the saying that there is "more than one way to skin a cat.""
Winning a Cup is not an individual achievement, though. Stats are. Leadership is. 'Intangibles' are.

Cup = team achievement. How does simply being on the roster of a Cup winning team have any bearing of your contribution to that victory, or, in any way, indicate how you lived up to your contract?

A non-hockey example: If your company meets its sales targets for the year, yet you constantly showed up late, left early and did a poor job with your individual sales targets, did you earn your salary just because your co-workers filled in your gaps?


Last edited by CanadianFlyer88: 01-13-2012 at 07:42 PM.
CanadianFlyer88 is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 07:43 PM
  #106
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,968
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
Winning a Cup is not an individual achievement, though. Stats are. Leadership is. 'Intangibles' are.

Cup = team achievement. How does simply being on the roster of a Cup winning team have any bearing of your contribution to that victory, or, in any way, indicate how you lived up to your contract?
By hoisting the Cup over head...the one and only goal of every hockey team in the NHL. You're right it is a team achievement. And without everyone on the team functioning the way they did, there may not have been a Cup. You play to win the championship. If you succeed you are worth every penny. You can also be worth it if you light it up on a bad team. It's clear no one else on here agrees with me so I am just going to keep out of this argument. I said I was going to stay out of in the last thread and I should have stuck to it.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 07:59 PM
  #107
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 15,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
By hoisting the Cup over head...the one and only goal of every hockey team in the NHL. You're right it is a team achievement. And without everyone on the team functioning the way they did, there may not have been a Cup. You play to win the championship. If you succeed you are worth every penny. You can also be worth it if you light it up on a bad team. It's clear no one else on here agrees with me so I am just going to keep out of this argument. I said I was going to stay out of in the last thread and I should have stuck to it.
Your butterfly effect argument is ridiculous. By that reasoning, I should share some responsibility in Mike Richards' 3-on-5 short-handed goal against the Canucks. Prior to that game I happened to have a brief chat with Mike Knuble. Had I not had that conversation, Knuble might have acted differently which could have led to Richards acting differently... and thus potentially negating his shorty. Thanks to me, Richie still scored that memorable goal.

I see you ignored my non-hockey example. It's possible for an individual to do a poor job at the same time that their team or company succeeds. It's the reason those individuals are not re-signed at the end of their contracts, or terminated before their current contracts expire. See: Huet, Cristobal.

CanadianFlyer88 is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 09:02 PM
  #108
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,968
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
Your butterfly effect argument is ridiculous. By that reasoning, I should share some responsibility in Mike Richards' 3-on-5 short-handed goal against the Canucks. Prior to that game I happened to have a brief chat with Mike Knuble. Had I not had that conversation, Knuble might have acted differently which could have led to Richards acting differently... and thus potentially negating his shorty. Thanks to me, Richie still scored that memorable goal.
Yeah good point. You can change anything you want and the results will be better if on paper it looks better. That is exactly how it works. I am a fool to think that if you changed the makeup of a Cup winning team it might change something. How could I have been so silly?

Quote:
I see you ignored my non-hockey example. It's possible for an individual to do a poor job at the same time that their team or company succeeds. It's the reason those individuals are not re-signed at the end of their contracts, or terminated before their current contracts expire. See: Huet, Cristobal.
First of all I didn't ignore it, it wasn't there when I responded. Second of all, I've had this discussion before. Sports are unique. Winning a Cup one year and sucking the next is not the same thing as being the leading company one year and the worst the next. The player on the team that contributes the least to a Cup winning team is every bit as worth it as the player who contributes the most. The employee who contributes the least to a good company may not be worth it as much as the best salesmen etc.

The difference is pretty simple. If the company's goal was to sell a set number of widgets each year and nothing more and they sold that many widgets, it wouldn't matter if one guy sold less than everyone else because they still made their goal. But that isn't how companies work. Their goal is to make money. So a salesman who is selling one widget a month compared to the others selling 100 isn't going to cut it because he is not making the company money. The goal of a hockey team is to win the Stanley Cup. Not the President's Trophy. Not a Vezina. Not a Hart. Not the division. The Stanley Cup. If they do that, everyone has done their job.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 09:37 PM
  #109
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 15,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Yeah good point. You can change anything you want and the results will be better if on paper it looks better. That is exactly how it works. I am a fool to think that if you changed the makeup of a Cup winning team it might change something. How could I have been so silly?

First of all I didn't ignore it, it wasn't there when I responded. Second of all, I've had this discussion before. Sports are unique. Winning a Cup one year and sucking the next is not the same thing as being the leading company one year and the worst the next. The player on the team that contributes the least to a Cup winning team is every bit as worth it as the player who contributes the most. The employee who contributes the least to a good company may not be worth it as much as the best salesmen etc.

The difference is pretty simple. If the company's goal was to sell a set number of widgets each year and nothing more and they sold that many widgets, it wouldn't matter if one guy sold less than everyone else because they still made their goal. But that isn't how companies work. Their goal is to make money. So a salesman who is selling one widget a month compared to the others selling 100 isn't going to cut it because he is not making the company money. The goal of a hockey team is to win the Stanley Cup. Not the President's Trophy. Not a Vezina. Not a Hart. Not the division. The Stanley Cup. If they do that, everyone has done their job.
How in the world can you possibly believe the bold section?

You clearly don't understand the difference between team achievement vs the individual achievement.

Creative editing: If the team's goal was to win games and nothing more and they won that many games, it wouldn't matter if one goalie won less than the other because they still made their goal....

So a goalie who is winning zero games a month compared to the other winning many isn't going to cut it because he is not winning games for the team.


See any contradiction after substituting the same words into both parts of your argument?


Edit: going back to Huet, he helped the team win the division, but played no part in their playoff run. You said the goal's not to win the division, conference or President's Trophy, so how did Huet help them win the Cup if he wasn't on the ice in the playoffs?


Last edited by CanadianFlyer88: 01-13-2012 at 09:49 PM.
CanadianFlyer88 is offline  
Old
01-14-2012, 12:16 AM
  #110
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,968
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
How in the world can you possibly believe the bold section?
I think you are misreading it. I am not saying they are of the same value, but they are both earning their contracts. They are both worth it in that respect.

Quote:
You clearly don't understand the difference between team achievement vs the individual achievement.
Clearly

Quote:
Creative editing: If the team's goal was to win games and nothing more and they won that many games, it wouldn't matter if one goalie won less than the other because they still made their goal....

So a goalie who is winning zero games a month compared to the other winning many isn't going to cut it because he is not winning games for the team.


See any contradiction after substituting the same words into both parts of your argument?
I think you are using an analogy that I said isn't valid and acting as if I said it was valid. I said if a business acted like that a lesser salesman would be worth it if they meet their numbers. But I also said business don't work that way. And similarly, if a hockey team acted that way the lesser goalie would also be worth it. But hockey teams and businesses do not work that way. A hockey team's goal is to win the Cup. A business's goal is to make as much money as possible.


Quote:
Edit: going back to Huet, he helped the team win the division, but played no part in their playoff run. You said the goal's not to win the division, conference or President's Trophy, so how did Huet help them win the Cup if he wasn't on the ice in the playoffs?
Um, by helping get them into the playoffs.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
01-14-2012, 12:40 AM
  #111
bryzgalovsky*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 895
vCash: 500

bryzgalovsky* is offline  
Old
01-14-2012, 12:43 AM
  #112
Vikke
FHM 13 researcher
 
Vikke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bustoville
Country: Sweden
Posts: 13,147
vCash: 500
Can't believe Lavy will be our coach for the next nine years! That's amazing!

Vikke is offline  
Old
01-14-2012, 01:51 AM
  #113
StandingCow
Registered User
 
StandingCow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 3,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryzgalovsky View Post
Oh man, that is depressing... lol

StandingCow is offline  
Old
01-14-2012, 03:16 AM
  #114
Ryker
Registered User
 
Ryker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Triangle, NC, USA
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 3,091
vCash: 500
On the topic of Bryzgalov, when he's the backup, does he celebrate when we score? I haven't seen any shots of him neither doing nor not doing so, and was just wondering whether any of you guys have.

Ryker is offline  
Old
01-14-2012, 03:35 AM
  #115
WeekendAtBernies
Registered User
 
WeekendAtBernies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryker View Post
On the topic of Bryzgalov, when he's the backup, does he celebrate when we score? I haven't seen any shots of him neither doing nor not doing so, and was just wondering whether any of you guys have.
I didn't want to mention this b/c i'd seem like a nitpicking ass (considering I've made my preference for Bob clear), but I've been to several games and have noticed he looks largely disinterested when he isn't playing and really doesn't celebrate when we score. Especially in comparison to Bob... Bob is always very into the game following intently and always celebrates when we score.

That being said, Bryz seems supportive of Bob... They talk a lot during timeouts, etc and Bryz always congratulates him after a win.

WeekendAtBernies is offline  
Old
01-14-2012, 07:27 AM
  #116
flyerfanish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 126
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
How in the world can you possibly believe the bold section?

You clearly don't understand the difference between team achievement vs the individual achievement.

Creative editing: If the team's goal was to win games and nothing more and they won that many games, it wouldn't matter if one goalie won less than the other because they still made their goal....

So a goalie who is winning zero games a month compared to the other winning many isn't going to cut it because he is not winning games for the team.


See any contradiction after substituting the same words into both parts of your argument?


Edit: going back to Huet, he helped the team win the division, but played no part in their playoff run. You said the goal's not to win the division, conference or President's Trophy, so how did Huet help them win the Cup if he wasn't on the ice in the playoffs?
I think you're forgetting that we're talking about human beings. Some people might've been stepping up in the absence of Huet. Neimi for one. People can say that "they're pro's" all they want. But they're still human beings.

Also that comparison with a company's salesmen is pretty ******. There's no limit to how much money a company can make one year. There's a limit to how many cups a team can win one year. A team cant do much better than winning the cup. Sure they can dominate that year. But people will still remember them more if they win a few cups than dominate one year and just win once.

I don't think Bryz is worth his contract right now. But who of us can say he will or won't? I don't think any of us can predict the future.

flyerfanish is offline  
Old
01-14-2012, 11:54 AM
  #117
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
How does that invalidate my opinion? Yes luck can go both ways. I don't think I argued otherwise. I was using it to illustrate how much needs to go right to win a Cup and if you change something it may have a negative effect somewhere else. I'm not saying if the Hawks didn't have Huet they wouldn't have won, I'm just saying when they won with Huet it is silly to say they would have been somehow better than 1 point off of the President's Trophy and Stanley Cup champions if they didn't have him. Yes it is possible, but you can't argue it like it is a fact.
So, lemme get this straight.

You work at a company of two employees. You do ALL the work. The other employee plays Tetris and makes multiple trips to the bathroom to squeeze one out every day. The company is successful and makes money.

Is the other employee earning his pay?

Honestly, dude, you're entire argument is based around the fact that you find it incredibly difficult to be critical of decisions so you attempt to weasel your way out of making those decisions. The Chicago Blackhawks FIRED the guy that signed Huet to that moronic contract... they were right to do so, he was a *ing idiot. Since winning their Cup -- something that is a crapshoot as you yourself admit -- the Hawks have been in perpetual damage control because of the contracts that Tallon handed out. Amazingly, he got employed again and one of his first acts was to trade for the other moronic contract he gave out... Campbell.

The consistent failure in the logic of pretty much every argument that you make is that you focus on Point A without addressing the fact that contingencies surround A. If you don't sign player X, you can sign player Y. These decisions do not take place in a vacuum. I never wanted Bryz because I never wanted his contract. I think Bob is going to be a good goalie, and I wanted the organization to give him the opportunity to grow into the role... which is problematic when you sign a guy for 9 friggin years at huge money. If the Flyers win the Cup this year with Bryz playing the way that he has thus far... they will have done it DESPITE him, not BECAUSE of him.

Jester is offline  
Old
01-14-2012, 12:01 PM
  #118
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyerfanish View Post
I think you're forgetting that we're talking about human beings. Some people might've been stepping up in the absence of Huet. Neimi for one. People can say that "they're pro's" all they want. But they're still human beings.

Also that comparison with a company's salesmen is pretty ******. There's no limit to how much money a company can make one year. There's a limit to how many cups a team can win one year. A team cant do much better than winning the cup. Sure they can dominate that year. But people will still remember them more if they win a few cups than dominate one year and just win once.

I don't think Bryz is worth his contract right now. But who of us can say he will or won't? I don't think any of us can predict the future.
This is a fair point. I don't think he's ever going to be worth that deal, largely because the chance a 30+ y.o goalie is going to earn those type of terms borders on impossible.

He certainly can play better, but to argue that Huet earned his contract in Chicago because the Hawks won... without him ... is ridiculous. He signed for big money as a starter, and then posted .909 and .895 seasons, turning his contract into an albatross that the Hawks couldn't even trade to another NHL team.

This is an important point for DFF to consider: if Huet was actually earning his money, why didn't anyone else in the NHL even want him on that contract?

Jester is offline  
Old
01-14-2012, 12:03 PM
  #119
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,968
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
So, lemme get this straight.

You work at a company of two employees. You do ALL the work. The other employee plays Tetris and makes multiple trips to the bathroom to squeeze one out every day. The company is successful and makes money.

Is the other employee earning his pay?

Honestly, dude, you're entire argument is based around the fact that you find it incredibly difficult to be critical of decisions so you attempt to weasel your way out of making those decisions. The Chicago Blackhawks FIRED the guy that signed Huet to that moronic contract... they were right to do so, he was a *ing idiot.
Business and hockey are not the same thing. See my above post. Difficult to make decisions? I'm saying if a guy wins a Cup he's worth it. What decision am I trying to weasel out of?

As far as Tallin getting fired is concerned, I really don't think yoy can argue that he didn't do his job or earn his paycheck. He took a ****** team and turned them into champions in a few years.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
01-14-2012, 12:04 PM
  #120
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I think you are misreading it. I am not saying they are of the same value, but they are both earning their contracts. They are both worth it in that respect.
Some interesting language here.

I have two players with the same exact contract. They are both paid to be premier level stars. You just admitted that they have different value to the team. How can they BOTH be worth their contract if they have different value to the team?

X = 3

and

X-1 = 3

Jester is offline  
Old
01-14-2012, 12:07 PM
  #121
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Business and hockey are not the same thing. See my above post. Difficult to make decisions? I'm saying if a guy wins a Cup he's worth it. What decision am I trying to weasel out of?
The NHL IS a business, dude. These are guys working jobs. Their job happens to be playing hockey.

A business' goal is to make money.

A hockey team's goal is to win a championship.

Your argument is that EVERYONE did their job AND EARNED THEIR PAY if the hockey team wins the championship, so you have to accept that the Tetris playing dude with a chafed shaft is doing his job if his company is making money, too.

Quote:
As far as Tallin getting fired is concerned, I really don't think yoy can argue that he didn't do his job or earn his paycheck. He took a ****** team and turned them into champions in a few years.
Blackhawks disagreed, huh? Guy was an incompetent. Screwed up RFA offer sheets, gave out truly horrendous contracts, etc.

They had a team that should have been absolutely dominant for years, and while they are still good they had to dismantle their Cup team because of some really bad decisions by him.

Jester is offline  
Old
01-14-2012, 01:45 PM
  #122
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,968
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Some interesting language here.

I have two players with the same exact contract. They are both paid to be premier level stars. You just admitted that they have different value to the team. How can they BOTH be worth their contract if they have different value to the team?

X = 3

and

X-1 = 3
You really don't see how that is possible? Without even using my Stanley Cup example (where I say all players earn it if they win a Cup), let's use the Sedins because they have the same contracts and relative talent level/production. Henrik scores 82 points in 82 games. I'd say he earns his contract. Daniel scores 115 in 82 games. He also earns his contract. I'd also say the guy with 115 points is more valuable than the 82 point player.

On a Cup winning team they both earn their contracts because the team has won the Cup. Plain and simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
The NHL IS a business, dude. These are guys working jobs. Their job happens to be playing hockey.

A business' goal is to make money.

A hockey team's goal is to win a championship.

Your argument is that EVERYONE did their job AND EARNED THEIR PAY if the hockey team wins the championship, so you have to accept that the Tetris playing dude with a chafed shaft is doing his job if his company is making money, too.
It is not the same thing. It is really pretty simple. The goal of a business is to make as much money as possible. If you make a lot but not as much as you could have because someone is playing Tetris there is a problem. If you win a Stanley Cup but your goalie sucks, you still win the Stanley Cup. You can do no more and the sucky goalie has not prevented his team from winning the Cup. If he was preventing his team from winning the Stanley Cup, they wouldn't have won the Stanley Cup.

Quote:
Blackhawks disagreed, huh? Guy was an incompetent. Screwed up RFA offer sheets, gave out truly horrendous contracts, etc.

They had a team that should have been absolutely dominant for years, and while they are still good they had to dismantle their Cup team because of some really bad decisions by him.
Interesting definition of incompetence. If winning a championship is incompetence what does a successful one look like?

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
01-14-2012, 02:11 PM
  #123
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
You really don't see how that is possible? Without even using my Stanley Cup example (where I say all players earn it if they win a Cup), let's use the Sedins because they have the same contracts and relative talent level/production. Henrik scores 82 points in 82 games. I'd say he earns his contract. Daniel scores 115 in 82 games. He also earns his contract. I'd also say the guy with 115 points is more valuable than the 82 point player.

On a Cup winning team they both earn their contracts because the team has won the Cup. Plain and simple.
... seriously? You use an example of a PPG player and a more than PPG player? That's all you got? Last year the Sedins were 2nd and 5th in the entire NHL in PPG. Moreover, you can OUTPERFORM your contract... you can be underpaid. 115 pts is getting there.

However, this topic is about Bryz. Bryz has the 6th highest cap hit in the NHL for goalies... entirely because of the length of it dragging down the number, but fair is fair. He's the 6th most expensive goalie in the NHL. Without bothering to pull out the irrelevant folks that have only played a couple of games, he has the 66th best SVPCT in the NHL. 66th. A team stat, but he has the 60th GAA in the NHL.

His partner in crime, Bobrovsky, ranks 22nd and 27th in these respective categories playing behind the same group of players.

According to your theory of life, Bryzgalov can maintain those numbers for the rest of the year, and if the Flyers win the Stanley Cup with Bobrovsky playing every single playoff game... he will have earned his contract.

The actual reality is that he will have stolen money.



Quote:
It is not the same thing. It is really pretty simple. The goal of a business is to make as much money as possible. If you make a lot but not as much as you could have because someone is playing Tetris there is a problem. If you win a Stanley Cup but your goalie sucks, you still win the Stanley Cup. You can do no more and the sucky goalie has not prevented his team from winning the Cup. If he was preventing his team from winning the Stanley Cup, they wouldn't have won the Stanley Cup.
But he still wasn't worth his contract, because he was a detriment to the team. You are essentially demeaning the efforts of OTHER PLAYERS on a TEAM to overcome the poor effort of another player.

Just because a team wins a championship does not mean every player on the team was worth his contract. Just because a company makes gobs of money, that doesn't mean every employee was earning their pay.

Honestly, your argument is one of the dumber ones you've trotted out around here, which is an accomplishment. It's like saying a saboteur wasn't a saboteur if he fails to accomplish his sabotage.

Quote:
Interesting definition of incompetence. If winning a championship is incompetence what does a successful one look like?
Here, in the real world DFF, sometimes things happen despite the best and worst efforts of people. Especially in sports, you can do everything right and fail to reach your goals... just ask the Patriots, who were a bat**** absurd play away from a perfect season.

Sometimes, teams overcome factors that very well could have cost them success if a few bounces had gone the other way.

Jester is offline  
Old
01-14-2012, 03:42 PM
  #124
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post

In your example no, a player who is out there scoring three goals in his own net is not worth his contract regardless of a Cup. If they are deflections going in off of him, that is a different story, but if he is out here deliberately hurting his team, then no he is not worth it. I think I addressed that in the last thread as well. However, if the player was doing that and they won the Cup, I don't think too many people would be complaining. I know I wouldn't.
So you agree a player Hurting deliberately his team would not worth his contract. Even if they win the cup.

But what the difference between hurting a team deliberatly or not ? If a player hurt more than help his team.. he doesnt worth his contract. Regardless of the cup.

Would you rather have a player who deliberately hurt his team a little bit, or the one involuntary hurting his team big time?

palindrom is offline  
Old
01-14-2012, 03:43 PM
  #125
Appleyard
Registered User
 
Appleyard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manc/Shef/Utrecht
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 7,372
vCash: 500
Bob is 14th in the league in SV% in players with +10 games played.
19th in GAA.

Bryz is 49th in the league in SV% in players with +10 games played.
Only Neuvirth, Mason, Roloson, Brodeur and Auld are in that bracket with more tham ten games played.
He is 46th in GAA.

The netminders in Bryz's price range, have the following stats.

Lundquist: $6875000 .937%, 1.89 GAA
Ward: $6300000. .901%, 3.12 GAA
Miller: $6250000. 903%, 2.97 GAA
Backstrom: $6000000. .923%, 2.39 GAA
Kiprusoff: $5833333. .917%, 2.42 GAA
Luongo: $5333333. .918%, 2.36 GAA
Brodeur: $5200000. .891%, 2.98 GAA
Thomas: $5000000. .939%, 1.95 GAA
Fleury: $5000000. .914%, 2.25 GAA

Bryz has a $5666667 cap hit. His numbers are worse than everyone but Brodeurs.

Substantially worse.

I will give him time, he has proven that he is a top 10 keeper in this league. (more than 25 GP.)

2010: 11th with .921 SV%,16th with 2.48 GAA
2009: 9th with .920 SV%, 6th with 2.29 GAA
2008: he was pretty bad! .906 SV%
2007: 9th with .920 SV%, 16th with 2.44 GAA

But at the moment he is not earning his contract. Who knows if he will, but at the moment he obviously is not.

In my mind, comparatively speaking, he has to put up approximately .915 SV% and sub 2.50 GAA to be worth the contract. As that is what we are paying him to do.

Hopefully he will finish the season with about .905 SV% (which would mean the second half he averages about .920 SV%)
I would be happy if he did that for his first year, then puts up .910-920% for the rest of his contract!

Appleyard is offline  
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 07:57 AM.

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.