So yeah, you just pulled that "most cup winning teams dont have overpaid players because they care about winning a cup and not about the money" out of your ass, didn't you?
No he didn't. He probably watched players in NJ, Colorado, and DET sign under market, hometown discounted contracts, and skate away with a combined 9 cups in the last 20 or so years.
No he didn't. He probably watched players in NJ, Colorado, and DET sign under market, hometown discounted contracts, and skate away with a combined 9 cups in the last 20 or so years.
Umm, what are these hometown discounts you speak of? I can't think of any "stars" who are not getting paid a good amount of money.
The sedins might be the "best" example, but its not like they are bottom 50 salary in the league either.
Umm, what are these hometown discounts you speak of? I can't think of any "stars" who are not getting paid a good amount of money.
The sedins might be the "best" example, but its not like they are bottom 50 salary in the league either.
Getting paid a good amount of money, yes, but this thread topic was about overpaying players. Plenty of guys on the teams I mentioned had chances to leave for greater dollars elsewhere but chose to stay because winning a cup was more important to them.
I'm not against it, but I think it didn't make sense considering our cap situation. We are in win now mode so a smaller contract for JVR now helps us afford more talent. I think he'll be worth his contract, but I didn't see the rush in locking him up.
But paying for JVR's potential doesn't save money up front, it overpays in the short run in hopes he's worth it in the end. JVR is not worth a cap hit of $4.25 million right now
Getting paid a good amount of money, yes, but this thread topic was about overpaying players. Plenty of guys on the teams I mentioned had chances to leave for greater dollars elsewhere but chose to stay because winning a cup was more important to them.
that's actually my point, i mean how many players on this team want to win besides bryz and briere even though they are overpaid? i think that's been the problem with philly teams besides phillies winning it 08 without any big contract players i might add. it's always been about money. i mean if most great players that have great talent can play here for less money and years, it proves that they want to win a championship and not about the money.
players complaining about not getting paid means that it's all about the money rather winning a championship.
this isnt about bryz, this is about other players on this team that get overpaid and dont play right like jvr, coburn, mez, harts, briere, pronger, richards, carter, all these players that get overpaid dont play right either, they probably just like playing for the money rather than winning a cup, i know everyone wants suter or zach p but how do you know that they want a cup rather than about the money? most cup winning teams dont have overpaid players because they care about winning a cup and not about the money.
as much as we need defense and a winger i would trade to get defense and winger/center give that person a year or two before that player wants more money, give them the money and trade them to get better players because they play for money not winning for a championship.
i mean if most great players that have great talent can play here for less money and years, it proves that they want to win a championship and not about the money.
No, it doesn't. It means they like the organization and the city enough to want to keep there instead of relocating.
so you expect homer to overpay every player on this team then? alright then why doesnt philla never win a champonship? talent, not wanting it enough, i mean what?!
has any overpaid player ever won a stanley cup? boston, chicago, Detroit, pittsburgh, anaheim, carolina, tampa, new jersey etc, i dont remember any of those teams with huge contracts and years, most of them had 2 or 3 year deals, flyers are always giving over 5 year deals if i remember correctly.
im just saying if sutter and zach p wants alot of years and money, i would pass and make a trade.
I tend to not like the long contracts as well. It is hard to compare some of these teams. Chicago won after having several years of high draft picks that hadn't reached their second contract yet. that is why they struggle now. They could not afford to keep all of their players.
Pittsburgh had 5 consecutive drafts with top 5 picks, and with two of those being Malkin and Crosby who could almost win cups without any help.
I think New Jersey and Detroit fall into a different category, because they actually try to develop talent and skill and tend to not make dumb signings or trades in general. for whatever reason, most teams don't follow their ideas of how to produce good hockey teams.
Since no team opts to act like Detroit or NJ (who both must have ties to the occult in order to achieve their success) I like the path of the Canes.
I got to see a lot of the Canes games that year, and they won by committee. Think about their playoffs - it was like a different player stepped up each round. Their defense was made up of six #3/4 d-men instead of having any real #1 or #6, which is how I would like the Flyers to go.
Instead of tying lots of money into Suter I would rather they get good serviceable d-man for a short term. This would allow the Flyers to keep their forwards when their contracts end, as well as resign Voracek.
this isnt about bryz, this is about other players on this team that get overpaid and dont play right like jvr, coburn, mez, harts, briere, pronger, richards, carter, all these players that get overpaid dont play right either, they probably just like playing for the money rather than winning a cup, i know everyone wants suter or zach p but how do you know that they want a cup rather than about the money? most cup winning teams dont have overpaid players because they care about winning a cup and not about the money.
as much as we need defense and a winger i would trade to get defense and winger/center give that person a year or two before that player wants more money, give them the money and trade them to get better players because they play for money not winning for a championship.
You are having a serious cause and effect issue here. Over paying is bad not because these players for some dumb reason don't want to win, but because it affords you less cap space to improve the rest of the roster.
I tend to not like the long contracts as well. It is hard to compare some of these teams. Chicago won after having several years of high draft picks that hadn't reached their second contract yet. that is why they struggle now. They could not afford to keep all of their players.
Pittsburgh had 5 consecutive drafts with top 5 picks, and with two of those being Malkin and Crosby who could almost win cups without any help.
I think New Jersey and Detroit fall into a different category, because they actually try to develop talent and skill and tend to not make dumb signings or trades in general. for whatever reason, most teams don't follow their ideas of how to produce good hockey teams.
Since no team opts to act like Detroit or NJ (who both must have ties to the occult in order to achieve their success) I like the path of the Canes.
I got to see a lot of the Canes games that year, and they won by committee. Think about their playoffs - it was like a different player stepped up each round. Their defense was made up of six #3/4 d-men instead of having any real #1 or #6, which is how I would like the Flyers to go.
Instead of tying lots of money into Suter I would rather they get good serviceable d-man for a short term. This would allow the Flyers to keep their forwards when their contracts end, as well as resign Voracek.
that's what im saying, the flyers have to get rid of big contracts to sign any players in fa because they are close to the cap, so some moves have to be made.
This whole thread kinda makes me laugh. If you want top end players, you need to pay them like top end players - period. If not, you become like the Edmonton Oilers. Don't get me wrong, they're shaping up to have a nice looking core of players, but once they get good enough to demand some serious cash, unfortunately, many of them won't be playing in EDM anymore. EDM puts in bids on top players, but not high enough to get any of them to actually sign there and they have to end up over-paying just to retain their own players (see Ales Hemsky's latest deal).
You cite the contracts of JVR, Coburn, Richards, Carter as bad things? What's the alternative? Keep signing them to 1 or 2 yr deals until they have a massive year and then let them walk for nothing because at that point we can't afford them anymore? Then you don't even have assets to acquire similar players through trades like you suggest.
If you think Coburn or JVR's contract are a serious draw-back in their current trade value, I'd have to disagree. If Homer made JVR available, there would probably be 20+ teams seriously interested - despite his deal, which at this point is anything but a bargain.
Is it a gamble to sign them before they hit their potential? Absolutely! Is it worth it to have a player like Giroux signed at 3.75 for 2 more seasons rather than the 7-8 mil he could probably command on the open market?? I'd say so. You're not gonna win on every gamble, but I'd say more often than not it's absolutely worth the risk.
But paying for JVR's potential doesn't save money up front, it overpays in the short run in hopes he's worth it in the end. JVR is not worth a cap hit of $4.25 million right now
You're right. Thankfully his cap hit is only $1,654,166 right now.
I can't help but laugh at the title if this thread. No kidding its a bad idea to over pay players.
Not in every case. We were coming off finishing with the worst record in the league. We overpaid for Briere, Hartnell, and Timonen. We had to get better quickly, and overpaying for them was not bad at that point in time.
This whole thread kinda makes me laugh. If you want top end players, you need to pay them like top end players - period. If not, you become like the Edmonton Oilers. Don't get me wrong, they're shaping up to have a nice looking core of players, but once they get good enough to demand some serious cash, unfortunately, many of them won't be playing in EDM anymore. EDM puts in bids on top players, but not high enough to get any of them to actually sign there and they have to end up over-paying just to retain their own players (see Ales Hemsky's latest deal).
You cite the contracts of JVR, Coburn, Richards, Carter as bad things? What's the alternative? Keep signing them to 1 or 2 yr deals until they have a massive year and then let them walk for nothing because at that point we can't afford them anymore? Then you don't even have assets to acquire similar players through trades like you suggest.
If you think Coburn or JVR's contract are a serious draw-back in their current trade value, I'd have to disagree. If Homer made JVR available, there would probably be 20+ teams seriously interested - despite his deal, which at this point is anything but a bargain.
Is it a gamble to sign them before they hit their potential? Absolutely! Is it worth it to have a player like Giroux signed at 3.75 for 2 more seasons rather than the 7-8 mil he could probably command on the open market?? I'd say so. You're not gonna win on every gamble, but I'd say more often than not it's absolutely worth the risk.
that's good point, as long as they dont give out way too much money like 6-10 million a season and not give the no trade clause where they can trade them if they become busts then i would be fine with it.
