HFBoards

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

DiPietro Discussion Thread Part II (Post 746 **Placed on Waivers**)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-22-2012, 08:34 PM
  #401
Giuseppe Franco
Registered User
 
Giuseppe Franco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Ivan View Post
Hindsight is 20/20.

The only reason it is a horrible contract is because of Rick's injuries and being injury prone.

If Rick was putting together 35 win seasons? 40 win season? (He had back to back seasons of 30 & 32 wins. Nothing overly amazing, I know.)

If Rick was putting up 35-40 win seasons it would be one of the better contracts in the history of the NHL.
The problem is you can't praise Wang for saying it would have been a great contract IF Ricky lived up to his potential but then also say it's not fair to bash Wang because Ricky did not. Everyone knew it was a high-risk/high-reward deal at the time and unfortunately for us we got burned. Wang must take the blame for that.

Giuseppe Franco is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 10:14 PM
  #402
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 15,801
vCash: 500
If Rich Kromm scored 40 goals regularly, the Tonelli trade would have been one of the best trades ever. So yeah, I see your point. If Rick put up 40 win seasons regularly, it would have been one of the best contracts ever. But he signed after several injuries and his unorthidox style which combined with massive weight training could only lead to disaster (which I said years ago and knew he'd be an injured gimp if you go back to my posts around 2002).

But yeah, if Rick won 40 games instead of sitting 80, he'd be a great contract. And going back to 2002, six goalie coaches could not get him to play smarter. No trainer could convince him to rest long enough. So....stupid contract for Meathead. How do you say "Meathead" in German?

OlTimeHockey is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 11:09 PM
  #403
88th Precinct
Pitchfork Acquired
 
88th Precinct's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Location
Country: Spain
Posts: 3,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlTimeHockey View Post
How do you say "Meathead" in German?
Fleischkopf?

88th Precinct is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 09:33 AM
  #404
A Pointed Stick
Spend? Of Course!
 
A Pointed Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Ivan View Post
Hindsight is 20/20.

The only reason it is a horrible contract is because of Rick's injuries and being injury prone.

If Rick was putting together 35 win seasons? 40 win season? (He had back to back seasons of 30 & 32 wins. Nothing overly amazing, I know.)

If Rick was putting up 35-40 win seasons it would be one of the better contracts in the history of the NHL.
Hindsight for some. Hindsight for me is just as accurate as it was when I disliked the contract in the beginning. I'd say half of our fellow fans saw it as a completely unnecessary & highly risky gamble simply because of the way the Yashin contract unfolded. That's not hindsight. That's having a memory with a half life longer than a fruit fly's.

A Pointed Stick is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 06:11 PM
  #405
leaponover
Registered User
 
leaponover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Iskan, S. Korea
Country: South Korea
Posts: 2,496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Ivan View Post
Hindsight is 20/20.

The only reason it is a horrible contract is because of Rick's injuries and being injury prone.

If Rick was putting together 35 win seasons? 40 win season? (He had back to back seasons of 30 & 32 wins. Nothing overly amazing, I know.)

If Rick was putting up 35-40 win seasons it would be one of the better contracts in the history of the NHL.
I agree with you. Despite people on here claiming the are soothsayers (i looked, they are not) it definitely was a risk/reward contract. What people tend to disregard here due to their jaded pessimism is the fact that even contracts that seem good can go sour. Look at Luongo's. He can't win in the playoffs and even though he puts up great regular season numbers Vancouver is looking to get out of that contract ASAP. So any contract in reality becomes risk/reward.

leaponover is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 07:45 PM
  #406
beach
Things are looking
 
beach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: here
Country: United States
Posts: 1,752
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to beach
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaponover View Post
What people tend to disregard here due to their jaded pessimism is the fact that even contracts that seem good can go sour.
This contract never looked good.

beach is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 04:40 AM
  #407
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 15,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beach View Post
This contract never looked good.
Ever. And I believe I posted on another board way back when, one very lame board. "Soothsayer" I am not, just someone who saw a bad technique and stupid training with a lousy attitude. Sorry. He's still peachy, just let him be peachy on another continent. Really.

When was he worth $4.5M? One year? Maybe, if overpaid. Look at comps that year.

OlTimeHockey is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 05:18 AM
  #408
88th Precinct
Pitchfork Acquired
 
88th Precinct's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Location
Country: Spain
Posts: 3,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaponover View Post
I agree with you. Despite people on here claiming the are soothsayers (i looked, they are not) it definitely was a risk/reward contract. What people tend to disregard here due to their jaded pessimism is the fact that even contracts that seem good can go sour. Look at Luongo's. He can't win in the playoffs and even though he puts up great regular season numbers Vancouver is looking to get out of that contract ASAP. So any contract in reality becomes risk/reward.
Had it been 4 years or even 8, it would have looked okay. The length always made it an odd contract - and believe me, I don't think I'm being pessimistic about DP - just realistic.

I'm going to give both sides - the unfrosted shredded wheat side and the frosted sugary side. Regardless of any reasons why, regardless of injuries, contract length - everything: W

e have a goalie on the books for $4.5 million that currently is having trouble in a league he should be dominating in.

We're paying a guy whose status and attention gumming up the depth chart and he can't even hack it in a European B-league.

Personally, I'm happy with him right where he is, and I hope he either gets his game back up to par or decides to retire while in Germany. It isn't that I don't have faith in his efforts - just his body....and regardless of outcome, he's not hindering the depth chart in Germany as he would in Bridgeport or Long Island/Brooklyn where DP overcoming injuries and testing his body could cost the team points. He either starts flying straight for Riessersee and returns to form, warranting a shot again over here, where he'll have to work his way up the depth chart like anyone else (and it can be speculated that he's not had to fight for it before), or his problems continue and either he or the Islanders decide that the comeback is over.

There's no hate/jadedness/pessimism in that; only that I want my team to have the best chance to succeed, and dressing for an average of 12 games over the last 4 seasons absolutely does not say 'best chance to me.' As far as Nilsson and Poulin are concerned, both currently are casualties of weak defense, which the Isles won't suffer from in a season or two if the NHL still exists, and they're both close. Seeing which is better is the safer bet, the cleaner slate and the smarter move. I don't wish hell on DP, he's had enough and it's sad to see it happen as it has.....I just want him to get better or get at peace with an impending end to his career without slowing the progression of a team that is now close to having assembled the talent to win, and only needs to learn how to keep winning on a regular basis. That's tough enough without a goalie with a body you can't trust.

88th Precinct is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 11:18 AM
  #409
Mr Wentworth
Arch Duke of Raleigh
 
Mr Wentworth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 4,916
vCash: 500
I'm feeling the need to clear my name!

I'm not a big DP supporter.
Even before he became 2021, I wasn't sold on him.
I had hopes.
He had a few decent seasons...

BUT...
Yes, he didn't overtly earn the contract.

Perhaps a 5 year contract and then a 10 year?

Mr Wentworth is offline  
Old
12-26-2012, 10:10 AM
  #410
Veteran journeyman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 379
vCash: 500
I don't see any of this as Monday-morning quarterbacking or hindsight 20/20. There were plenty of folks who said this contract was too risky when it was signed. There were many, many reasons why a 15-year contract to a goaltender could have went bad, and maybe those people did not specifically pinpoint the exact circumstances that unfolded, but it all falls under the "too risky" umbrella. Those defending the contract shrugged off the risks by saying "we'll see." Well, we saw. The doubters are well within their rights to offer up a little "told you so" on this one.

Veteran journeyman is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 03:55 PM
  #411
JTforPres2012
Registered User
 
JTforPres2012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,019
vCash: 500
Read DP tore hammy going up a flight of stairs. Any truth to this or all in good fun?

JTforPres2012 is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 04:41 PM
  #412
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veteran journeyman View Post
I don't see any of this as Monday-morning quarterbacking or hindsight 20/20. There were plenty of folks who said this contract was too risky when it was signed. There were many, many reasons why a 15-year contract to a goaltender could have went bad, and maybe those people did not specifically pinpoint the exact circumstances that unfolded, but it all falls under the "too risky" umbrella. Those defending the contract shrugged off the risks by saying "we'll see." Well, we saw. The doubters are well within their rights to offer up a little "told you so" on this one.
"Told you so" would be if Dipietro ended up a average goalie without the injuries. If somebody had a problem with 15 years(which is a fair argument) in fear the player might be injured and become a shell of what he was, then they should be saying this to every 10+ year deal

boredmale is online now  
Old
12-31-2012, 05:03 PM
  #413
JTforPres2012
Registered User
 
JTforPres2012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTforPres2012 View Post
Read DP tore hammy going up a flight of stairs. Any truth to this or all in good fun?
Was a joke, my apologies. Quite sad i believed it for a bit haha

JTforPres2012 is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 11:38 PM
  #414
InformTheMasses
Registered User
 
InformTheMasses's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,763
vCash: 500
Well he isn't playing right now, maybe he's just home for the holidays, but Rick was one of 6 players involved in Mondays Labor talks per ESPN

"Six players participated in Monday's session: Martin St. Louis, Shane Doan, Ron Hainsey, Chris Campoli, Jamal Mayers and Rick DiPietro."

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/87...s-talk-tuesday

InformTheMasses is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 07:17 AM
  #415
onesinceforty
Registered User
 
onesinceforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformTheMasses View Post
Well he isn't playing right now, maybe he's just home for the holidays, but Rick was one of 6 players involved in Mondays Labor talks per ESPN

"Six players participated in Monday's session: Martin St. Louis, Shane Doan, Ron Hainsey, Chris Campoli, Jamal Mayers and Rick DiPietro."

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/87...s-talk-tuesday
I wonder which way he is trying to steer the conversation in that whole buyout provision portion of the talks?????

onesinceforty is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 01:57 PM
  #416
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 15,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onesinceforty View Post
I wonder which way he is trying to steer the conversation in that whole buyout provision portion of the talks?????

OlTimeHockey is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 03:02 PM
  #417
blinkman360
Back to Basics
 
blinkman360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Guido Central
Country: United States
Posts: 8,876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlTimeHockey View Post
If Rich Kromm scored 40 goals regularly, the Tonelli trade would have been one of the best trades ever. So yeah, I see your point. If Rick put up 40 win seasons regularly, it would have been one of the best contracts ever. But he signed after several injuries and his unorthidox style which combined with massive weight training could only lead to disaster (which I said years ago and knew he'd be an injured gimp if you go back to my posts around 2002).

But yeah, if Rick won 40 games instead of sitting 80, he'd be a great contract. And going back to 2002, six goalie coaches could not get him to play smarter. No trainer could convince him to rest long enough. So....stupid contract for Meathead. How do you say "Meathead" in German?
Meathead seems a bit harsh. Again, not sure what the guy has done except get hurt and not retire. Hard to trash him for that. I know some people called him cocky, but from what I remember most of the cockiness was post-draft, when he was 18-20 years old.

As far as everything else, I would blame the front office/ownership for the whole situation. I suppose they could have changed his style a bit, but didn't they draft him because they thought he could "revolutionize" the goaltender position? What would be the point of sticking an anchor on him considering his goaltending qualities themselves were never good enough alone to put him in the elite, Henrik Lundqvist category. He was a solid goalie pre-injury, but his goaltending abilities + his ability to play the puck is what could have made him great. IMO, it would have gone against everything(trading away Luongo and drafting Ricky instead of Gaborik/Heatley) had they tried to eliminate or even limit that aspect of his game.

Regardless, the contract never made sense. Even if he had no injury history, it wouldn't have made sense. Even if he was Lundqvist, it wouldn't have made sense. 15-year contracts really shouldn't even be discussed, much less offered.

blinkman360 is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 09:59 PM
  #418
A Pointed Stick
Spend? Of Course!
 
A Pointed Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredmale View Post
"Told you so" would be if Dipietro ended up a average goalie without the injuries. If somebody had a problem with 15 years(which is a fair argument) in fear the player might be injured and become a shell of what he was, then they should be saying this to every 10+ year deal
I am against them except in very rare instances (Crosby, for example.) Too many things can go wrong with the top of the list being the player losing his desire to succeed. With shorter term contracts there is always the need to do better for your next contract. If you take that away you might get an unmotivated player. Vinny L. leaps to mind for that reason.

A Pointed Stick is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 11:28 AM
  #419
Steve55
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,495
vCash: 500
https://twitter.com/BDGallof/status/286884050394828802

As source said: "Could be wrong, but I don't see it" on DP being bought out by #isles

Let's hope Wang the contract lengths are limited to between 7 and 8 years IF this is the case.

Steve55 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 12:38 PM
  #420
Kevin27nyi
Global Moderator
Captain Tavares
 
Kevin27nyi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 9,134
vCash: 50
https://twitter.com/StapeNewsday/sta...70299335614464

Arthur also doesn't believe they will buy him out. Seems to me like these are personal opinions.

I disagree, not because I want it to happen but for business reasons.

First and foremost- Wang saves money. Insurance has run up and now Wang is on the hook. A buyout saves him money in the long run. He did it to Yashin, he can do it to DP. And finally, you can't go into BK with DP.

Kevin27nyi is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 01:01 PM
  #421
Steve55
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,495
vCash: 500
https://twitter.com/Proteautype/stat...02655048105985

No, they can't claw back long-term deals. They can buy those deals out, but they're on the books as-is.

IF Wang has is not delusional, he better buy out DP

Steve55 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 02:03 PM
  #422
OpAck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wilmington, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,236
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin27NYI View Post
https://twitter.com/StapeNewsday/sta...70299335614464

Arthur also doesn't believe they will buy him out. Seems to me like these are personal opinions.

I disagree, not because I want it to happen but for business reasons.

First and foremost- Wang saves money. Insurance has run up and now Wang is on the hook. A buyout saves him money in the long run. He did it to Yashin, he can do it to DP. And finally, you can't go into BK with DP.
Agreed.

For business reasons alone...he needs to be bought out. He'll still be under contract 6 years beyond the move to Brooklyn. And if what we hear is true about his time in Germany...his performance has been downright terrible these last 5 seasons and each one has ended with injuries...mainly chronic knee swelling in a twice surgically repaired knee. He's suffered at least 4 concussions over his career...and has had numerous other surgeries on his hips and other knee. This was all before he signed that contract and there's ZERO chance he can live up to the terms of that contract (which are that he is an elite starting netminder). It's an opportunity to just cut the losses and let him loose.

This team cannot risk going into the playoffs with him backing up a starting netminder. You absolutely cannot rely on him to take this team on his back when called upon during critical games. That is, unless they're content on carrying 3 goalies...but it's already been demonstrated how difficult that is for the other goalies.

I suspect Snow knows this and probably wants Rick to just retire or get the buyout. I'm sure he's quite aware of what the manager over in Germany was saying about him. And judging by Snow's comments with regards to netminders since late last year...he seems focused on Nabby and then letting Nilsson/Poulin battle it out. Rick doesn't seem to be in his plans...and if he's serious about winning, Rick will need to go.

OpAck is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 02:38 PM
  #423
Wedregast
Registered User
 
Wedregast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 909
vCash: 500
A buyout would be a gift for DP to be honest. Isn't it 2/3's of the remaining money owed? Wang does him a favor if that is the case.
What happened in Germany to DP, shows he can't even play anymore, he truly is Glass Joe. 1 game, and then they bench him? A buyout would be a gift to him, and I can see Wang doing it.

He might be friends with DP, he might only be a team owner to him... either way it makes sense for him to buy him out.

Dear god, I hope it happens. It should happen. It makes sense for it. But it is Wang after all.

Please buy DP out! Let us move forward an inch without DP ruining 2-3 games per year on his yearly comeback-before-the-predictable-injury!!!

Wedregast is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:20 PM
  #424
Homeland Security
Mod Supervisor
#beLIeve
 
Homeland Security's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY/FL
Country: United States
Posts: 14,382
vCash: 500
I wonder if Wang is hoping insurance would pay DP rather than buy him out????

__________________
Homeland Security is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:26 PM
  #425
blitzkriegs
Registered User
 
blitzkriegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Beach & Mtn & Island
Posts: 8,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 Min Misconduct View Post
I wonder if Wang is hoping insurance would pay DP rather than buy him out????
Bingo! This is what Wang wants. So does DP, because DP gets 100% of his contract, not 2/3s with the buyout. DP needs to prove he cant play due to injury to get insurance to pay. He and Wang both benefit from this. Wang is off the hook for paying for it, it's also off the isles books (unlike Yashin), and DP gets full value.

blitzkriegs 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 07:20 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.