HFBoards

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

Arbitration ruining hockey

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-23-2006, 10:58 PM
  #51
znk
Registered User
 
znk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash13 View Post
I only went thru one of those threads and it was futile, and i am not going through the rest to prove a point. Nowhere did i say Koivu deserves the money he received because he for half a season put up a ppg. That is my problem, until you can find a quote from me saying that, you are talking out of your *** once again.

Again my arguments to why Koivu is paid the way he is, and the reason why Briere shouldn't are completely different. You can dig up threads that i posted in regarding Koivu, but they say exactly what i am saying today, good try though.
Dude read what I said earlier....What I said is. You are currently using the same kind of arguments against Brière that OTHER ppl are using against Koivu. I never mentioned you talking about Koivu. And I'm taking for granted that you dont agree with most of the anti koivu's on the board.
And when you asked for quotes I never understood that you wanted quotes from you...since I never said anything about you saying anything about Koivu.

Quote:
Originally Posted by znk View Post
It's funny you've been using exactly the same kind of arguments people use to diss Koivu.
I dont mention you talking about koivu.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash13 View Post
When and where, link me up....
No mention of quoting you specificaly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by znk View Post
You dont have to convince me about Koivu I like him. I'm just saying you're using the same arguments they use against Koivu.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash13 View Post
Again where are these arguments....
No mention of quoting you specificaly.
So I got quotes about what I was talking about in the first place...people dissing Koivu


Let me clarify.
I imagine you support Koivu.
Other people give arguments against Koivu.(hurt, small, never proved he could make the team win,not a leader,etc... etc..) all things I mostly disagree with.
I imagine you dont necessarily agree with these arguments either.

What I'm saying now is that you are using against Brière some of the same arguments they were using against Koivu. And I think that some of these arguments are equaly unjustified against Brière.

I was trying to make this one point in one short analogy.
So accuse me of talking out of my *** if you like. But who's not reading the other's posts?


Last edited by znk: 07-23-2006 at 11:09 PM.
znk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2006, 11:29 PM
  #52
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by znk View Post
Dude read what I said earlier....What I said is. You are currently using the same kind of arguments against Brière that OTHER ppl are using against Koivu. I never mentioned you talking about Koivu. And I'm taking for granted that you dont agree with most of the anti koivu's on the board.
And when you asked for quotes I never understood that you wanted quotes from you...since I never said anything about you saying anything about Koivu.

I dont mention you talking about koivu.

No mention of quoting you specificaly.



No mention of quoting you specificaly.
So I got quotes about what I was talking about in the first place...people dissing Koivu


Let me clarify.
I imagine you support Koivu.
Other people give arguments against Koivu.(hurt, small, never proved he could make the team win,not a leader,etc... etc..) all things I mostly disagree with.
I imagine you dont necessarily agree with these arguments either.

What I'm saying now is that you are using against Brière some of the same arguments they were using against Koivu. And I think that some of these arguments are equaly unjustified against Brière.

I was trying to make this one point in one short analogy.
So accuse me of talking out of my *** if you like. But who's not reading the other's posts?

Here it is again. My argument for Briere not getting 5 million is because he hasn't even proven he can sustain a ppg for an entire season like Tanguay, a guy who his salary was likely benchmarked on.

Some guys have probably used this argument against Koivu, but it really doesn't have anything to do with me considering, i never disagreed with them, and fire back the old, "well if you pro rate that over 82 games he'd have 100 points" type comment.

You are trying to make it look like i am being hypocritical when that is further from the truth.

Kirk Muller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2006, 11:53 PM
  #53
znk
Registered User
 
znk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash13 View Post
Here it is again. My argument for Briere not getting 5 million is because he hasn't even proven he can sustain a ppg for an entire season like Tanguay, a guy who his salary was likely benchmarked on.

Some guys have probably used this argument against Koivu, but it really doesn't have anything to do with me considering, i never disagreed with them, and fire back the old, "well if you pro rate that over 82 games he'd have 100 points" type comment.

You are trying to make it look like i am being hypocritical when that is further from the truth.
then what is that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash13 View Post
I only went thru one of those threads and it was futile, and i am not going through the rest to prove a point. Nowhere did i say Koivu deserves the money he received because he for half a season put up a ppg. That is my problem, until you can find a quote from me saying that, you are talking out of your *** once again.
Again my arguments to why Koivu is paid the way he is, and the reason why Briere shouldn't are completely different. You can dig up threads that i posted in regarding Koivu, but they say exactly what i am saying today, good try though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash13 View Post
Whats also pathetic is i go thru a couple of those threads and i didn't even post in them, and you are using them as proof of something i said.
It's like...no matter the fact that I said that I was quoting what others said about Koivu and not what you said...but what others said in all my posts....you keep on going like that. Please stop saying that I was quoting you I was quoting OTHERS. I just dont understand what these posts are about. Do you understand anything of what I'm saying? I really dont know how to make it more clear then in my previous post. I'm quite confused right now. And I thought it was a simple analogy when I used it. I didnt think I'd have to write a ****ing essay to try to explain it....and still not have it understood. I'm not talking about Brière or Koivu right now I've just been trying to explain to you over the last few posts that you thought I said is not what I said. Or at least that what you understood is not what was inteded.

If you are still convinced I was quoting you. Please show me the post where I did.

znk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 03:18 PM
  #54
toshiro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to toshiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by toshiro View Post
Before the lock out it was arbitration ruining hockey now it is doing the same. When a player like Briere is paid 5 million for 130 goals in 400 games it is obvious that salaries will be ratchet ed up by comparisons made to the highest comparabe even if figures for comparable based on impeneding free agency.
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL...01437-sun.html

toshiro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 03:34 PM
  #55
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,259
vCash: 500
Alarmist one-sided article.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 03:35 PM
  #56
habfan4
Registered User
 
habfan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Deus Amat Pretzel
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Alarmist one-sided article.
Which is so out of character for Steve Simmons

habfan4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 04:28 PM
  #57
toshiro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to toshiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Alarmist one-sided article.
Thats no argument.

toshiro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 04:51 PM
  #58
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,259
vCash: 500
Well, okay, I'll give you an argument then. But it seems like you've neglected to read many of the posts in this thread which have explained why your initial post (and this article) are nothing more than alarmist pieces.


Quote:
The NHL shut down for an entire season in a nasty fight over cost certainty and franchise stability. But today, little more than one year from the date of the settlement, there is reason to wonder if the troubles aren't starting all over again.
The NHL's goal was to get salaries in line with revenues. The NHL succeeded in its goal. The NHL's revenue exceeded its own expectations.

Now people are questioning whether the lockout was worth it? Why? Player salaries will always be in line with revenues now. It's not the league's responsibility to ensure every team and every General Manager acts responsibly, but that the environment is set up to ensure a financially healthy league in which every team can contribute.

And now people are making noise and complaining because Buffalo, with their 14-16 Free Agents all performing above their heads in contract seasons, are getting paid more than expected? Let me tell you: this was foreseeable. I was posting all over the place that Buffalo was in trouble in April and May. That's not to toot my own horn (OK, maybe a little), but more explaining that this situation was foreseeable and that Regier was, perhaps, not the genius he was made out to be. And that Buffalo was perhaps not the up-and-coming annual contender they were touted as becoming. And that having that many players in a contract year is just bad business.


Quote:
The very league that rolled back salaries, put in cost constraints, capped spending and fought for the little guy is being undermined by its own general managers and by a collective bargaining agreement that was supposed to protect both the competent and the incompetent.
But the bottom-line is that there is a cap on spending. And there is a cap on individual salaries. So the 'little guy' can still compete. They just need to be smart about it. Tell me: how badly was Carolina hurt this off-season? They had a good chunk of players needing renewals, too. The difference is that not many of them were arbitration-eligible, and Rutherford's managed that team in a fashion that draws out loyalty from its players.

Players will always be free to demand more than they've earned. And General Managers will always be free to accept or deny this overpayment. The fact that General Managers have occasionally chosen to accept to overpay for players like Mike York is not the league's concern. Mike York's contract will not change the fact that players salaries are in line with league revenue, and that the Buffalo Sabres, Carolina Hurricanes, and other small market franchises can now compete in this NHL.


Quote:
Last year, Briere's salary was cut, like everyone else's, by 24%.

Next year, he's in line for a raise of 163%.

Using a different vehicle, isn't this how the NHL got itself into trouble in the first place?
No. Just because Briere was underpaid previously and is now being paid closer to his real value is not why the NHL got into trouble.

Once again: the NHL got into trouble by not aligning player salaries with league revenue. Now that they're aligned, the league does not have the concerns it had before.


Yes, the arbitration process should be looked at. But that's a different concern altogether. It won't ruin the NHL. It won't make the rich richer and the poor poorer. It hurts all teams equally. This is not a problem that is on par with the NHL of old. I'm tired of alarmist pieces like this article claiming it's at all similar, or saying the lockout didn't accomplish a thing, when it clearly has based on this past season.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 05:00 PM
  #59
toshiro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to toshiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Well, okay, I'll give you an argument then. But it seems like you've neglected to read many of the posts in this thread which have explained why your initial post (and this article) are nothing more than alarmist pieces.




The NHL's goal was to get salaries in line with revenues. The NHL succeeded in its goal. The NHL's revenue exceeded its own expectations.

Now people are questioning whether the lockout was worth it? Why? Player salaries will always be in line with revenues now. It's not the league's responsibility to ensure every team and every General Manager acts responsibly, but that the environment is set up to ensure a financially healthy league in which every team can contribute.

And now people are making noise and complaining because Buffalo, with their 14-16 Free Agents all performing above their heads in contract seasons, are getting paid more than expected? Let me tell you: this was foreseeable. I was posting all over the place that Buffalo was in trouble in April and May. That's not to toot my own horn (OK, maybe a little), but more explaining that this situation was foreseeable and that Regier was, perhaps, not the genius he was made out to be. And that Buffalo was perhaps not the up-and-coming annual contender they were touted as becoming. And that having that many players in a contract year is just bad business.




But the bottom-line is that there is a cap on spending. And there is a cap on individual salaries. So the 'little guy' can still compete. They just need to be smart about it. Tell me: how badly was Carolina hurt this off-season? They had a good chunk of players needing renewals, too. The difference is that not many of them were arbitration-eligible, and Rutherford's managed that team in a fashion that draws out loyalty from its players.

Players will always be free to demand more than they've earned. And General Managers will always be free to accept or deny this overpayment. The fact that General Managers have occasionally chosen to accept to overpay for players like Mike York is not the league's concern. Mike York's contract will not change the fact that players salaries are in line with league revenue, and that the Buffalo Sabres, Carolina Hurricanes, and other small market franchises can now compete in this NHL.




No. Just because Briere was underpaid previously and is now being paid closer to his real value is not why the NHL got into trouble.

Once again: the NHL got into trouble by not aligning player salaries with league revenue. Now that they're aligned, the league does not have the concerns it had before.


Yes, the arbitration process should be looked at. But that's a different concern altogether. It won't ruin the NHL. It won't make the rich richer and the poor poorer. It hurts all teams equally. This is not a problem that is on par with the NHL of old. I'm tired of alarmist pieces like this article claiming it's at all similar, or saying the lockout didn't accomplish a thing, when it clearly has based on this past season.
They wont be smart about it ON OCCASION and it is those times that will be used as comparables ratcheting up the costs so that teams will have to walk away. Teams will lose players and players will move. There will be more free agency so teams will be less rewarded for drafting and developing well. With FAs not wanting to come to Montreal this will impact the Habs. If Zhogi scores 35 goals can the Habs afford him at 5 million????? He is playing where he wants after declared FA.

toshiro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 06:01 PM
  #60
toshiro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to toshiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by toshiro View Post
They wont be smart about it ON OCCASION and it is those times that will be used as comparables ratcheting up the costs so that teams will have to walk away. Teams will lose players and players will move. There will be more free agency so teams will be less rewarded for drafting and developing well. With FAs not wanting to come to Montreal this will impact the Habs. If Zhogi scores 35 goals can the Habs afford him at 5 million????? He is playing where he wants after declared FA.
Whenever a decision is made by someone else you cant be smart about the decision as it is made by someone else. Many of the spending decisions will be made by arbitrators using a small number of comparables either ratcheting up costs for certain players or creating free agency by the team walking away.

toshiro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 06:05 PM
  #61
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toshiro View Post
They wont be smart about it ON OCCASION and it is those times that will be used as comparables ratcheting up the costs so that teams will have to walk away. Teams will lose players and players will move. There will be more free agency so teams will be less rewarded for drafting and developing well. With FAs not wanting to come to Montreal this will impact the Habs. If Zhogi scores 35 goals can the Habs afford him at 5 million????? He is playing where he wants after declared FA.
So are these the same concerns as we had in the old NHL, or are they different? Do you get what I'm saying here? These are different concerns altogether. This concern hurts every team equally. Every team is in the same boat. Meaning it will not have any slippery-slope, like the old NHL had with regards to contracts, and it will not benefit any specific team.

Teams that are good drafters will still be in a stronger position because they'll collect more asset and have them at cheaper prices for a good 2-4 years before they hit arbitration age. This is still a necessity and still an integral ingredient to building a successful club--it's just got a shorter timespan than in the past.

-

As for FAs not wanting to come to Montreal, that's a bunch of unsubstantiated nonsense that should have been disproven since Samsonov and Kovalev both signed here as UFAs over the last two offseasons--and Huet, Koivu (UFA-to-be) signed here too.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 06:06 PM
  #62
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toshiro View Post
Whenever a decision is made by someone else you cant be smart about the decision as it is made by someone else. Many of the spending decisions will be made by arbitrators using a small number of comparables either ratcheting up costs for certain players or creating free agency by the team walking away.
So then the teams have the option to walk away. They have an option. Case-closed.

This is not the same concern as the old NHL. Comparisons between this concern and old-NHL concerns should not be made.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 06:11 PM
  #63
toshiro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to toshiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by toshiro View Post
Whenever a decision is made by someone else you cant be smart about the decision as it is made by someone else. Many of the spending decisions will be made by arbitrators using a small number of comparables either ratcheting up costs for certain players or creating free agency by the team walking away.
And with more free agent movement some teams will bid eg Kubina. Costs will be tied to revenue but there will be either more player movement or players paid more than market because of the ratcheting. The very poor teams will have costs driven up by ratcheting as well so conceptually all teams will be equalized and less measure
of reward for drafting etc.

toshiro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 06:12 PM
  #64
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,259
vCash: 500
This is sort of peculiar how you're responding to your own posts.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 06:13 PM
  #65
toshiro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to toshiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
So are these the same concerns as we had in the old NHL, or are they different? Do you get what I'm saying here? These are different concerns altogether. This concern hurts every team equally. Every team is in the same boat. Meaning it will not have any slippery-slope, like the old NHL had with regards to contracts, and it will not benefit any specific team.

Teams that are good drafters will still be in a stronger position because they'll collect more asset and have them at cheaper prices for a good 2-4 years before they hit arbitration age. This is still a necessity and still an integral ingredient to building a successful club--it's just got a shorter timespan than in the past.

-

As for FAs not wanting to come to Montreal, that's a bunch of unsubstantiated nonsense that should have been disproven since Samsonov and Kovalev both signed here as UFAs over the last two offseasons--and Huet, Koivu (UFA-to-be) signed here too.
Kovalev and Sammy were second tier. Would a Lecav or a Luongo head for Montreal?? They didnt set it up so they could did they????? Thats substantiation.
Hard evidence.

toshiro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 06:14 PM
  #66
toshiro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to toshiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
This is sort of peculiar how you're responding to your own posts.
I like it.

toshiro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 06:15 PM
  #67
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toshiro View Post
And with more free agent movement some teams will bid eg Kubina. Costs will be tied to revenue but there will be either more player movement or players paid more than market because of the ratcheting. The very poor teams will have costs driven up by ratcheting as well so conceptually all teams will be equalized and less measure
of reward for drafting etc.
Again, this means that more movement will be an inevitability. But we already knew this when the CBA was signed.

Because salaries are tied to revenues, and because of the revenue sharing, no team will be very poor, and no team will be at a real disadvantage.

The teams that are good at the draft table will still gain more assets and hold those assets for dirt-cheap prices for several years.

There's no reason teams should be able to hold a player 'captive' until they're of X age as has been the case forever in hockey. It doesn't happen in any other profession.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 06:19 PM
  #68
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toshiro View Post
Kovalev and Sammy were second tier. Would a Lecav or a Luongo head for Montreal?? They didnt set it up so they could did they????? Thats substantiation.
Hard evidence.
That's not hard evidence. Hard evidence would be Luongo or Lecavalier saying: "Under no circumstances would I be caught dead signing in Montreal."

It's faulty logic to say: "well, gee, Luongo didn't become a UFA so he must really not want to play in Montreal."

By the same token, you could say: "Luongo had an opportunity to sign with us down here in Boston, if he had just signed a one-year deal. But he chose not to. I take this to mean Luongo hates Boston and would never sign here."


Kovalev and Samsonov may have been 'second tier' by your standards, but they're still legitimate stars in the NHL. If not stars, then borderline stars. And they've both signed in Montreal. This is indeed substantiated, hard evidence that disproves any notion that players do not want to come and play in Montreal.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 06:36 PM
  #69
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toshiro View Post
Before the lock out it was arbitration ruining hockey now it is doing the same. When a player like Briere is paid 5 million for 130 goals in 400 games it is obvious that salaries will be ratchet ed up by comparisons made to the highest comparabe even if figures for comparable based on impeneding free agency.
1. Who cares, it isn't your money.
2. The team can walk away from an arbritation settlement, and let the player seek employment with another team via Free Agency. Salaray Arbritration isn't a binding contract, only a ruling if the team wants to keep him.

Habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 07:00 PM
  #70
toshiro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to toshiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Again, this means that more movement will be an inevitability. But we already knew this when the CBA was signed.

Because salaries are tied to revenues, and because of the revenue sharing, no team will be very poor, and no team will be at a real disadvantage.

The teams that are good at the draft table will still gain more assets and hold those assets for dirt-cheap prices for several years.

There's no reason teams should be able to hold a player 'captive' until they're of X age as has been the case forever in hockey. It doesn't happen in any other profession.
Ratcheting will lead to walking away means free agency which means loss of assets

toshiro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 07:02 PM
  #71
toshiro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to toshiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
That's not hard evidence. Hard evidence would be Luongo or Lecavalier saying: "Under no circumstances would I be caught dead signing in Montreal."

It's faulty logic to say: "well, gee, Luongo didn't become a UFA so he must really not want to play in Montreal."

By the same token, you could say: "Luongo had an opportunity to sign with us down here in Boston, if he had just signed a one-year deal. But he chose not to. I take this to mean Luongo hates Boston and would never sign here."


Kovalev and Samsonov may have been 'second tier' by your standards, but they're still legitimate stars in the NHL. If not stars, then borderline stars. And they've both signed in Montreal. This is indeed substantiated, hard evidence that disproves any notion that players do not want to come and play in Montreal.
Lecav and Luongo could have set it up to be free agents quicker. Face it Mo0ntreal isnt the first choice. What people say is usually BS in the press thats no evidence.

toshiro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 07:03 PM
  #72
toshiro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to toshiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs View Post
1. Who cares, it isn't your money.
2. The team can walk away from an arbritation settlement, and let the player seek employment with another team via Free Agency. Salaray Arbritration isn't a binding contract, only a ruling if the team wants to keep him.
When the Habs overpay or lose assets I care.

toshiro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 07:57 PM
  #73
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toshiro View Post
When the Habs overpay or lose assets I care.
Which player did we go to arbritration with that you are disappointed about?

Habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 08:24 PM
  #74
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toshiro View Post
Lecav and Luongo could have set it up to be free agents quicker. Face it Mo0ntreal isnt the first choice. What people say is usually BS in the press thats no evidence.
This makes no sense at all. While I agree most media content is nonsense, if a player comes out and states that under no circumstances would they sign in Montreal--that is hard evidence! That is the only hard evidence you could get for your unsubstantiated opinion that's been proven wrong a number of times by facts and reality (see: Kovalev, Samsonov, Koivu, Huet).

The fact that you insist on claiming Lecavalier and Luongo don't want to play in Montreal because they didn't set themselves up for unrestricted free agency to play in Montreal is such backwards, twisted, delusional logic that I'm at a loss for words.

Do you like the Montreal Canadiens? If so, why don't you live in Montreal so you can go attend Hab games? Seems to me if you really liked the team you'd live here.

See the logic? No? Then that's about on par with your claim regarding Luongo and Lecavalier.


By the way, I find it equally illogical but still amusing that this entire spiel about players not wanting to play in Montreal comes in the same breath as you claiming the media is mostly BS. It's amusing since that entire speech was propelled directly by the media.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2006, 08:26 PM
  #75
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toshiro View Post
Ratcheting will lead to walking away means free agency which means loss of assets
Which means consistent good drafting is important.

Rinse and repeat.

Mike8 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 05:01 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.