HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Notices

Brian Burke: "The Toronto Maple Leafs intend to be careful with salaries and term."

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-25-2009, 12:47 PM
  #51
NoamHemsky
Registered User
 
NoamHemsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by embracedbias View Post
Would you say the same of J. Staal? What are some examples of teams that he would be THE go-to guy (other than Toronto)?
I would say almost all of them, although there are always exceptions.

As of next year he will be the 3rd highest paid forward on the Pens. So on that team, not only is he receive loads of ice-time, indicating he has the confidence of the coach, he is getting paid a fairly significant chunk of change as well.

NoamHemsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2009, 12:56 PM
  #52
NoamHemsky
Registered User
 
NoamHemsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
The forward with the most ice time on Chicago is Sami Pahlsson, but I would venture to guess there are better forwards on that team and he wouldn't be a top forward in the true sense on any other team in the NHL.

Jordan Staal is third in ice time on Pittsburgh, but I don't think he would be considered a first liner on many teams at this stage of his career.

On Vancouver, it's Alex Burrows, and he gets more ice time than Daniel Sedin. Is he a leading forward? Not at all.
Sammy Pahlsson may be an exception, but I could (and would argue) that he is certainly one of the their top core players, on an extremely young team I might add, based on his abilities and experience. In a coaches eyes that makes him a go-to player.

Coach Q also seem to like to roll 4 lines and even out the ice-time more than most. Their young stars barely crack the 16 minute mark average. Whereas a guy like Getzlaf in Anaheim is up over 20. With that in mind, it's easy to see how Pahlsson's versatility and experience lands him on the ice more than any other forward.

Does that make him a first liner? Sure, why not?

As for Burrows, how does a a guy almost score 30 goals and put up a 150 Pims in an agitating role not get consideration for 1st line duties?

He can play on my top line any day of the week.

NoamHemsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2009, 01:00 PM
  #53
Squiffy
Victims, rn't we all
 
Squiffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Take Franzen's contract for example:

5.50 5.00 5.25 5.25 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.50 2.00 1.00 1.00

If after 8 years they decide to buy his last 3 seasons out, wouldn't the cap hit be two thirds of the $4 million left, spread out over 6 years, or $444,444 per year. If so, in 2017/18 to 2022/23 dollars that would be negligable.

Additionally, if he were still a serviceable player, a small market team that wants to meet the minimum cap level without actually paying out the dollars might be quite interested in his services via a trade.

Then of course there's the scenario you mentioned where they bury the player in the minors to remove the cap hit to the big club. Once again because it's front loaded, there wouldn't be a huge pasting to the minor league clubs bottom line.

It's essentially a work around to the cap, and I expect to see more contracts like it in the years ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweatypickle View Post
If Franzen were bought out with 3 years remaining his cap hit would be..

1st year: $2,394,444
2nd year: $3,394,444
3rd year: $3,394,444
4th year: $444,444
5th year: $444,444
6th year: $444,444
I almost get the same Pickle..
1st year: $2,398,989
2nd year: $3,398,989
3rd year: $3,398,989
4th year: $444,444
5th year: $444,444
6th year: $444,444

If we reversed Franzens contract so that it was backloaded (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5.25, 5.25, 5, 5.5) and bought him out of the last three years, we'd get:

1st year: $454,545
2nd year: $704,545
3rd year: $204,545
4th year: $1,750,000
5th year: $1,750,000
6th year: $1,750,000

Higher cap hit later on, but over the six years the front loaded contract eats $10,530,300 worth of cap space compared to $6,613,635 for the backloaded contract.

You're quite right in regards to having the flexibility to more easily move the player in a trade with the small real dollar amount paid out in the later years though Shrike. The backloaded concept is something I don't expect to see, it's impractical in actual contracts to players in many regards, IMO. More of a theoretical concept. I suppose if you had made the decision that you were more then likely going to buy the player out, you could try to backload it, but what player and agent in their right mind would sign a contract like that?

__________________
bWo: If you don't know, you should know... Buds WORLD Order Constitution
Adj: "Squiffy" - stupefied by a chemical substance (esp. alcohol)

R.I.P. Darryl buddy... it was too soon.. too soon
Squiffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2009, 01:22 PM
  #54
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 30,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoamHemsky View Post
Sammy Pahlsson may be an exception, but I could (and would argue) that he is certainly one of the their top core players, on an extremely young team I might add, based on his abilities and experience. In a coaches eyes that makes him a go-to player.

Coach Q also seem to like to roll 4 lines and even out the ice-time more than most. Their young stars barely crack the 16 minute mark average. Whereas a guy like Getzlaf in Anaheim is up over 20. With that in mind, it's easy to see how Pahlsson's versatility and experience lands him on the ice more than any other forward.

Does that make him a first liner? Sure, why not?

As for Burrows, how does a a guy almost score 30 goals and put up a 150 Pims in an agitating role not get consideration for 1st line duties?

He can play on my top line any day of the week.
I don't think you'd want to be running a team where either Pahlsson and Burrows is your best player. They're effective players but you don't want them leading the way, and getting the big bucks.

Stephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2009, 01:22 PM
  #55
embracedbias
Registered User
 
embracedbias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Waterloo
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoamHemsky View Post
I would say almost all of them, although there are always exceptions.

As of next year he will be the 3rd highest paid forward on the Pens. So on that team, not only is he receive loads of ice-time, indicating he has the confidence of the coach, he is getting paid a fairly significant chunk of change as well.
Seriously? When I said "THE go-to guy" I meant the best forward.

Anaheim -- No
Atlanta -- No
Boston -- No
Buffalo -- No (Roy)
Calgary -- No
Carolina -- No
Chicago -- No
Colorado -- Yes? (Hejduk, Smyth, Stasny - possibilities)
Columbus -- No
Dallas -- No (Richards, Rebeiro)
Edmonton -- Possibly (Hemsky )
Florida -- Yes? (Weiss, Booth, Horton - possibilities)
LA -- No (Kopitar)
Minnesota -- No (Koivu)
Montreal -- Yes! (they suck )
Nashville -- Yes (Arnott, Dumont - possibilities)
NYI -- Yes (unless Okposo gets that much better)
NYR -- Yes? (Gomez, Drury, Zherdev - possibilites)
New Jersey -- No
Ottawa -- No
Pittsburgh -- No
Philadelphia -- No
Phoenix -- No (Doan)
San Jose -- No
St Louis -- No (Boyes)
Tampa Bay -- No
Toronto -- Yes
Vancouver -- No (if the Sedins are resigned.. yes otherwise)
Washington -- No

So, from where I sit, Franzen is the go-to guy 8 out of 30 are possibilities. But that is with me being quite liberal. Few are resounding yes'..


Last edited by embracedbias: 05-25-2009 at 03:36 PM.
embracedbias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2009, 02:25 PM
  #56
NoamHemsky
Registered User
 
NoamHemsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by embracedbias View Post
Seriously? When I said "THE go-to guy" I meant the best forward.

Anaheim -- No
Atlanta -- No
Boston -- No
Buffalo -- No (Roy)
Calgary -- No
Carolina -- No
Chicago -- No
Colorado -- Yes? (Hejduk, Smyth, Stasny - possibilities)
Columbus -- No
Dallas -- No (Richards, Rebeiro)
Edmonton -- Possibly (Hemsky )
Florida -- Yes? (Weiss, Booth, Horton - possibilities)
LA -- No (Kopitar)
Minnesota -- No (Koivu)
Montreal -- Yes! (they suck )
Nashville -- Yes (Arnott, Dumont - possibilities)
NYI -- Yes (unless Okposo gets that much better)
NYR -- Yes? (Gomez, Drury, Zherdev - possibilites)
New Jersey -- No
Ottawa -- No
Pittsburgh -- No
Philadelphia -- No
Phoenix -- No (Doan)
San Jose -- No
St Louis -- No (Boyes)
Tampa Bay -- No
Toronto -- Yes
Vancouver -- No (if the Sedins are resigned.. yes otherwise)
Washington -- No

So, from where I sit, 8 out of 30 are possibilities. But that is with me being quite liberal. Few are resounding yes'..
Well, considering you are not a GM of all these teams, excuse me if I take your opinion with a grain of salt, as I'm sure you will with mine.

Needless to say, when a player like Staal or Franzen consistently get top ice-time on top teams (looks like they will both meet in the finals for the second consecutive year) I find it pretty hard to believe other teams wouldn't find them just as useful given the right circumstances.

NoamHemsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2009, 02:54 PM
  #57
embracedbias
Registered User
 
embracedbias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Waterloo
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoamHemsky View Post
Well, considering you are not a GM of all these teams, excuse me if I take your opinion with a grain of salt, as I'm sure you will with mine.

Needless to say, when a player like Staal or Franzen consistently get top ice-time on top teams (looks like they will both meet in the finals for the second consecutive year) I find it pretty hard to believe other teams wouldn't find them just as useful given the right circumstances.
That goes without saying.

There seems to be some confusion. I was asking about whether he would be "THE" go-to guy not "A" go-to guy. On Detroit he is "A" go-to guy... "THE" go-to guy is Datsyuk and/or Zetterberg. What I thought you were talking about is whether or not Franzen could be to other teams what Datsyuk and Zetterberg are to Detroit. In other words, could Franzen be "THE" go-to guy (as opposed to merely "A" go-to guy, which is implied by him being 3rd in overall playing time for forwards on Detroit).

So I'm not sure why you say "I find it pretty hard to believe other teams wouldn't find [Franzen] just as useful given the right circumstances", because I'm not trying to say that Franzen wouldn't be used in a similar role on other teams. The point that I was trying to make is that Franzen would not be THE go-to guy on a large number of teams in the league.

This is what I asked:

Quote:
What are some examples of teams that he would be THE go-to guy (other than Toronto)?
and you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoamHemsky View Post
I would say almost all of them, although there are always exceptions.
So do you disagree with any of my specific examples or not? Your post was largely irrelevant to the point that was made. Should I take it that you don't think that Franzen would be THE go-to guy on most teams in the league (as you seem to have implied here)?

embracedbias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2009, 02:58 PM
  #58
NoamHemsky
Registered User
 
NoamHemsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by embracedbias View Post
That goes without saying.

There seems to be some confusion. I was asking about whether he would be "THE" go-to guy not "A" go-to guy. On Detroit he is "A" go-to guy... "THE" go-to guy is Datsyuk and/or Zetterberg. What I thought you were talking about is whether or not Franzen could be to other teams what Datsyuk and Zetterberg are to Detroit. In other words, could Franzen be "THE" go-to guy (as opposed to merely "A" go-to guy, which is implied by him being 3rd in overall playing time for forwards on Detroit).

So I'm not sure why you say "I find it pretty hard to believe other teams wouldn't find [Franzen] just as useful given the right circumstances", because I'm not trying to say that Franzen wouldn't be used in a similar role on other teams. The point that I was trying to make is that Franzen would not be THE go-to guy on a large number of teams in the league.

This is what I asked:



and you said:



So do you disagree with any of my specific examples or not? Your post was largely irrelevant to the point that was made. Should I take it that you don't think that Franzen would be THE go-to guy on most teams in the league (as you seem to have implied here)?
The go-to guy. A go-to guy. what's the difference?

There initial discussion is regarding 1st liners, for which there can be three. Are you changing the parameters of the discussion to fit your argument?

And yes, I beleive Franzen is "A" go-to guy on any team in the league.

NoamHemsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2009, 03:20 PM
  #59
embracedbias
Registered User
 
embracedbias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Waterloo
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoamHemsky View Post
The go-to guy. A go-to guy. what's the difference?

There initial discussion is regarding 1st liners, for which there can be three. Are you changing the parameters of the discussion to fit your argument?

And yes, I beleive Franzen is "A" go-to guy on any team in the league.
There is quite a difference. It is similar to the difference between "A" top player in the league and "THE" top player in the league. Jason Blake is "A" go-to guy on most teams in the league. This isn't saying all that much. I have no qualms with the idea that Franzen is a 1st liner. My question about Franzen being "THE" go-to guy was sparked by Stephen's post earlier (and your response to it):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
Well, ice time places him 8th on his team and 3rd amongst forwards, so he's not the go-to guy they throw out there in every situation and he has more goals than assists usually so I'd have reservations about him being able to make guys around him better. I just feel like if Franzen was your best player or best forward you wouldn't be a great team at all.
I'm not changing the parameters of the discussion at all. I asked you a very specific question: "What are some examples of teams that he would be THE go-to guy (other than Toronto)?". How was I to know that you don't see much difference between "A" go-to guy and "THE" go-to guy.

In any case, I stated my objective quite explicitly when I gave a list of teams (to which you seemed to disagree):

Quote:
Seriously? When I said "THE go-to guy" I meant the best forward.
You'll have to forgive me for falling under a false impression of your opinion, but you can see how I would do so.

embracedbias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2009, 03:25 PM
  #60
NoamHemsky
Registered User
 
NoamHemsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by embracedbias View Post
There is quite a difference. It is similar to the difference between "A" top player in the league and "THE" top player in the league. Jason Blake is "A" go-to guy on most teams in the league. This isn't saying all that much. I have no qualms with the idea that Franzen is a 1st liner. My question about Franzen being "THE" go-to guy was sparked by Stephen's post earlier (and your response to it):



I'm not changing the parameters of the discussion at all. I asked you a very specific question: "What are some examples of teams that he would be THE go-to guy (other than Toronto)?". How was I to know that you don't see much difference between "A" go-to guy and "THE" go-to guy.

In any case, I stated my objective quite explicitly when I gave a list of teams (to which you seemed to disagree):



You'll have to forgive me for falling under a false impression of your opinion, but you can see how I would do so.
lol...

Well, I'm still talking about first liners here... always was.

NoamHemsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2009, 03:31 PM
  #61
embracedbias
Registered User
 
embracedbias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Waterloo
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoamHemsky View Post
lol...

Well, I'm still talking about first liners here... always was.
This has been a very odd discussion.

embracedbias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2009, 03:34 PM
  #62
Drew75
Registered User
 
Drew75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
So, from where I sit, 8 out of 30 are possibilities. But that is with me being quite liberal. Few are resounding yes'..
I think it's the theory of "buy low, sell high". When I - and I'm assuming others - say grab Staal, we're not saying that he will remain the exact player he is today. We're saying that for a 20yo playing in the situation he's been in, we feel he has the potential to become a number 1 centre.

If we wait until he develops - he'll cost that much more to acquire. It's a risk/reward scenario.

At the same time - as he's not reached his potential yet - I think 8 of 30 teams at this point in his carreer is pretty good. That could be 15 - 20 of 30 teams by the time he's 23/24.

Drew75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2009, 03:38 PM
  #63
embracedbias
Registered User
 
embracedbias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Waterloo
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew75 View Post
I think it's the theory of "buy low, sell high". When I - and I'm assuming others - say grab Staal, we're not saying that he will remain the exact player he is today. We're saying that for a 20yo playing in the situation he's been in, we feel he has the potential to become a number 1 centre.

If we wait until he develops - he'll cost that much more to acquire. It's a risk/reward scenario.

At the same time - as he's not reached his potential yet - I think 8 of 30 teams at this point in his carreer is pretty good. That could be 15 - 20 of 30 teams by the time he's 23/24.
Well that list was actually for Franzen, but it would be much the same for Staal, I think. I haven't been very clear in this thread evidently.

I agree though. I would be very excited if the Leafs could trade for Staal. I think that his playoff experience at such a young age is invaluable.

embracedbias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2009, 06:14 PM
  #64
The Shrike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squiffy View Post
The bolded part would be nice, but they built in provisions to the CBA regarding buyouts to account for front loaded contracts and possible salary cap manipulation in that regard. I'm in a cap/CBA kinda mood tonight, gimme 20 and I'll give some examples....
Thanks, your post got me searching through the CBA again. I was previously only aware of page 224 "Ordinary Course" Buyouts and "Compliance" Buyouts, but carefully going through all of article 50 I found what you're referring to on page 206. The illustrations on the bottom (and following pages) will come in handy for calculating cap hits on potential buyouts.

The Shrike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2009, 06:35 PM
  #65
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 30,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoamHemsky View Post
The go-to guy. A go-to guy. what's the difference?

There initial discussion is regarding 1st liners, for which there can be three. Are you changing the parameters of the discussion to fit your argument?

And yes, I beleive Franzen is "A" go-to guy on any team in the league.
Come on, admit it when you're wrong.

The Oilers had Gretzky. That doesn't mean Anderson wasn't useful, he just wasn't the go to guy. Same principle to Franzen and Jordan Staal. Anyone who is arguing he comes before Zetterberg and Datsyuk or Crosby and Malkin on the pecking order is just being hard-headed.

Stephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2009, 07:43 PM
  #66
NoamHemsky
Registered User
 
NoamHemsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
Come on, admit it when you're wrong.

The Oilers had Gretzky. That doesn't mean Anderson wasn't useful, he just wasn't the go to guy. Same principle to Franzen and Jordan Staal. Anyone who is arguing he comes before Zetterberg and Datsyuk or Crosby and Malkin on the pecking order is just being hard-headed.
WTF are you talking about?

Let's clear this up once and for all. I'm saying that if a forward has top three ice time he's a top three forward. Which means that in my book he's a top line player.

You two have gone off on some tangent. I never stated that Franzen was better than Zetterberg. Give me a break... fack sakes...

NoamHemsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2009, 08:18 PM
  #67
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 30,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoamHemsky View Post
WTF are you talking about?

Let's clear this up once and for all. I'm saying that if a forward has top three ice time he's a top three forward. Which means that in my book he's a top line player.

You two have gone off on some tangent. I never stated that Franzen was better than Zetterberg. Give me a break... fack sakes...
Well the whole debate is based on Franzen's ability to be THE go to guy, which I assume is what a team like the Leafs would want to bring him in to be, not some one who can slot in nicely behind two of the best players in the game, who take care of a lot of responsibilities on the Wings. Not to mention the presence of front liners like Hossa, who has a better all round game to Franzen, and support guys like Hudler, Filppula, Holmstrom and Cleary who take a lot of pressure of off Mule to produce all the time.

I personally think if he was the best forward on your team, your team wouldn't go very far.

Stephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2009, 08:40 PM
  #68
Volcanologist
Habitual User
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kessel Apocalypse
Country: Germany
Posts: 19,991
vCash: 500
Have you ever heard a GM say "I'm not going to be careful with term and salary"?

Volcanologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2009, 09:22 PM
  #69
Squiffy
Victims, rn't we all
 
Squiffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Thanks, your post got me searching through the CBA again. I was previously only aware of page 224 "Ordinary Course" Buyouts and "Compliance" Buyouts, but carefully going through all of article 50 I found what you're referring to on page 206. The illustrations on the bottom (and following pages) will come in handy for calculating cap hits on potential buyouts.
Here's a great reference for calculating buyout cap hits. http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=5685240&postcount=4

That sucker (the CBA) is a real beast, huh? I swear most GM's don't fully understand it yet lol.. you could read it every day for two years and still learn something new every day.

Squiffy 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 09:50 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.