Do you get a raise at work because you have great skills but nothing to show for it; over the guy who might not have the great writing, photoshop, tech savvy but just gets the job done?
People point to his stats because that is the measureable thing that contracts are probably 70% based from. The other 30% coming from age, durability, and attitude.
RJ is 29 and his contract will be up when hes 35. While that might sound "old" in hockey lifespan, let me remind you that he has the current Iron man title in Columbus and hasn't missed a game in 3 years. Also that he is coming off of his best year statistically yet. There is no reason to believe that with a better team RJ can't put up 60+ points and increase his stats when he has better linemates and our PP is stronger.
Stop asking for contract analysis based on skills. RJ is one of the most positionally sound players on the ice at all times. Rarely is he not in the proper position. Which is why he is on the first unit PP, PK, and generates quality scoring chances for himself.So he doesn't dangle like Zherdev...what kind of contract should he have deserved since his skills are so high quality?
You're just being a whiney brat who wants to take statistics away from an argument that is structured around them.
Here's one for the Jury: Tell me how the defendent is guilty - you just aren't allowed to use exhibit A or B. ..... See! I told you that you had no grounds for conviction!
That happens in court all the time, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
I'm not trying to take statistics out of the argument. I'd like to take the argument beyond statistics, but no one seems to be capable of that.
Sure RJU might put up 60+ next year, but what about the 5 years after that? You think he's just going to continue to perform at his current level? On what do you base that, past production? Well that's nice and all, but I'll use an example similar to yours.
Last week I worked 56 hours, therefore I'll continue to work at least 50 hours and maybe even as many as 65 hours a week until I retire at 75.
Lastly, the portion of your post I bolded is exactly why I'm worried about this contract. RJ creates a lot of scoring chances for himself (and doesn't finish nearly as many as he ought to), but not so many for others (sans rebounds, but throw me out there, I'll create a rebound every time I touch the puck). As his physical skills diminish (and they will, at what rate is unknown) his ability to create chances for himself will decrease, and so will his production. The best players make the game easier for players around them, would you honestly say that about RJU?
Damn, more footnotes in that paragraph than the average Grantland article.
Tell that to Scott Howson, Scott Arniel, and Rick Nash. And then get off your high horse. The phrase did NOT come from his fan club - unless you count this team's leaders and managers as part of that fan club.
Look, hon, I never said this originated here, I just said it is over used in every thread.
That happens in court all the time, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
I'm not trying to take statistics out of the argument. I'd like to take the argument beyond statistics, but no one seems to be capable of that.
Sure RJU might put up 60+ next year, but what about the 5 years after that? You think he's just going to continue to perform at his current level? On what do you base that, past production? Well that's nice and all, but I'll use an example similar to yours.
Last week I worked 56 hours, therefore I'll continue to work at least 50 hours and maybe even as many as 65 hours a week until I retire at 75.
Lastly, the portion of your post I bolded is exactly why I'm worried about this contract. RJ creates a lot of scoring chances for himself (and doesn't finish nearly as many as he ought to), but not so many for others (sans rebounds, but throw me out there, I'll create a rebound every time I touch the puck). As his physical skills diminish (and they will, at what rate is unknown) his ability to create chances for himself will decrease, and so will his production. The best players make the game easier for players around them, would you honestly say that about RJU?
Damn, more footnotes in that paragraph than the average Grantland article.
You want to take statistics out of the argument. Then what are you left with, strictly opinion. You think that in 5 years RJ won't be worth his contract, most here disagree with you. That's fair I guess.
But let's for the sake of argument look at his contract. If you assume that the cap will go up at 5%/yr for the next 5 years, at that point the cap will be aprox 80M. His salary at that point will be 5.6% of the cap or roughly the equivalent of about 3.5M today.
You also seem to feel that his contract was negotiated in a vacuum, that is on what it optimally "should" be. However, there are market forces at work here as well. I don't think very many would argue that RJ wouldn't get a 5 year deal from just about anybody as a UFA.
You don't like the term, that is your prerogative. The league has many examples of players that have played, and played well, up to and beyond 35 and many that have not. We will just have to await the judgement of time on this one.
I would think most non CBJ fans would probably say RJ's contract raised the bar for salary...
Dude, we could sign Stamkos for 7 million and they would say we overpaid and set a new bar for salary. First off, we didn't. Secondly why do we use what FANS say for a source for any rational discussion?
If you are going to point at us for helping set a new bar, point at Nash's RFA contract.
You want to take statistics out of the argument. Then what are you left with, strictly opinion.
Some people like to remove any piece of data that doesn't fit their agenda while framing the discussion to be most favorable to them. Bravo for noticing.
If what's been said is the extent of their articulation, then I'm disappointed.
This is what I said in my last post. Whatever is articulated will fall short in your eyes. You are mischaracterizing "opposing" arguments, not unlike if I said the only thing you have is "he'll be old."
__________________
"Every game, every point is a necessity." -- Ty Conklin, January 2007
"I'll have a chance to compete for the post of first issue. This is the most important thing." -- Sergei Bobrovsky, June 2012
Say what you want about him being on our third line, the guy finished second on our team last year with 57 points. If that doesn't merit him being amongst our top-6 forward this year, then so be it - but if he can consistently put up 50+ points, while playing in all 82 games, while being an inspirational leader for our young players, while also playing on our top PK units, then that's the kind of third liner we'll love having on our team. If our depth is really so strong that we have to drop him to the third line, then that's fine - but I truly don't believe RJ plays like a third line player.
The dollar amount isn't that far of a stretch for a guy like this. I don't like the comparisons to other contracts, but if we're doing that, then let's compare him to a guy like Michal Handzus, who spent time on the LA Kings third line last season. 30 points and a -5 rating for a guy who just signed a two year, 2.5m/per deal. RJ nearly doubled his statistic output, while going +3, on a team that finished 17 points behind the Kings in the standings. Does the dollar amount really look that bad now?
I'd also be willing to bet that we see Umberger spend the bulk of this season on one of the first two lines, likely playing on Jeff Carter's flank. They played together in Philly and had great success, and my bet is on the Scotts playing heavily into this hand.
Guys, quit nagging over whether or not we could have saved some dollars on this contract. With the money we would have saved, we might be able to bring in a marginal third/fourth line player (if it's around 1mil/year, even) ... this isn't a bad deal at all.
