Out of Character: I was killing time browsing the fun world of /r/. While there I came across a lengthy post about a guy who turned down a girl's advances. The situation was not all that uncommon at your given pub or bar. Average guys sees attractive girl, executes a well timed approach (in this case, while waiting for a drink at the bar), and engages in a conversations after drinks had been retrieved. The conversation went on and the two learned they had many things in common: music, movies, past times, and the like. The girl then pops the question, "Are you going to buy me a drink?"
This is a terrible question that no man wants to hear. Guys love it; men hate it. The difference? A guy is male who has a goal of seeking out a woman for sex that evening. He wears his Ed Hardy tees, roughed in Guess jeans, and the cleanest pair of work boots you've ever seen. Guys drink to boost their confidence enough to engage women and believe that offerings of liquor is the direct path to naked, genital bumping sleep over; men are gentlemen. They exude confidence. They guys or men around them feed off of his presence. Men put their values ahead of opportunity. Hopefully this distinction does help in understanding why men don't like this question.
Men like conversation. They like learning about the woman they're talking to. Pets, past times, and peeves, nothing is missed. All the while he is thinking about two things. First, what is his escape route incase the situation gets pear shaped. Second, how does he make her feel like the most important woman in the building and seal the deal with a good night kiss and a future date. All this is going on in a gentleman's head as the conversation progresses. When a woman asks about the drink she is doing a few covert things. "Is he willing to pay for things (i.e., what is his financial standing)? Does he do what I ask or request (exertion of control)? If he does, does he get me what I asked for?" All of this in one simple question.
Men are based on values. Chivalry is a value that is held dear. Men asked this question are not denying chivalry when they don't oblige the request for free booze. Women who have the goal of a good time out can easily extort free alcohol from the numerous guys in the clubs. Yet, women seem to fail to tell the difference between a man and a guy. This leads to women claiming a ruined night because some asshole didn't dash to the bartender asking for that rye and ginger. It's unfair to put us men in the same category as the throngs of guys lurking around the dance floor.
If we don't want to buy you a drink it isn't because we're cheap, spiteful, think you're unattractive, snooty, or what-have-you. Us men don't buy you a drink because we believe that it signifies the end of the conversation. Once that precious resource is gathered, you women walk away because of a pressing engagement with your friends that you've been neglecting. So, don't ask us. Because a guy will offer a drink when you've already got a full one in your hand. A man will offer you a drink when you're almost empty or when he wants to preserve the conversation. Finally, men are interested in you and not just your vagina. Drink or no drink, a conversation can remain rich and stimulating. Guys want you liquored up so the distinction between person and vagina are diminished.
In the end, our man in this story was called out for being disrespectful and labeled an asshole because he believed what all gentleman believe. A woman is worth what she can carry. If she is unable to carry a conversation due to being needy then a man won't be bothered. Women, don't be like this. Understand that some of us are there to learn more about you and make your night special, even if you don't give us a date, a kiss good night, or even your number. Gentlemen are a dying breed, but that's due to the evolution of the bar-scene. If women start seeking our the gentleman again the bars will soon repopulate with men.
I will offer a drink, but I will never buy one if asked to. It's a value that I stand by. And I put my values in front of opportunity.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
July 21: Near-misses
Hockey: The NHL rejected the Ilya Kovalchuk deal. The Devils attempted to sign him to a 17-year, $102 million contract. The league states that the contract was designed to circumvent the salary cap, thus making it an invalid contract. Interesting call by the NHL. TSN asked the two most important questions about such a contract: first, are these kind of monster contracts good for the NHL (assuming the contract was not rejected); second, was the NHL justified in rejecting this contract?
You better believe the NHL was justified by rejecting this contract. The NHL pays the wages to the players. To bring parity to the league, they instituted a salary cap. In a way, the NHL said that a player is only worth a percentage of a team's available funds, rather than a player being with a certain dollar amount. Now, that's not exactly how it plays out in arbitration, but is more or less accurate. For example, given his current contract and the current salary cap, Alex Ovechkin is worth $9,538,462, or 16% of a team's salary. He's the star player of the team, leads them in points, leadership, energy, and humor. Logic would say that his value is accurate.
Looking at Kovalchuk, he would have been costing the Devils $6 million a season (for EVER!). That amounts to 10.1% of the Devils' salary. Now, that in itself isn't bad. After all, he will likely lead the team in goals and points next year. He brings leadership. That part is okay. What the league didn't like was the fact that, although only costing the Devils $6 million (or 10.1%) he would have been paid $11.5 million (or, if making that much a year, would be a cap consumption of 19.4%). No player is worth $11.5 million. Especially not one who isn't the center piece of a team. The league was justified in saying that offering a player that much money, then reducing the overall impact for the team by adding on additional years (which he wasn't likely to even play in) with little financial cost, was done in an effort to circumvent the cap.
This leads to the other question. These monster contracts are only good if it means keeping a franchise player in your city for a reasonable amount. Moreover, these long-term contracts should only be done to keep proven players in the city they want to be in. Luongo, Ovechkin, and Crosby (although, he doesn't have a massive contract) all want to be in their respective cities. Kovalchuk wants money. If he truly wanted to play in the NHL (and not chase the money to the KHL) then he would have signed with the LA Kings. Reasonably long term contracts are balanced, fair to the team, fair to the league, and don't have that player making twice as much a year than the salary cap hit.
Kovalchuk's signing was a farce. The league did the right thing. Will he sign again with the Devils? Doubtful. Teams with the room might offer him a 3 or 4 year contract worth $35+ million. After this fiasco I'm not that the Devils will want to have the looming eye of the league gazing down on their next round of contract talks to keep the Russian sniper in the red and black. He wants money and playoff experience. Until he gets more play off experience I would argue that he isn't worth more than $6 million a season. Even then, if he had 3 cups I would say he isn't worth more than $7 million.
You better believe the NHL was justified by rejecting this contract. The NHL pays the wages to the players. To bring parity to the league, they instituted a salary cap. In a way, the NHL said that a player is only worth a percentage of a team's available funds, rather than a player being with a certain dollar amount. Now, that's not exactly how it plays out in arbitration, but is more or less accurate. For example, given his current contract and the current salary cap, Alex Ovechkin is worth $9,538,462, or 16% of a team's salary. He's the star player of the team, leads them in points, leadership, energy, and humor. Logic would say that his value is accurate.
Looking at Kovalchuk, he would have been costing the Devils $6 million a season (for EVER!). That amounts to 10.1% of the Devils' salary. Now, that in itself isn't bad. After all, he will likely lead the team in goals and points next year. He brings leadership. That part is okay. What the league didn't like was the fact that, although only costing the Devils $6 million (or 10.1%) he would have been paid $11.5 million (or, if making that much a year, would be a cap consumption of 19.4%). No player is worth $11.5 million. Especially not one who isn't the center piece of a team. The league was justified in saying that offering a player that much money, then reducing the overall impact for the team by adding on additional years (which he wasn't likely to even play in) with little financial cost, was done in an effort to circumvent the cap.
This leads to the other question. These monster contracts are only good if it means keeping a franchise player in your city for a reasonable amount. Moreover, these long-term contracts should only be done to keep proven players in the city they want to be in. Luongo, Ovechkin, and Crosby (although, he doesn't have a massive contract) all want to be in their respective cities. Kovalchuk wants money. If he truly wanted to play in the NHL (and not chase the money to the KHL) then he would have signed with the LA Kings. Reasonably long term contracts are balanced, fair to the team, fair to the league, and don't have that player making twice as much a year than the salary cap hit.
Kovalchuk's signing was a farce. The league did the right thing. Will he sign again with the Devils? Doubtful. Teams with the room might offer him a 3 or 4 year contract worth $35+ million. After this fiasco I'm not that the Devils will want to have the looming eye of the league gazing down on their next round of contract talks to keep the Russian sniper in the red and black. He wants money and playoff experience. Until he gets more play off experience I would argue that he isn't worth more than $6 million a season. Even then, if he had 3 cups I would say he isn't worth more than $7 million.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
July 20: Landing
Hockey: Ilya Kovalchuk has finally decided on where he wants to play... in a sense. The winger signed one of those contracts that makes everyone scratch their heads. He signed a 17-year, $102 million contract with the New Jersey Devils. That keeps him a Devil through the 2026-2027 season. If he plays to the end of that contract, he'll be retiring as a 44 year old.
Why does this make sense? It's simple. Players are paid what they are negotiated for on a yearly basis. That is, I could sign a 2-year, $11 million contract that sees me being paid $10 million in the first year and $1 million in the second. Although my earnings would be distributed like that, teams are only accountable for the average of the control. In this case, while I'm making $10 million, my salary cap hit is only $5.5 million. In other words, this is a way to subvert the salary cap.
So, how does this all break down for Kovalchuk exactly? Well, first, the numbers here are speculative and are retrieved via data-mining on the NHL servers. Second, it isn't done by me, it's done by the good fellows at www.capgeek.com. Kovalchuk is worth a $6 million a year salary cap until 2027. He is slated to make $6 million in the 2010-2011 and the 2011-2012 seasons. Now, here's the tough part, because no team would ever be willing to pay this much for a single player; Kovalchuk is slated to make $11.5 million for the 2012-2013 through the 2016-2017 seasons. After that, his salary slowly drops.
Let's say he signed a 7 year contract with identical numbers. That would mean he would be making $81 million over 8 season, same personal distribution of wealth, but the Devils would be looking at a cap hit of $10,125,000 yearly for Kovalchuk. That's why the long contract. In his final 5 years he's slated to make $550,000 a season, which is tiny if he's still able to play, but it does make the contract viable for a team now.
Nonetheless, he's a big price to keep around, and don't think about trading him, either. NMC for 2010-11 through 2016-17; NTC for 2018-19 through 2026-27, is on the bottom of the contract. NMC meaning No Movement Clause and NTC being No Trade Clause.
He may as well have tattooed a the Devil's logo on his chest.
Why does this make sense? It's simple. Players are paid what they are negotiated for on a yearly basis. That is, I could sign a 2-year, $11 million contract that sees me being paid $10 million in the first year and $1 million in the second. Although my earnings would be distributed like that, teams are only accountable for the average of the control. In this case, while I'm making $10 million, my salary cap hit is only $5.5 million. In other words, this is a way to subvert the salary cap.
So, how does this all break down for Kovalchuk exactly? Well, first, the numbers here are speculative and are retrieved via data-mining on the NHL servers. Second, it isn't done by me, it's done by the good fellows at www.capgeek.com. Kovalchuk is worth a $6 million a year salary cap until 2027. He is slated to make $6 million in the 2010-2011 and the 2011-2012 seasons. Now, here's the tough part, because no team would ever be willing to pay this much for a single player; Kovalchuk is slated to make $11.5 million for the 2012-2013 through the 2016-2017 seasons. After that, his salary slowly drops.
Let's say he signed a 7 year contract with identical numbers. That would mean he would be making $81 million over 8 season, same personal distribution of wealth, but the Devils would be looking at a cap hit of $10,125,000 yearly for Kovalchuk. That's why the long contract. In his final 5 years he's slated to make $550,000 a season, which is tiny if he's still able to play, but it does make the contract viable for a team now.
Nonetheless, he's a big price to keep around, and don't think about trading him, either. NMC for 2010-11 through 2016-17; NTC for 2018-19 through 2026-27, is on the bottom of the contract. NMC meaning No Movement Clause and NTC being No Trade Clause.
He may as well have tattooed a the Devil's logo on his chest.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
July 15: Farewells
Hockey: Winger Pavel Demitra is off to the KHL. Unfortunate, considering he is still worth something at 35. As is with many players, the asking price was too high considering his pervious season. He did start the season on LTIR while recovering from shoulder surgery. Nonetheless, Demitra was streaky and obviously longed for a more prominent role on the team. He finished the year with a very low point total considering his skill set (3-13-16 in 28 GP). Fortunately, he did finish as a +3, which still shows he is able to be a dangerous scored with decent two-way play.
If you were only cheaper, I guess. New York could have used you, and the dynamic duo of Gaborik and Demitra could have be reunited.
If you were only cheaper, I guess. New York could have used you, and the dynamic duo of Gaborik and Demitra could have be reunited.
Monday, July 12, 2010
July 12: Twists
Hockey: The Blackhawks might be willing to see everything fall away so quickly. Chicago has announced that they will match the San Jose Shark's offer on D Nik Hjalmarsson. Because Hjalmarsson is a restricted free agent he is forced to stay in Chicago if his offer is matched. Although I believe Hjalmarsson is a fantastic player and has a good future, I'm not sure if the Blackhawks have the room for him financially.
The Blackhawks only have 5 defensemen signed with one-way contacts (Keith, Seabrook, Campbell, Scott, and now Hjalmarsson) and have a total cap hit $20.2 million. To put that in perspective, the Vancouver Canucks have 9 defense signed (Hamhuis, Ballard, Salo, Edler, Ehrhoff, Bieksa, O'Brien, Rome, and Alberts) and a combined cap hit of $25.7 million. Moreover, Vancouver is likely to be shipping a defenseman or two out to accommodate for two-play contract players crack the roster. Nonetheless, the Canucks have a full contingent of defensemen while the Blackhawks do not, and considering the difference in price, I'm not too sure if Chicago is going to be able to make it.
It's tough comparing those two teams and their defensive corps. After all, Duncan Keith won the Norris. I would argue that if Ehrhoff can build off of the season he had last year that Ehrhoff could be a Norris candidate. Chicago is desperately trying to make room for a full team, and as long as players like Campbell and Huet are around they will have to accept that they will be playing with low rated players just so they can fill the bench.
The Blackhawks only have 5 defensemen signed with one-way contacts (Keith, Seabrook, Campbell, Scott, and now Hjalmarsson) and have a total cap hit $20.2 million. To put that in perspective, the Vancouver Canucks have 9 defense signed (Hamhuis, Ballard, Salo, Edler, Ehrhoff, Bieksa, O'Brien, Rome, and Alberts) and a combined cap hit of $25.7 million. Moreover, Vancouver is likely to be shipping a defenseman or two out to accommodate for two-play contract players crack the roster. Nonetheless, the Canucks have a full contingent of defensemen while the Blackhawks do not, and considering the difference in price, I'm not too sure if Chicago is going to be able to make it.
It's tough comparing those two teams and their defensive corps. After all, Duncan Keith won the Norris. I would argue that if Ehrhoff can build off of the season he had last year that Ehrhoff could be a Norris candidate. Chicago is desperately trying to make room for a full team, and as long as players like Campbell and Huet are around they will have to accept that they will be playing with low rated players just so they can fill the bench.
Friday, July 9, 2010
July 9: A thousand little pieces
Hockey: Chicago continues with its dismantling at an alarming rate. It started when the team traded Byfuglien et al. to Atlanta. Followed by dealing Versteeg to Toronto. Now, 9 days after free agency has started, the Blackhawks still haven't filled out their roster with key players. Players such as Johnsson, Hendry, and Madden are still not signed. Moreover, several important RFAs are still waiting on final offers or arbitration. With that said, the speed has been too slow or the offers weren't there for fast developing Swedish defensemen Nik Hjalmarsson. The San Jose Sharks have signed the restricted free agent to an offer sheet that will keep Hjalmarsson in the teal and black for the next four years.
It's a frightening prospect as a fan. Your team wins the cup then ceases to exist the following year. At least, that is almost the sense coming from the organization. Toews and Kane are fantastic players, but they can't play 40 minutes a game each. There are too many holes and not enough money to fill the gaps. If Chicago does of the route of young talent again (which isn't the same as it was 2 years ago) then there will be a major gap in experience. The kind of experience only exposure to the NHL can offer.
The Chicago Blackhawks hit it right last year. Now, there are several bloated contracts that will eat up much of the salary for the next several seasons. Campbell is not worth $7.14 million a season. Huet is slated to make $5.62 million while likely only playing 20 games this coming season. I have my doubts that any player should be making 10% of the max salary, and that's what both Kane and Toews will be doing. I'm not saying they aren't worth it as individuals. I am arguing that for team dynamics in the salary cap era it is important to make room for a whole team.
There will still be exciting hockey coming from Chicago. I strongly doubt a deep playoff run simply because the key players of Chicago will be overworked by the end of the first round and will not have the energy to survive the second. Good news for Vancouver.
It's a frightening prospect as a fan. Your team wins the cup then ceases to exist the following year. At least, that is almost the sense coming from the organization. Toews and Kane are fantastic players, but they can't play 40 minutes a game each. There are too many holes and not enough money to fill the gaps. If Chicago does of the route of young talent again (which isn't the same as it was 2 years ago) then there will be a major gap in experience. The kind of experience only exposure to the NHL can offer.
The Chicago Blackhawks hit it right last year. Now, there are several bloated contracts that will eat up much of the salary for the next several seasons. Campbell is not worth $7.14 million a season. Huet is slated to make $5.62 million while likely only playing 20 games this coming season. I have my doubts that any player should be making 10% of the max salary, and that's what both Kane and Toews will be doing. I'm not saying they aren't worth it as individuals. I am arguing that for team dynamics in the salary cap era it is important to make room for a whole team.
There will still be exciting hockey coming from Chicago. I strongly doubt a deep playoff run simply because the key players of Chicago will be overworked by the end of the first round and will not have the energy to survive the second. Good news for Vancouver.
July 9: Headshots
Hockey: The NHL is still working out some specifics of next year's new headshot rule. The emphasis is going to be on the "East-to-West hits". That is, not the checks that happen the way Willie Mitchell hit Jonathon Toews; rather, the way Richards hit Booth. Those blindside hits are malicious and are not needed in hockey. There are many chances to land punishing checks where the victim will be in relatively safe positioning.
One thing I've thought of is a scaling system that punishes offenders based on two criteria. First, the offender's records. If we're talking about a Datsyuk hitting a vulnerable player in the head then there would be a different outcome than if Matt Cooke did the same hit. A simple three-level system that carries increasingly harsh supplementary discipline. As a note, this should be retroactive upon approval of the rule. Second is the additional suspension added on top of the automatic suspension.
First offense: 3-game suspension as long as the hit was clearly not intent to injure.
Second offense (or first time with a clear intent to injure): 5-game suspension plus the additional (which will be discussed in the second criterion). Players suspended here still count towards the team's salary and cannot be placed on long term injury. In other words, teams signing players with a history or a likelihood of a player are running the risk of throwing money away.
Third offense (or second if the first offense was considered intent to injure): immediate season suspension with overlapping 20-game suspension plus the additional (which will be discussed in the second criterion). A player committing this offense with less than 20-games left in season will serve the rest of the suspension in the following year. If that player is bought out or is leaving his current team then that player must pay a fine in the form of his current per-game earnings for each game left in his suspension. Like in the second offense, players suspended in this fashion still count towards their team's salary cap. The third offense is repeated until that player cannot pay his fines (and will likely not be signed by another team ever again).
The second criterion, "additional": The additional is the true balancing to this rule. Some players think trading a 5-game suspension for a hit to the head is worth taking out a star player for 40 games. The "additional" penalty is determined based on the number of games missed by that victim. For example:
Player X hits Player Y.
This is Player X's first offense.
It's determined there was a clear intent to injure.
Player X is given a 5-game suspension.
Player Y misses 12 games as a result of the hit.
Player X serves the 5-game suspension then the 12 -game portion.
Once Player Y plays again then the accumulation of the number of suspendable games is stopped (even if the injuries suffered following the hit by Player X result in Player Y missing additional games).
I don't like the term "eye-for-and-eye" because it is probably one of the most misinterpreted ideas in Western culture. However, this is pretty close to it. More of a tit-for-tat. This is a punishment system that is entirely based upon the damage inflicted in a single hit, rather than a precedence made involving two other players in entirely different circumstances. Focusing on the microcosm of a single hit makes easier to determine an appropriate punishment. Often there is talk about the extent of the injury determining the degree of the punishment. I feel that this adds a systematic process to managing the punishment of offending players.
One thing I've thought of is a scaling system that punishes offenders based on two criteria. First, the offender's records. If we're talking about a Datsyuk hitting a vulnerable player in the head then there would be a different outcome than if Matt Cooke did the same hit. A simple three-level system that carries increasingly harsh supplementary discipline. As a note, this should be retroactive upon approval of the rule. Second is the additional suspension added on top of the automatic suspension.
First offense: 3-game suspension as long as the hit was clearly not intent to injure.
Second offense (or first time with a clear intent to injure): 5-game suspension plus the additional (which will be discussed in the second criterion). Players suspended here still count towards the team's salary and cannot be placed on long term injury. In other words, teams signing players with a history or a likelihood of a player are running the risk of throwing money away.
Third offense (or second if the first offense was considered intent to injure): immediate season suspension with overlapping 20-game suspension plus the additional (which will be discussed in the second criterion). A player committing this offense with less than 20-games left in season will serve the rest of the suspension in the following year. If that player is bought out or is leaving his current team then that player must pay a fine in the form of his current per-game earnings for each game left in his suspension. Like in the second offense, players suspended in this fashion still count towards their team's salary cap. The third offense is repeated until that player cannot pay his fines (and will likely not be signed by another team ever again).
The second criterion, "additional": The additional is the true balancing to this rule. Some players think trading a 5-game suspension for a hit to the head is worth taking out a star player for 40 games. The "additional" penalty is determined based on the number of games missed by that victim. For example:
Player X hits Player Y.
This is Player X's first offense.
It's determined there was a clear intent to injure.
Player X is given a 5-game suspension.
Player Y misses 12 games as a result of the hit.
Player X serves the 5-game suspension then the 12 -game portion.
Once Player Y plays again then the accumulation of the number of suspendable games is stopped (even if the injuries suffered following the hit by Player X result in Player Y missing additional games).
I don't like the term "eye-for-and-eye" because it is probably one of the most misinterpreted ideas in Western culture. However, this is pretty close to it. More of a tit-for-tat. This is a punishment system that is entirely based upon the damage inflicted in a single hit, rather than a precedence made involving two other players in entirely different circumstances. Focusing on the microcosm of a single hit makes easier to determine an appropriate punishment. Often there is talk about the extent of the injury determining the degree of the punishment. I feel that this adds a systematic process to managing the punishment of offending players.
Monday, July 5, 2010
July 5: (Restricted) Free Agency
Hockey: Now is the declaration of arbitration. That special time of the year where players who haven't been noted to have received qualifying offers are announced to be going for arbitration. This years crop is as interesting as any other; both ends of the spectrum are coming to the table, where you have some players who are very likely to be awarded significant contract increases while other players are gambling on an increase greater than the outstanding offer.
Vancouver has 3 players this year. Mason Raymond, the speedy winger, scored 25 goals last season. A 2nd/3rd line player with that level of skill can easily command $3 million. Of course, Vancouver is already closing in on their salary cap after acquiring defensemen Kieth Ballard and Dan Hamhuis, leaving only $1.4 million left. Mason Raymond's arbitration means that Vancouver is either going to ship out some salary (in the form of one of the 6 movable defensemen, notably Kevin Bieksa) or see an asset be moved out.
This is the same situation for a couple of 4th line players: Jannik Hansen and Tanner Glass. Both are tough and possess decent speed, can fight, and have shown high doses of grit, but Jannik Hansen is likely to get the bigger salary increase. Hansen, the 24-year-old Dane, had 9 goals (9-6-15) last season in 47 games with the Canucks. A great edition for the penalty kill or to fill in extra minutes between top line shifts. A shame in the Canucks do not re-sign him.
Another big name to get a raise will be Stanley Cup winner Anti Niemi of the Blackhawks. His performance throughout the playoffs was nothing short of spectacular, and with a ring and a day with the cup to come, he is likely to see his worth jump. Ironically, he might have his arbitration hearing on the same day he has the cup. Wouldn't that be a great idol at the bargaining table.
One player I'm not sure about is Oiler's Gilbert Brule. Although he has shown great skill in the WHL, Brule has not had that NHL-level development that was expected with Columbus drafted him 6th overall in the 2005 draft. Brule did put up impressive numbers (17-20-37), but finished with only playing 65 games and a -8 rating. He made $800,000 last year, and his point total says he will be going up, but streaky play, healthy scratches, and rumors of questionable work ethic make the deal difficult to predict. He's going up, just not to the $2.5 million he can ought to be worth.
Vancouver has 3 players this year. Mason Raymond, the speedy winger, scored 25 goals last season. A 2nd/3rd line player with that level of skill can easily command $3 million. Of course, Vancouver is already closing in on their salary cap after acquiring defensemen Kieth Ballard and Dan Hamhuis, leaving only $1.4 million left. Mason Raymond's arbitration means that Vancouver is either going to ship out some salary (in the form of one of the 6 movable defensemen, notably Kevin Bieksa) or see an asset be moved out.
This is the same situation for a couple of 4th line players: Jannik Hansen and Tanner Glass. Both are tough and possess decent speed, can fight, and have shown high doses of grit, but Jannik Hansen is likely to get the bigger salary increase. Hansen, the 24-year-old Dane, had 9 goals (9-6-15) last season in 47 games with the Canucks. A great edition for the penalty kill or to fill in extra minutes between top line shifts. A shame in the Canucks do not re-sign him.
Another big name to get a raise will be Stanley Cup winner Anti Niemi of the Blackhawks. His performance throughout the playoffs was nothing short of spectacular, and with a ring and a day with the cup to come, he is likely to see his worth jump. Ironically, he might have his arbitration hearing on the same day he has the cup. Wouldn't that be a great idol at the bargaining table.
One player I'm not sure about is Oiler's Gilbert Brule. Although he has shown great skill in the WHL, Brule has not had that NHL-level development that was expected with Columbus drafted him 6th overall in the 2005 draft. Brule did put up impressive numbers (17-20-37), but finished with only playing 65 games and a -8 rating. He made $800,000 last year, and his point total says he will be going up, but streaky play, healthy scratches, and rumors of questionable work ethic make the deal difficult to predict. He's going up, just not to the $2.5 million he can ought to be worth.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
July 1: Free agency and the frenzy, part 2
Hockey: The day isn't done for Vancouver. There's rumors out that Vancouver is close to signing the big and tough shut-down defenceman Dan Hamhuis. The deal is pegged at $4.5 million a season and is reported to be 6 years in length. This will put Vancouver close to the cap while still missing several players for the 3rd and 4th lines. I'd guess that Vancouver is working on a deal that will see one defensemen shipped out. Vancouver has 9 defensemen with only 3 being 5 or 6: Salo, Edler, Bieksa, Ballard, Ehrhoff, Alberts, O'Brien, and Rome. Alberts and Rome would be on the outside. Salo being injury prone makes having defensive depth important. Still, with all 8 of those defensemen signed, Vancouver would be staring at a staggering $25.7 million in their back end. Vancouver would have the deepest defensive corps in the league and would fix their issues from last season. This deal is done as of 1700 EST today.
The Calgary Flames have signed two former players: Alex Tanguay has signed a 1-year, $1.7 million contract. He's coming off a career-low season in Tampa Bay (10-27-37), which was preceded by a career year in 2006-2007 (22-59-81) in Calgary. If he's able to reproduce what he did in Calgary in the '06-'07 campaign (or even '07-'08 where he had 58 points), he would be considered a steal; and Olli Jokinen. That's right Flames fans, you've reacquired Olli Jokinen. That guy who fizzled and cost $5.5 million and a few prospects. He's back. This time he's under a 2-year, $6 million contact. If he can accept a 2nd line center role where he'll be playing with playmaker Tanguay it could work. However, Jokinen must do more and be a better team player. These signings might cost Sutter his job, but that can only be told once the starts.
Atlanta has decided to call in outside help in goal by signing former-Blue Chris Mason. With Halak arriving in St Louis and having Conklin already locked up, the 2008-2009 hero Mason was not needed. Atlanta was quick by offering a $3.7 million, 2-year to Mason, who will be playing with Rene, likely splitting games 60-40.
More to come.
The Calgary Flames have signed two former players: Alex Tanguay has signed a 1-year, $1.7 million contract. He's coming off a career-low season in Tampa Bay (10-27-37), which was preceded by a career year in 2006-2007 (22-59-81) in Calgary. If he's able to reproduce what he did in Calgary in the '06-'07 campaign (or even '07-'08 where he had 58 points), he would be considered a steal; and Olli Jokinen. That's right Flames fans, you've reacquired Olli Jokinen. That guy who fizzled and cost $5.5 million and a few prospects. He's back. This time he's under a 2-year, $6 million contact. If he can accept a 2nd line center role where he'll be playing with playmaker Tanguay it could work. However, Jokinen must do more and be a better team player. These signings might cost Sutter his job, but that can only be told once the starts.
Atlanta has decided to call in outside help in goal by signing former-Blue Chris Mason. With Halak arriving in St Louis and having Conklin already locked up, the 2008-2009 hero Mason was not needed. Atlanta was quick by offering a $3.7 million, 2-year to Mason, who will be playing with Rene, likely splitting games 60-40.
More to come.
July 1: Free agency and the frenzy
Hockey: Free agency is a fun time of the year. It is that time where teams are looking to grab the best names on the market, work trades, and plan for what the team of next year is going to look like. For fans, we sit and watch every trade for our team, or division, and our rivals to see who is the next bruiser or sniper we will have to deal with.
I'm interested in the role players. We all know the Kovalchuk is going to make a massive impact where ever he goes. A better trade for me to watch is the Cancucks signing Manny Malhotra to a 3-year, $7.5 million contract. He's a 30 year old centerman with decent size, grit, and heart. He'll block shots, win draws, kill penalties, and play the agitator. All important assets for Vancouver to build on.
Colby Armstrong is another one of those 2nd or 3rd line players with a boatload of toughness. Armstrong, 27, signed with Toronto, earning $3 million a season for the next 3 years. He's got some skill, will hit, will fight, and has his head in every game. Brian Burke's idea is to have his top-6 forwards as skill and his bottom-6 as toughness. Not necessarily enforcers, but guys like Armstrong who will lay the body while maintain an offensive upside.
Edmonton is still hard at work with rebuilding. They aren't making any indications that they are aiming for post-season success. Tambellini is setting aim for a post-season appearance, but would likely want to avoid too much success as it will be reflected on player's salaries for the next season. With that said, Tambellini has signed defenceman Curtis Foster to a 2-year, $3.8 million contract. This is likely facilitate moving Souray out of Edmonton, a player that Tambellini will likely have to pay someone to take.
More to come.
I'm interested in the role players. We all know the Kovalchuk is going to make a massive impact where ever he goes. A better trade for me to watch is the Cancucks signing Manny Malhotra to a 3-year, $7.5 million contract. He's a 30 year old centerman with decent size, grit, and heart. He'll block shots, win draws, kill penalties, and play the agitator. All important assets for Vancouver to build on.
Colby Armstrong is another one of those 2nd or 3rd line players with a boatload of toughness. Armstrong, 27, signed with Toronto, earning $3 million a season for the next 3 years. He's got some skill, will hit, will fight, and has his head in every game. Brian Burke's idea is to have his top-6 forwards as skill and his bottom-6 as toughness. Not necessarily enforcers, but guys like Armstrong who will lay the body while maintain an offensive upside.
Edmonton is still hard at work with rebuilding. They aren't making any indications that they are aiming for post-season success. Tambellini is setting aim for a post-season appearance, but would likely want to avoid too much success as it will be reflected on player's salaries for the next season. With that said, Tambellini has signed defenceman Curtis Foster to a 2-year, $3.8 million contract. This is likely facilitate moving Souray out of Edmonton, a player that Tambellini will likely have to pay someone to take.
More to come.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)