Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Nik

Pages: 1 ... 1878 1879 [1880] 1881 1882 ... 1888
28186
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: so is Burke finished..
« on: July 21, 2011, 09:45:49 AM »
both sundin and kaberle screwed us out of carter and some high picks and what not by not dropping the ntc ,

Wow, really? Bringing up something from that long ago and still being wrong about it? Want to complain about the Courtnall trade? Keon's feud with Ballard? All these new fangled horseless carriages?

28187
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Overpaid Leafs
« on: July 21, 2011, 09:43:10 AM »

That freaking list...

Either way, that's not an entirely accurate recollection of that list. Jeff Carter was also there. Also a RFA and making less than Kessel.


Carter is making more salary than Kessel. His cap hit is lower because he has one of those long term deals that plays funny with the cap.  He's making $6M this year, it continues to climb to a high of $7M at one point, then drops off dramatically in the last years of his deal.

For future reference, how a deal is structured means just about nothing to me. Especially not for a young player. When I talk about what a player makes, I'm talking about his cap hit and not what he's actually putting into the bank every week. That doesn't strike me as all that important.

28188
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Overpaid Leafs
« on: July 21, 2011, 09:40:56 AM »
Those players are indeed making more because they are better players.  Strengthening the argument that he isn't overpaid.  If he made more than them then... sure. 

That's pretty silly. Crosby, Ovechkin, those guys are really immaterial to Kessel's value. Grouping players like that list, which has no maximums and only minimums, can be designed to put anyone in a group with Sid Crosby. It doesn't make Crosby a good comparison.

Where I would say Kessel is overpaid is in comparing him to guys who add roughly the same value to their teams and looking at what they made as RFA's. Not a pretty arbitrary grouping of guys miles above him.

Either way, we are quibbling over what?  500K? 

I said that he's probably a little overpaid. So, yes, you do seem to be quibbling over that "little".

28189
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Overpaid Leafs
« on: July 21, 2011, 09:02:25 AM »
The guys what?  23 years old and has 3 straight 30+ goal seasons.

Last year they showed a stat of the current NHL players who have 3 straight 30+ goal years and there was like 8 on the list.  Most of whom making sizeably more than Kessel (i.e. Crosby, Ovechkin, Iginla, Nash, Kovalchuk, etc).  I can only think of Bobby Ryan who's compensated about the same.

I think he's definitely paid in line with his 'worth'.

That freaking list...

Either way, that's not an entirely accurate recollection of that list. Jeff Carter was also there. Also a RFA and making less than Kessel.

It's not really terribly relevant. Most of the guys on that list are making a lot more money than Phil Kessel because they're a lot better than Kessel. Likewise, a whole bunch of guys who aren't on the list like Corey Perry or Ryan Kesler(both of whom also have 90+ goals over the last three seasons) are, likewise, better players than Kessel and making less money.

28190
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Overpaid Leafs
« on: July 21, 2011, 07:27:29 AM »
I don't think Kessel is overpaid.

Agreed. When compared to some of the deals signed a few weeks ago it looks really good.

One of the things we often hear though is that we have to compare UFA's to UFA's and RFA's to RFA's. Saying that Kessel isn't overpaid compared to UFA's strikes me as unfair as saying that Armstrong is grossly overpaid because of what Wayne Simmonds got.

I'm sure there are some RFA deals that make Kessel's deal look reasonable. There are also some that make it look pretty pricey for a player who has yet to discover his second dimension. I think it probably falls somewhere in the middle, leaning on the slightly pricey side.

28191
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Overpaid Leafs
« on: July 21, 2011, 07:24:56 AM »

I think it sort of depends on the definition that you use for what makes a player overpaid. If the idea is that a player is overpaid because he's making more money than it would cost to sign him based on how he's playing I think the Leafs have a handful(Lupul, Komisarek, Phaneuf). If the idea is that the salary they're earning seems out of whack with their contribution to the team I think they have a handful more(Armstrong, Kessel, maybe Connolly). I think sometimes people try too often to use the second definition and apply it to players too rigidly ignoring that if you're not willing to pay market prices you'll end up with no players. I think don't know that any third line player is worth 3 million a season, even the best third liners in the league which Armstrong probably isn't, but I recognize that his salary is in line with the salary structure of the league. Like it or not these players do have to be compared to their peers.

The other thing I think we have to acknowledge, and this applies probably best to Lupul and Phaneuf, is that a player's paycheck can't just be looked at in isolation and judgments be made. We saw this all the time with Giguere where an idiot in the Sun or on the Radio would say something like "He's not playing very well and the idiots at MLSE are paying him 6.5 million dollars" or "Not exactly the performance you expect from a 6.5 million goalie."

Well sure. Giguere was making that much money. But the reason he was on the Leafs was because he was making that much money and not playing up to it. Expecting guys to live up to contracts they've already kind of proven they won't doesn't really make a lot of sense. Phaneuf was available because he was a disappointment.

28192
General NHL News & Views / Re: Osgood hangs 'em up
« on: July 21, 2011, 03:46:16 AM »
I draw the opposite conclusion.  Nik was lecturing me about how whizbang individual stats are.  You've just listed a whole bunch of pretty impressive individual stats of a goalie who, in Game 7 against the Leafs, let a Nieuwendyk dipper go five-hole on him to kill off any chance that Captain Diet Coke and Co. would make good on his win guarantee.  In other words, a LOSER.

Wow, I'm finally getting a sense of what it would be like to argue sports with Charlie Sheen.

There is no one single statistic of a goalie that's perfect and my point has never been that goalies should be judged on statistics alone. My point has always been that statistics, when looked at in proper context, are part of the evaluation process of a player's career and that wins are the worst possible measurement of a goalie's individual performance that we have. It doesn't even really try to measure a goalie's performance. It's just a statement of whether or not a goalie's team won a game he played in, regardless of the quality of his play.

Seriously -- recall that I said since he's a goalie and the goalie is the most important position on the team then # of wins is the overriding stat.  That's because that while it's a team game the one player disproportionately responsible for the outcome is the goalie.  If that weren't the case we would have won the Cup with Vesa Toskala in net.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You're saying that if I deny that a goalie has the most impact on the outcome of an individual game, I'm arguing that you should win because of terrible goaltending? The Leafs were still a bad team.

and finally Nik: 10th place is a "silly" cutoff?  Only if you don't live in a Base Ten culture.  Top Ten is a very defensible cutoff, people use that standard all the time.

It's silly to pretend that it is a cutoff(as cw shows) or that it has any actual meaning in terms of measuring a goalie's individual contribution to the team he's played on but that's not really what I was getting at. I was saying that any win-based cut-off point is silly.

Let's keep one thing in mind when we discuss Chris Osgood. Chris Osgood did not, by just about any definition, win a great number of games on a year to year basis. He averaged 24 wins a year over 17 years. He never won 40 games in a year. He only won 30 games 5 times. If your argument was that, year in and year out, Chris Osgood was going to be among the lead leaders in wins then at the very least you'd be arguing that Osgood was near the top in something.

That's not your argument though. You're not even trying to argue that Osgood was a particularly exceptional goalie. You're arguing that by virtue of being mediocre for 17 years a goalie is a hall of famer. Likewise, you're arguing that if a goalie is terrible for 11 years they can be a hall of famer. There seems to be absolutely no consideration whatsoever in your consideration of whether or not a goalie should be in the hall of fame as to whether or not that goalie was any good.


28193
Non-Hockey Chatter / Re: NetFlix
« on: July 20, 2011, 08:01:46 PM »

I think it's worth it for the documentaries alone.

You mean like the Water Bottle one currently on offer? I haven't figured it all out yet..

I don't know that one but I've caught a bunch of great ones.

28194
Where would Versteeg fit if he was still a Leaf?

The first line?

28195
Non-Hockey Chatter / Re: NetFlix
« on: July 20, 2011, 06:53:00 PM »

I think it's worth it for the documentaries alone.

28196
General NHL News & Views / Re: Osgood hangs 'em up
« on: July 20, 2011, 05:02:15 PM »
I just came back to this thread from yesterday and (forgive my bluntness) you guys are all cranked.  Winning is the name of the game.  Winning IS the only relevant statistic, when you get down to the essentials.  Of course I'm being somewhat facetious there but if you are 10th in all-time wins you are NOT an ordinary player.  It's just silly to argue otherwise.

No. What you're missing is that wins are not a valid individual statistic. They are all-important in a team sense but they're not an accurate reflection of an individual's performance. A goalie can make one save, allow five goals and get credited with a "win". A goalie can make 60 saves, allow one goal, and get a "loss". There isn't a hockey fan with two eyes and a brain that would say the first goalie played better than the second. A statistic that doesn't accurately measure a player's performance is not a meaningful statistic of that player's value.

And the HOF is an individual honour. Players are not judged by the accomplishments of their teams, they're judged by their contributions to their teams. If that weren't the case, Borje Salming and Gilbert Perreault would be booted out of the Hall of Fame for Kevin Lowe and Esa Tikkanen.

Think about it: if he were 1st, 2nd, or 3rd on the all-time win list, would you deny him entry even if he was an "ordinary" player?  I don't see how anyone could argue that seriously.  If so, then the question is, what's the cutoff?  I contend that top-10 is an automatic ticket.

Well that's a pretty silly cut-off. We know, for instance, that Mike Vernon isn't in the HOF with 385 wins. You're saying that Osgood, with 401 wins, is an automatic entrant. Most of the guys on the all-times win list between 10-20 aren't in the HOF and never will be. Sean Burke, Vanbiesbrouck, Moog, Barrasso and on and on.

Seriously, listen to yourself. You're arguing that if Andrew Raycroft had his terrible season for the Maple Leafs, were he was blamed by most for the team missing the playoffs and lost his job, eleven times in the row he'd be a Hall of Famer.

28197
Non-Hockey Chatter / Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
« on: July 20, 2011, 03:48:30 PM »

Just saw Dear Zachary. Don't know if a movie has ever hit me as hard as it did. What a stupid country we live in.

28198
Exactly. Mac isn't even in the top 3 of overpaid Leafs.


Let's give Lombardi a pass given his situation... So, who do you figure the top 3 ovepayed forwards are? I'll take a quck stab;

1. Lupul
2. Connolly
3. Kessel

Wait, isn't than out top line? Ouch.  :-\

If you're just limiting it to forwards, sure. Throw in the D and Komisarek zooms to number one with Captain Forehead coming in at #2.

28199
I guess if you look at it that way maybe. I'd love to see Lupul hit 70 though.  8)

Exactly. Mac isn't even in the top 3 of overpaid Leafs.

28200
MacArthur had a whopping 11 more points than Purcell. So, 11 points earns over $1 mil per year and an additional year to boot? Either Stevie Y got a huge bargain or Burke got hosed... or somewher in between perhaps. Or, 11 points means a heck of a lot more than I believe it does maybe.

When you're talking about the numbers we're talking about then 1 million per 11 points actually sounds pretty reasonable. Mac had 62 points and got 3.25. Purcell got 51 and got 2.whatever. I think 4.25 would be very reasonable for a 73 point a year guy and 5.25 for 84 extremely cheap. Could you get a 95 point player for 6.25?  Stamkos got 7.5 for 91.

Pages: 1 ... 1878 1879 [1880] 1881 1882 ... 1888