fanaticV3.0 Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 @fanaticV3.0 These contracts are a middle ground between potential (at the start) and actual production (at the end). If this contract was not in the best interests of the Flyers, it would not have been offered. The truth is, by the time this deal ends, Voracek will be underpaid. As rad pointed out, 4 years in the NHL salary structure is a LONG time. These salaries escalate exponentially. I honestly believe Voracek will be second in scoring for the Flyers next year, coming in around 70 pts (assuming he will play with Giroux, which I think he will, it's the easiest way to make the Flyers look smart for giving him this deal). He's not our second most talented player, but the Schenn's and Cout's of the team will take a while to overtake him.Oh I can't wait to see what he gets paid if he has even one 70pt. year in the next 4 seasons. Vanek makes about $7+ mil a year after that 84pt. season. Forget that he's averaged about 65 a year since....Can't wait! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I have to wonder if there is ever going to come a time someone, anyone, maybe the Occupy nerds, will get as upset over cost of entertainment (because that's all it reall is) as they are over corporate stuff."Bread and Circuses"You know that the Flyers are owned by an $84B corporation, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 "Bread and Circuses"You know that the Flyers are owned by an $84B corporation, right?That wasn't really my point. When's the last time you saw those losers protesting salaries in athletics or entertainment? They don't do it, because it's cooler to hate on "the man". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Oh I can't wait to see what he gets paid if he has even one 70pt. year in the next 4 seasons. Vanek makes about $7+ mil a year after that 84pt. season. Forget that he's averaged about 65 a year since....Can't wait!After watching Briere and Drury walk, no way was Sabres management going to let the Oilers make off with their prized possession. They matched the offer sheet to Vanek, which is the reason he makes so much. Sure showed the Oilers....meanwhile if they would have let Edmonton have him they wouldn't have had to trade up to take Tyler Myers (an Oiler pick originally) and could have taken Eberle, Karlsson or Del Zotto with their own. The next year they could have had MPS, then Taylor Hall or Tyler Seguin, then Nugent-Hopkins/Landeskog/Huberdeau/Couturier. Vanek is a nice player, but... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 That wasn't really my point. When's the last time you saw those losers protesting salaries in athletics or entertainment? They don't do it, because it's cooler to hate on "the man".Not to go too much further down the Occupy rabbit hole, but I'd wager every single professional player in a major league sport is making "1%" money.And the criticism that people spend too much time on frivilous entertainment isn't exactly a new line of thought on "The Left." Or "The Right" for that matter...In a more perfect "hockey" sense - the salary disparity is stark. Is Shea Weber worth Braydon Coburn AND Nick Grossmann? Is Ryan Suter?Is Zach Parise "worth" Pierre-Marc Bouchard AND Matt Cullen? Is Danny Heatley?Minnesota has $29M tied up in four players - 42% of their current cap spending.I think you're going to see more franchises trying to go with the an approach combining Moneyball-type looks at cheaper vets (like Matt Cullen) with younger players and development of draft picks (dealing perhaps popular players to restock cheaper youth and talent - which is pretty much what I think the Flyers did with Crater/Richards). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 After watching Briere and Drury walk, no way was Sabres management going to let the Oilers make off with their prized possession. They matched the offer sheet to Vanek, which is the reason he makes so much. Sure showed the Oilers....meanwhile if they would have let Edmonton have him they wouldn't have had to trade up to take Tyler Myers (an Oiler pick originally) and could have taken Eberle, Karlsson or Del Zotto with their own. The next year they could have had MPS, then Taylor Hall or Tyler Seguin, then Nugent-Hopkins/Landeskog/Huberdeau/Couturier. Vanek is a nice player, but...This is what I mean in the previous post in terms of dealing perhaps popular players to restock.I do think a fanbase like Buffalo would have survived losing Briere/Duryr/Vanek, but the added burdens of the ownership uncertainty they needed to "make a statement." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I agree they needed to show the league they could play with the big boys. I just think it backfired in their faces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I agree they needed to show the league they could play with the big boys. I just think it backfired in their faces.No, it wasn't "showing the league" - it was showing their fanbase.Ownership completely screwed up Briere/Drury and then got sucker punched by the Oilers. They were about to see a team be completely dismantled - largely by their own doing.Which, I agree, in retrospect would have been better "long term". Should have "turned the page" on it and offered a clear vision.Unfortunately for the Sabres, that "clear vision" was Darcy Reiger's... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 No, it wasn't "showing the league" - it was showing their fanbase.Ownership completely screwed up Briere/Drury and then got sucker punched by the Oilers. They were about to see a team be completely dismantled - largely by their own doing.Which, I agree, in retrospect would have been better "long term". Should have "turned the page" on it and offered a clear vision.Unfortunately for the Sabres, that "clear vision" was Darcy Reiger's... I'll meet you in the middle...it was showing both. I agree they wanted to let their fans know they weren't about to let everyone walk away from their franchise. I think they also wanted the league to know they were willing to pay their players, and would meet any offersheet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 After watching Briere and Drury walk, no way was Sabres management going to let the Oilers make off with their prized possession. They matched the offer sheet to Vanek, which is the reason he makes so much. Sure showed the Oilers....meanwhile if they would have let Edmonton have him they wouldn't have had to trade up to take Tyler Myers (an Oiler pick originally) and could have taken Eberle, Karlsson or Del Zotto with their own. The next year they could have had MPS, then Taylor Hall or Tyler Seguin, then Nugent-Hopkins/Landeskog/Huberdeau/Couturier. Vanek is a nice player, but...Exactly. There's just no way he's worth what he's being paid and there is more and more of that throughout sports. It's why I'm a little bothered by Voracek's contract and one of the reasons I don't miss Richards and Carter at all (their stats have dropped a healthy chunk since "breaking out").There's not actually a whole lot of consistent offensive performers out there right now. There's Stamkos, Malkin, Crosby (if healthy) and maybe a very small handful of guys who will usually be at the top. But outside of that, it's the flavor of the week kinda guys. A few seasons back it was Richards, Kane, Toews. Before that Getzlaf and Perry. Further back it was Heatley and Spezza (who returned from the graveyard this season). They're still getting paid like studs though and that's a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Not to go too much further down the Occupy rabbit hole, but I'd wager every single professional player in a major league sport is making "1%" money.And the criticism that people spend too much time on frivilous entertainment isn't exactly a new line of thought on "The Left." Or "The Right" for that matter...That's exactly my point. There's too much unnecessary wealth in all parts of life, it just shocks me nobody seems to give a **** about it when it's entertainers; but if it's some corporate big wig they are suddenly up in arms.I think you're going to see more franchises trying to go with the an approach combining Moneyball-type looks at cheaper vets (like Matt Cullen) with younger players and development of draft picks (dealing perhaps popular players to restock cheaper youth and talent - which is pretty much what I think the Flyers did with Crater/Richards).I normally don't like gimmicks like that. I think it can seriously affect the quality of the game. I think the Devils brand of hockey - while it can help them compete personally - hurts the game on a bigger scale. However, I do think something needs to be done. The sport has had how many lockouts in the last 15 or so years? There comes a point where you can't afford to keep doing that. The sport simply isn't popular enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I normally don't like gimmicks like that. I think it can seriously affect the quality of the game. I think the Devils brand of hockey - while it can help them compete personally - hurts the game on a bigger scale. However, I do think something needs to be done. The sport has had how many lockouts in the last 15 or so years? There comes a point where you can't afford to keep doing that. The sport simply isn't popular enough.I agree it's not popular enough as a sport trying to grow itself into new unfamiliar markets to allow these shenanigans to continue.But the sport has already had lockouts - and even Jerry Sandusky moments - in Canada and there's no stopping the popularity there or in places like Philly, Buffalo, Boston, New York, etc.Whether that allows players to continue to sign ridiculous contracts remains to be seen. Having $10M players is what caused the most recent lockout.We're back to effectively having 6-10 of them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Quigster Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Buffalo showed em' when they hired Ville. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Perhaps a lockout is inevitable then... Sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I agree it's not popular enough as a sport trying to grow itself into new unfamiliar markets to allow these shenanigans to continue.But the sport has already had lockouts - and even Jerry Sandusky moments - in Canada and there's no stopping the popularity there or in places like Philly, Buffalo, Boston, New York, etc.Whether that allows players to continue to sign ridiculous contracts remains to be seen. Having $10M players is what caused the most recent lockout.We're back to effectively having 6-10 of them...Was there a cover up though? Additionally, wasn't it a juniors or minor league coach? Not that it makes it any better, but that's not necessarily a league problem unless there was some kind of cover up or other major wrongdoing on the NHL's part.I agree and I think both the players and owners need to do something about it. Players have to stop expecting this kind of money and owners have to stop paying it. I do agree with you I think it's very possible owners could go the Moneyball route, but it's up to the players to accept it. If they refuse to sign for less money, that's a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinorama Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Buffalo showed em' when they hired Ville.haha, i was thinking the same thing... of course that could be part of what "blew up in their face" still funny though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Was there a cover up though? Additionally, wasn't it a juniors or minor league coach? Not that it makes it any better, but that's not necessarily a league problem unless there was some kind of cover up or other major wrongdoing on the NHL's part.Has more to do with popularity of the sport in Canada when compared to places like Phoenix, Miami and Nashville and whether hockey will continue there as opposed to places like Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa.I agree and I think both the players and owners need to do something about it. Players have to stop expecting this kind of money and owners have to stop paying it. I do agree with you I think it's very possible owners could go the Moneyball route, but it's up to the players to accept it. If they refuse to sign for less money, that's a problem.By "moneyball" I mean finding players who are relatively underpaid for their production (as they did in Oakland). The jury's out on how competitive this approach is, but generally there are a lot of players who are undervalued while so-called "superstars" are overpaid.I'm curious to see what effect Parise/Suter has in Minnesota - especially consdiering they already have one $7.5M disappointment on the roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I'm curious to see what effect Parise/Suter has in Minnesota - especially consdiering they already have one $7.5M disappointment on the roster.So that's what... some 20+ million on 3 players? Good lord... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 So that's what... some 20+ million on 3 players? Good lord...Parise and Suter at about $15M. Heatley at $7.5M. Koivu at $6.75MOf the four, the best is the least paid IMO... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Parise and Suter at about $15M. Heatley at $7.5M. Koivu at $6.75MOf the four, the best is the least paid IMO...Is Mikko Koivu really making *that* much? Holly hell!!!! That's some serious cahs commitment to a 20-goal scorer. No wonder the league is back to being in a disarray....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 @radoran Respectfully disagree, Praise is superior to Koivu as the stats this year will bear out. Zach might not have been consistent, but Koivu will never ever sniff a 90 point season, something Zach already has on his resume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 @radoran Respectfully disagree, Praise is superior to Koivu as the stats this year will bear out. Zach might not have been consistent, but Koivu will never ever sniff a 90 point season, something Zach already has on his resume.I think between Parise and Heatley he might surprise you :-)I am a huge Mikko Koivu fan and I'm not sure I'd pay him that. In fact, probably wouldn't. But he hasn't had *anyone* to play with in Minnesota so we'll see... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 I do expect a career season from Koivu, he's never had this kind of supporting cast around him, can only bode well for the point totals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 I do expect a career season from Koivu, he's never had this kind of supporting cast around him, can only bode well for the point totals.Like Saku, he brings a lot to the ice which isn't immediately appreciated in stats.Or by Canadians ;-)Top two-way player, plays in all situations on the ice, tremendous on faceoffs, hockey sense like it's in his genes - we'll see how many people think Sean Couturier is "overpaid" at $6.75M in 17-18...$6.75M is definitely on the high side, but he's been the face of the franchise and that number is good through 17-18. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 yeah, was gonna mention that, over time, that 6.75 mill will look more and more viable as time passes. He's still in his prime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.