Holland schools rookie GM

[SpikeDDS]

Right. He has almost no chance of seeing the lights of JLA/The Poorly Named Arena of Detroit-Style Pizza. The LTIR is part of the strategy. Makes the deal even sweeter for the DRWs.

 

You and I have been rightly critical of KH of late, but this was GM brilliance!

[hf101]

I'm don't think the Yotes GM got fleeced here.

 

They got the guy they wanted with Chychrun and unloaded a useless player like Vitale.  Taking on Datsyuks contract means they can form their team with talented and skilled youth and not have to sign and play overrated Free Agents to stay above the cap floor.

[Old School Hockey]

4 hours ago, SpikeDDS said:

Right. He has almost no chance of seeing the lights of JLA/The Poorly Named Arena of Detroit-Style Pizza. The LTIR is part of the strategy. Makes the deal even sweeter for the DRWs.

 

You and I have been rightly critical of KH of late, but this was GM brilliance!

I can't argue with you one bit that this was a great move!!!  Now seal the deal with a Howard trade and TWO huge UFA signings.

[AJgoal]

40 minutes ago, hf101 said:

I'm don't think the Yotes GM got fleeced here.

 

They got the guy they wanted with Chychrun and unloaded a useless player like Vitale.  Taking on Datsyuks contract means they can form their team with talented and skilled youth and not have to sign and play overrated Free Agents to stay above the cap floor.

 

I don't necessarily disagree. But Detroit got value for #16 in getting a 2nd to move back four spots, so that part of the trade is a wash. Which leaves Datsyuk's contract for Vitale. I think Detroit made out better on this part than the Yotes did. Fleeced may be too strong, because Arizona is getting a benefit here with acquiring Datsyuk's cap hit and not having to pay Vitale's real money cost, but they should have been able to either get another asset like a 3-4 round pick, or given up something a bit less than the 2nd because the benefit to Detroit is greater, IMO.

[SpikeDDS]

17 hours ago, AJgoal said:

 

I don't necessarily disagree. But Detroit got value for #16 in getting a 2nd to move back four spots, so that part of the trade is a wash. Which leaves Datsyuk's contract for Vitale. I think Detroit made out better on this part than the Yotes did. Fleeced may be too strong, because Arizona is getting a benefit here with acquiring Datsyuk's cap hit and not having to pay Vitale's real money cost, but they should have been able to either get another asset like a 3-4 round pick, or given up something a bit less than the 2nd because the benefit to Detroit is greater, IMO.

Probably the best way of saying this nicely while still staying truthful is to say that Phoenix could have got so much more than they did for Datsyuk's contract. It's not that they got nothing, and it's not that they didn't help their franchise at all. They did. But this will be seen as a BIG missed opportunity, and that miss was engineered by Kenny Holland.

 

Would have loved to have been a fly on the wall listening to THAT negotiation! But I probably would have killed the deal, either shaking my head or laughing as the offers and counter-offers were made. Poker face would have been difficult to keep.

[Polaris922]

On June 25, 2016 at 8:04 AM, yave1964 said:

@nossagog @Polaris922

AGREED it is absolute BS that this is allowed to happen. It is equally BS that a player can retire and his cap hit, unpaid mind you, is alowed to count against the team for the following year or years if he retires mid-contract. It is also BS that a player can 'retire' and go play in another league while under said contract. No winners here in that regard. Just the absurdities of the current CBA. I pray to God that common sense legislation occurs in the next CBA. But that might be too much to hope for. If it were Malkin instead of Datsyuk you would understand my anger at the player, anger at the organization and anger at the stupidity of the rules. This is not Pronger or Horton or Marc Savard, this is a healthy player under contract who retired and went to play elsewhere and I am and will remain forever bitter towards him and it will take awhile to get over it enough to even look back in fondness. I understand your frustration with the rules of the game allowing this crap believe me. It should never occur, just as Datsyuk should be hit with an injunction disallowing him to play in Russia while under contract here. That is a slippery slope my friends. 

  But the point of this thread is WOW, within the confines of the rule, did Holland ever get one over on a rookie GM.

 To move up four spots he paid one hell of a price, he gave up pick 20 which turned into a nice puck mover from the back end for the Wings, he gave up a second rounder as well. Vitale is useless, doubts are that he will ever play, but he will be LTIR'd and forgotten, the difference being Datsyuks contract will not have to be paid, Vitale will indeed receive his money but on LTIR it will not hurt the cap.

  So to move the contract of Datsyuk the cost was indeed minimal for Holland who did a wonderful job.

@SpikeDDS yes I am over it as far as Holland is concerned. Great job by him. Still gonna be awhile with Dats. Wow what a trade.

 

Though I agree with many of your comments, I don't agree about the contracts hurting teams if they retire early.  That was the entire point of trying to circumvent twenty year contracts teams knew damn well wouldn't be lived up to to avoid cap issues.  Just as the Pronger contract should've stuck on the Flyers.   

[ruxpin]

1 hour ago, SpikeDDS said:

Probably the best way of saying this nicely while still staying truthful is to say that Phoenix could have got so much more than they did for Datsyuk's contract. It's not that they got nothing, and it's not that they didn't help their franchise at all. They did. But this will be seen as a BIG missed opportunity, and that miss was engineered by Kenny Holland.

 

Would have loved to have been a fly on the wall listening to THAT negotiation! But I probably would have killed the deal, either shaking my head or laughing as the offers and counter-offers were made. Poker face would have been difficult to keep.

 

This.  I'm sticking with fleeced.   Yave's original word is apt, too, if a bit unseemly.

[ruxpin]

41 minutes ago, Polaris922 said:

 

Though I agree with many of your comments, I don't agree about the contracts hurting teams if they retire early.  That was the entire point of trying to circumvent twenty year contracts teams knew damn well wouldn't be lived up to to avoid cap issues.  Just as the Pronger contract should've stuck on the Flyers.   

I'm very glad it didn't, but you're right.

 

I think both are wrong, but I do think the Pronger and Datsyuk situations have significant differences that are already mentioned.

 

The Flyers signed Pronger over 35 (because they didn't know how to either read a CBA or a calendar, or both) to a kazillion year contract.  There is a health/injury risk that comes with doing that, which is THE reason for the 35+ year contract provision and is intended to stop teams from knowingly signing people to absurd final deals figuring they can get out of it.  You pretty much said this and you're right.   I'm glad the Flyers had that loop hole, but I'm with you that it's shady.

 

The Datsyuk situation is different to me.  It was only 3 years and seemed responsible.   The guy didn't get hurt.  He just up and quit on his contract and went home.   I think what needs to be changed is some kind of wording preventing a team from being screwed by a Kovalchuk or Datsyuk situation.  I don't know how a team protects itself against that.  Had they signed him at 36 (I think that was his age for this contract) to a 7 year contract, then they get what they get.  But they signed a reasonable term and the guy just up and walked.  

 

I don't think I like the type of trade that was Detroit/Arizona.   I think maybe that kind of trade--and Pronger--needs to be nixed.  But I think the actual cause of this particular trade needs to be corrected by creating some kind of cap safeguard to protect teams when their player just up and bolts.

[Old School Hockey]

Every person here who lived through the last 2 lockouts should be pissed at these circumventing measures.  All this means is another lockout to fix the problems the OWNERS have created!

[ruxpin]

40 minutes ago, Old School Hockey said:

Every person here who lived through the last 2 lockouts should be pissed at these circumventing measures.  All this means is another lockout to fix the problems the OWNERS have created!

Quite true. 

[Polaris922]

8 hours ago, ruxpin said:

I'm very glad it didn't, but you're right.

 

I think both are wrong, but I do think the Pronger and Datsyuk situations have significant differences that are already mentioned.

 

The Flyers signed Pronger over 35 (because they didn't know how to either read a CBA or a calendar, or both) to a kazillion year contract.  There is a health/injury risk that comes with doing that, which is THE reason for the 35+ year contract provision and is intended to stop teams from knowingly signing people to absurd final deals figuring they can get out of it.  You pretty much said this and you're right.   I'm glad the Flyers had that loop hole, but I'm with you that it's shady.

 

The Datsyuk situation is different to me.  It was only 3 years and seemed responsible.   The guy didn't get hurt.  He just up and quit on his contract and went home.   I think what needs to be changed is some kind of wording preventing a team from being screwed by a Kovalchuk or Datsyuk situation.  I don't know how a team protects itself against that.  Had they signed him at 36 (I think that was his age for this contract) to a 7 year contract, then they get what they get.  But they signed a reasonable term and the guy just up and walked.  

 

I don't think I like the type of trade that was Detroit/Arizona.   I think maybe that kind of trade--and Pronger--needs to be nixed.  But I think the actual cause of this particular trade needs to be corrected by creating some kind of cap safeguard to protect teams when their player just up and bolts.

 

Though I understand the differences, I'm not so sure a team shouldn't be held accountable at the over 35 age.  Honestly a three year deal isn't horrific as you'd mentioned, but a risk is a risk.  I'm not sure which team is feel should be allowed around it.  A career ending injury sucks and if a player would still play if he could? Or a guy flagrantly ignoring his word and walking out early.  But is that not also the team's fault for not keeping him happy there?   

 

I don't know the answer.  But I do know we missed seasons to bring about these rules.  Why not stick to them? 

[ruxpin]

6 minutes ago, Polaris922 said:

 

Though I understand the differences, I'm not so sure a team shouldn't be held accountable at the over 35 age.  Honestly a three year deal isn't horrific as you'd mentioned, but a risk is a risk.  I'm not sure which team is feel should be allowed around it.  A career ending injury sucks and if a player would still play if he could? Or a guy flagrantly ignoring his word and walking out early.  But is that not also the team's fault for not keeping him happy there?   

 

I don't know the answer.  But I do know we missed seasons to bring about these rules.  Why not stick to them? 

That last part is the maddening kicker, ain't it? 

[yave1964]

@Polaris922

 

It is absurd the way the system works, for Datsyuk to walk out mid contract and then to be allowed to play in another league is wrong as wrong gets, to punish the Wings for it by forcing them to eat his cap hit of 7.5 million for doing absolutely nothing wrong is an absurdity. I get the spirit of the rule but common freaking sense needed to be applied something that seemed of short supply. I agree that it is ridiculous the Wings could and did trade the contract, as absurd as any other part of the situation. Again it is not Savard or Pronger or Horton whose careers came to an end due to injuries and were still under contract, this is a guy who literally QUIT and walked out while under contract. Sorry, still angry about the whole thing. Just glad that Holland was able to do the best he could with a bad situation.

[SpikeDDS]

17 hours ago, yave1964 said:

@Polaris922

 

It is absurd the way the system works, for Datsyuk to walk out mid contract and then to be allowed to play in another league is wrong as wrong gets, to punish the Wings for it by forcing them to eat his cap hit of 7.5 million for doing absolutely nothing wrong is an absurdity. I get the spirit of the rule but common freaking sense needed to be applied something that seemed of short supply. I agree that it is ridiculous the Wings could and did trade the contract, as absurd as any other part of the situation. Again it is not Savard or Pronger or Horton whose careers came to an end due to injuries and were still under contract, this is a guy who literally QUIT and walked out while under contract. Sorry, still angry about the whole thing. Just glad that Holland was able to do the best he could with a bad situation.

 

See, and to me the primary problem isn't Datsyuk wanting to walk away midcontract. The problem is that the Wings shouldn't be on the hook for any seasons moving forward unless they made the back end of the contract heavier on the cap hit, in which case they SHOULD be on the hook for the difference moving forward.

 

I, too, would have preferred Pav play out his agreed-to term. That would be the best of all scenarios (unless we end up with Stamkos, at which point what has now happened may be the best thing that could happen, timing-wise). But the fact is he is walking away for family reasons, and I respect that, even though I would prefer him to finish out,  selfishly speaking.

 

Now, I must admit that I was under the impression that there was an agreement between the KHL and NHL that players who were under contract in the NHL could not play in the KHL without express written consent from the NHL team with whom the player is contracted. Is that not the case? Am I wrong in thinking that the DRWs have to allow Datsyuk to play in order for him to play next season in the KHL? If that is true, then you should ALSO be mad that Ilitch and Holland are consenting. But if THEY aren't that upset about it, you shouldn't let it burn your butt so much. I think his years of service matter here. I think that they decided to honor him for the faithful service he has given them for all of these years--never testing the FA market, and never complaining--by allowing him to go home and play a season or two before hanging them up.

 

I will admit that I WOULD have a harder time swallowing this if his primary reason was not family/parental in nature. If he had just gone home to go home, or because he wanted to play in the KHL now instead of later, it's different for me. But it IS about being a better father to his estranged daughter, and I CANNOT bring myself to bitterness because the man wants to try to make that right. And truthfully, I think that is exactly KH's position, and probably the Ilitches' position too. We don't LIKE it, but we understand it, and family is more important. It just is. And once you come to accept that's true, even when in the face of an unfulfilled contract, it takes away most of, if not all of, the bitterness. And then you'll be, once again, able to think fondly of Datsyuk for the many years he spoiled us with his play that we were privileged to watch season after season.

 

But even now, if the Wings ARE able to land Stamkos as a result of Pav's walk away and KH's bargaining, you've gotta admit that what you remain bitter about might just have been the BEST thing for this franchise that is realistically possible right now considering what is available on the market and in our system.

[Polaris922]

@yave1964 @SpikeDDS

 

you see that part burns me too.   If he was doing this to be a better father, why not think of that two years ago when he signed?  It's not like this is the end of a ten year contract.  Live up to your word.  There's no emergency situation here.  

 

 

Me and in regards to choice vs injury, I'm more lenient towards injury.  Those guys WANT to play and can't.  He can and chooses not to.  Should the Wings be held accountable?  I dunno.  If they can stop him from playing and chose not to?  Then yes.  

[flyerrod]

On 6/26/2016 at 10:05 AM, Polaris922 said:

Just as the Pronger contract should've stuck on the Flyers.   

Pronger's injury that left him medically unable to play the game again should not have killed his contract but it should have killed the cap hit. He did not walk away from the game intentionally as Datsyuk has. Don't get me wrong, this was a brilliant move by the RW's GM in today's contract absurdity but the situation between Pronger and Datsyuk's cap hit/reason for leaving are vastly different. Gary Bettman's pet project continues to reap the benefits of a poor CBA yet again.......

[yave1964]

2 hours ago, flyerrod said:

Pronger's injury that left him medically unable to play the game again should not have killed his contract but it should have killed the cap hit. He did not walk away from the game intentionally as Datsyuk has. Don't get me wrong, this was a brilliant move by the RW's GM in today's contract absurdity but the situation between Pronger and Datsyuk's cap hit/reason for leaving are vastly different. Gary Bettman's pet project continues to reap the benefits of a poor CBA yet again.......

Oh my God I could not agree more, the Pronger/Savard/Horton contracts should have simply been frozen/not counted against the cap and unable to trade, no reason to trade even. It as absurd that it has been allowed to happen and makes no Hockey sense.

  As for Datsyuk,.walking away mid contract and leaving the Wings to hold the bag, he should A) not be allowed to compete in another league, that has been an agreement between the NHL and KHL for several years, a 'no poaching' deal if you will, but it expired this season and B) the Wings should not have been on the hook for it. It is not as if they reached a secret handshake agreement, telling a player that he will not make the team and so he can get out of his deal and go play elsewhere, instead it was a fading star who is a hero in the city and among the fans who walked away leaving a bad taste. To Hell with him. I really thought as the summer wore on that I would move on from this but I guess that I haven't.

  So players jumping mid contract hurting their teams, injured/retired players having their contracts traded away. Hockey in Vegas. None in Quebec. Bang up job Gary.

[radoran]

The primary difference between Pronger and Datsyuk's contracts is that they were signed under different rules.

 

The Pronger contract is now illegal - you can't add league minimum years to the end of the deal to lower the cap hit. That's ridiculous shenanigans and it was when it happened.

 

That said - as I've noted elsewhere - in the Datsyuk deal, the Wings got a player who "made" $17M over two years (an $8.5M cap hit) for a $7.5M cap hit because they had the widest gap between top year and bottom year currently allowed.

 

Again, that enabled them to have other players on the roster they wouldn't otherwise have had if Datsyuk had been on at the $8.5M number - Shehean, Larkin, Jurco, Mrazek all had sub-$1M cap hits last season and the Wings were capped out. That's a competitive advantage achieved by the cap shenanigans. There should be a penalty for that. As we've seen, GMs will do whatever they can to stretch the rules. Really the only thing that might discourage them is a penalty if things go bad.

 

I don't know where the third year on the deal came from, but it seems clearly designed to cut the overall cap hit of the contract. Datsyuk obviously wanted to get paid big bucks, took the deal and then walked out on it. There is no other way to look at it - he walked away from a deal that he signed. I lost a lot of respect for him for doing that.

 

As for "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" in terms of what's in the CBA - what's in the CBA is what's in the CBA. Both sides negotiated it and agreed to the terms. Players, GMs and agents then negotiated deals under the terms of the CBA. It shouldn't be a shock to anyone - Homer notwithstanding - that the terms of the CBA are the terms of the CBA.

 

Would it be nice if it were different? Possibly. But I don't see a scenario in which it gets changed to be the laissez faire free-for-all that some are advocating for.

[Polaris922]

5 hours ago, flyerrod said:

Pronger's injury that left him medically unable to play the game again should not have killed his contract but it should have killed the cap hit. He did not walk away from the game intentionally as Datsyuk has. Don't get me wrong, this was a brilliant move by the RW's GM in today's contract absurdity but the situation between Pronger and Datsyuk's cap hit/reason for leaving are vastly different. Gary Bettman's pet project continues to reap the benefits of a poor CBA yet again.......

 

Different causes but same sidestepping that should result in penalties.  As players get older they're more prone to losing competitiveness AND injury.  The Flyers knew that and made the deal anyway, which is why the over 35 penalty existed.  To prevent ducking cap hits with long deals on players who most likely wouldn't be able to play out the contract.  

 

The he penalty should remain in effect against the Flyers because they accepted that risk and did it anyway.  

 

The penalty against the Wings is different in that they have a healthy player refusing to play.  There should be penalties against Datsyuk preventing him from being able to play till he lives up to his contract.  If there is something the wings could do to stop him playing elsewhere and they're choosing not to do it then the penalty should stick to them as well.  

[yave1964]

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 0:28 PM, Polaris922 said:

 

Different causes but same sidestepping that should result in penalties.  As players get older they're more prone to losing competitiveness AND injury.  The Flyers knew that and made the deal anyway, which is why the over 35 penalty existed.  To prevent ducking cap hits with long deals on players who most likely wouldn't be able to play out the contract.  

 

The he penalty should remain in effect against the Flyers because they accepted that risk and did it anyway.  

 

The penalty against the Wings is different in that they have a healthy player refusing to play.  There should be penalties against Datsyuk preventing him from being able to play till he lives up to his contract.  If there is something the wings could do to stop him playing elsewhere and they're choosing not to do it then the penalty should stick to them as well.  

Unfortunately the KHL and NHL non poaching agreement expired this offseason. Datsyuk  signed a deal in the KHL which will pay him around the same as his contract. I am still disgusted that he did this, honor your damn deal and move on. The Wings had zero recourse to prevent it, apparently a signed contract is a moot point anymore. The Wings were not at fault, it falls squarely on the shoulders of Datsyuk.

[flyerrod]

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 0:28 PM, Polaris922 said:

 

Different causes but same sidestepping that should result in penalties.  As players get older they're more prone to losing competitiveness AND injury.  The Flyers knew that and made the deal anyway, which is why the over 35 penalty existed.  To prevent ducking cap hits with long deals on players who most likely wouldn't be able to play out the contract.  

 

The he penalty should remain in effect against the Flyers because they accepted that risk and did it anyway.  

 

The penalty against the Wings is different in that they have a healthy player refusing to play.  There should be penalties against Datsyuk preventing him from being able to play till he lives up to his contract.  If there is something the wings could do to stop him playing elsewhere and they're choosing not to do it then the penalty should stick to them as well.  

We are back to Pronger has been declared by doctors as unable or unfit to play the game. It is my personal opinion that it would be more fair to have the team pay out the contract but not count it as a cap hit for players who have been deemed medically not fit by real doctors to play due to injury sustained while playing the game.. Teams juggle the numbers and make it work out anyhow using the LTIR year after year. The Only team that benefits from this situation is Gary Bettman's pet project. Funny how that works out......

[Polaris922]

2 hours ago, flyerrod said:

We are back to Pronger has been declared by doctors as unable or unfit to play the game. It is my personal opinion that it would be more fair to have the team pay out the contract but not count it as a cap hit for players who have been deemed medically not fit by real doctors to play due to injury sustained while playing the game.. Teams juggle the numbers and make it work out anyhow using the LTIR year after year. The Only team that benefits from this situation is Gary Bettman's pet project. Funny how that works out......

 

I understand as a fan it's upsetting, but in my eyes it's the penalty for overlong contracts trying to skirt big cap hits.  If it were up to me he shouldn't be allowed to stay active LTIR it should've just counted against the cap.  

[SpikeDDS]

On August 11, 2016 at 0:40 PM, yave1964 said:

Unfortunately the KHL and NHL non poaching agreement expired this offseason. Datsyuk  signed a deal in the KHL which will pay him around the same as his contract. I am still disgusted that he did this, honor your damn deal and move on. The Wings had zero recourse to prevent it, apparently a signed contract is a moot point anymore. The Wings were not at fault, it falls squarely on the shoulders of Datsyuk.

And at the time he walked away, I was under the impression that the no-poaching deal was in effect, and that the RW front office CHOSE to let him play in the KHL. Once I found out that Datsyuk had the RWs by the short hairs, I actually became more critical of him for this decision.

 

At the same time, I don't think Pav was being untruthful when he said that his family was the primary reason for leaving. I can't recall Pav EVER saying something that wasn't true in his whole career. And I don't know about you guys, but NOTHING outprioritizes my family in my decision-making process. If my family needs something, I'm gonna do what is necessary.

 

I'm a dentist, and I have said to my employees numerous times that I am under no illusion that this job is more important than our families are. That is never true. It's the same for them, AND it applies to me too. I encourage them that if their family needs mean they need to find another job, i won't enjoy them leaving, but I will understand. After all, one day my family or I will need me to take the gloves and mask off and walk away too.

 

The only parts that stink are that 1. The RWs were left holding the bag on the cap hit (until this deal, anyway--and still lost a prospect), and 2. Pav didnt meet his end of the contract. Well, to those things I say this: The RWs knew that the no-poaching agreement would expire when it did, but signed him beyond that point anyway. There really was nothing they could do to stop him from bolting, yet they made the deal anyway. They were hoping that he wouldn't do it, but for good reason he did.

 

But the bottom line is that he did it for his kid, and if any of you with kids knew that your kid needed you but it would mean walking out on a contract that you, yourself, signed, anyone who says they would honor the deal at the expense of their kid's needs is either not thinking it through or is a horrible father. You can find another job. You can pay people back. But you can't undo not being a father to your kid.

 

I STILL DONT LIKE THE DEAL, but I understand it. But there will be few of us (I would hope) that would not walk away from a deal for the sake of a loved one. But this is the way it SHOULD be, IMHO, even though I would have liked it better if the Wings had given assent for,him to play in the KHL of their own free will. But they didn't have a choice, and they should have known this was a possibility. So even though I like it LESS, I still am not bitter. Understanding that family Vs. Contract decision is a choice, and family still wins.

[flyerrod]

On 8/11/2016 at 8:48 PM, Polaris922 said:

I understand as a fan it's upsetting, but in my eyes it's the penalty for overlong contracts trying to skirt big cap hits.  If it were up to me he shouldn't be allowed to stay active LTIR it should've just counted against the cap.  

Spoken like a true Pens fan........

[Polaris922]

Left for his kid...  Whatever.  It's not like something suddenly changed since the signing of the contract or the girl got sick or something.  THAT I could understand.  It's nine months... Suck it up and live up to your word.  THEN go home and be divorced daddy fighting over custody and spending money to compensate for your absence like all the rest...