Comments on: A new Lowe

By: FE8RYs6k

FE8RYs6k — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:51:03 +0000

mentre anteprime film porno; foto coppie esibizioniste foto laura pausini nuda; sesso futurama xxx attrici hard di colore; fumetti hard da vedere brasiliane trans accompagnatrici; strano cameriera fottilo sexy schemales; sensazione porno sconfinato asiatiche orale fotti; maschi sodomizzati desiderio soldato maledica; sexy shappic comsexi; porn sex prodigiosamente bagnate; scopate di moana pozzi foto gratis ragazze sculacciate; zie mature vogliose sculacciate foto; download film concetta licata schizzi bollenti di sborra; lust asiatiche fotti www mm; osare ragazze gruppo allievo teen gruppo; perverse figa molle figa sex figa sexx; ayJnBurIoO

By: Halibut

Halibut — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:45:38 +0000

Let's agree to disagree then.

I think we can agree that salaries for younger players are going up and that consequentially salaries for older players has to go down. I dont think this is going to spell the end of the NHL you see it as a catastrophe. In either case with younger UFAs coming RFA offer sheets may have sped up the process but it's one that was on it's way as soon as the CBA was agreed to.

By: Halibut

Halibut — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:42:14 +0000

Not really. Top 10 picks sound good on draft day but check a few years down the road and see how many have made the NHL and how many have made any impact in the league. It's very few, most of the time 2 or 3 with a few more impact players coming from later in the first or even the 2nd or later rounds.

By: kamullia

kamullia — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:35:52 +0000

I cannot help but read your reasoning find it comical that the same description of my views are applicable in the same exact fashion to yours. I see no logical reasoning to your posture either, because on one hand you find my reasonings as "...vague generalizations based on how the league has run under the old CBA..." and yet your entire basing of your argument above is based upon your not mentioned, but obvious, agreement upon my argument that salaries will navigate toward the younger crowd. Moreover hysterical, is the fact that "vague generalizations" are exactly all you are able to use in your argument. There is no history to base upon in the new CBA. There is no statistical marks that can be focused upon, because there have been not enough years to make a statistical model accurate. Your entire premise is an even bigger vague assumption, because whereas I try to use trends that I do see applicable to the new CBA from the history of the NHL, you cannot possibly provide any reliable numbers. This is not your fault that the CBA is so young, but your entire classification of my views and then the arguments you use make you a "preacher in his underwear" by all means.

Bottom line, even your scenario is unreasonable. A league where older players in general, make less money than the much younger ones will simply not sustain as is. Maturer persons in general, and this is certainly true of players, focus more on family and pride than on future and instability for a penny like younger people tend to choose. That will translate into older players choosing to play elsewhere, rather than in the NHL once they feel monetarily the compensation is not worth it. As those contracts go down, you would certainly see the European players choose to play in Europe instead. Salaries in Russia and the Czech republic have seen quite a boost as of late, and the trend will probably propagate soon, or at least this is the clear intent of the IIHFs latest dealings. And the North American players not being able to find long-term deals, would simply find other ways of getting family stability and Europe or other solutions would become quite attractive to them. The NHL would eventually fracture, in my views, and perhaps a new league would rise. This is not something I would want, but I truly would not see a future to the NHL in that scenario.

As a side note from an earlier post, regular readers of the site can testify that I was one of the people, along with others in the media (albeit not as many), that made the same arguments about the Hartnell deal. They were both insensible and will affect the league in general.

In closing to put things mildly, I have a firm view on this, and perhaps we can both agree on my thought that we simply do not see eye-to-eye on this. In the end, time will tell how things turn out, and I frankly I would rather wait to see what happens on this, than unavailingly exchange ideas until the statistical models can be built. Until then, "Keep your views to yourself or other deranged lunatics, and stay in your fantasy world." Hopefully you find it as funny as I do that I am sure you apply the same sentence in reverse.

And on that note, I need to write to one of those NHL deranged lunatics from my side. I will make sure I convey your disapproval on our views. ;o)

By: 19AVSFANFoLIFE19

19AVSFANFoLIFE19 — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:02:51 +0000

Parise also had alot more points on a defensive team then penner did.
take the chance on him if you will on penner.

By: 19AVSFANFoLIFE19

19AVSFANFoLIFE19 — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:01:22 +0000

ok thats fine
leadership on D?
besides staois
not only that Smith was in my view easily a top 10 defensive dman and now hes gone.
enjoy watching pitkanen and souray get undressed

and if lowe built through the draft how come they havent had the same success as teams that did build through it. I.E the rangers? redwings?
you havent build through the draft cause if you did you should have atleast one superstar forward. Where is he?

and i will enjoy watching smyth, ofcourse he is overpaid so was every other player in free agency. closest to not being overpaid was scotty hannan. he would get 4 on the dot in my books.
and i have no problem with smyths 60 games a year your just bitter cause hes not on the oilers anymore. you just enjoy watching him and sakic make roloson look stupid.

By: big_booty

big_booty — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 08:38:42 +0000

Know your facts before looking foolish.

Pursuant to the NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement, Article 12, Section 4, Paragraph a), any club who wants to take a player to arbitration must notify the player by June 15, or 48 hours after the conclusion of the Stanley Cup finals.

By: Halibut

Halibut — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 08:26:25 +0000

I've read it and there is still no logical reasoning in that long winded stream of thought.

Despite the PA not liking it if older salaries fall I dont see a way around it in this CBA. Nobody wants to pay a Mogilny millions to play on the farm plus very few players in their mid to late 30's put up the numbers they did when they were in their mid 20's. Also the age for UFA is going down which means that with or without RFA offer sheets more money will be spent on younger players.

Teams that sign long term contracts for older players are going to handcuff themself in the future. They wont be able to afford to make RFA offers because the player wont fit into their cap situation. The teams losing players will get compensation and if the offer is overboard it will be more compensation then the player is worth.

Despite your assertion that most gm's see RFA as you do I doubt any of the players or agents saw it that way or they would have dropped it from the CBA. If it doesnt allow for the possibility of player movement then their is no value to it, your vision would result in all offer sheets being matched and have been of less value to the player then arbitration.

I see all your arguements as vague generalizations based on how the league has run under the old CBA that dont actually look at the new deal and consider the ramifications of it. You cant argue that if teams are over spending on young players then the older players will have to take less. You cant argue that escrow payments protect the teams in the case of league wide over spending.

By: Marc0427

Marc0427 — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 23:07:32 +0000

Agreed, it's tough remembering the Oil of old with Wayne, Messier, Coffey etc etc etc etc….They've gone from the most dominating team in the league to…..well………nothing.

By: kamullia

kamullia — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 19:09:25 +0000

Your scenario is not possible. Players that are scheduled for arbitration cannot be given an offer, other than the team who already own their rights. Therefore if Penner and the Ducks would have gone the arbitration route and had been scheduled, Lowe would not have been able to give an offer. But do not feel bad, I have yet to hear any theory to justify Lowe's timing.

However, even if your scenario was possible, Lowe should have called Burke. Period. And especially if he did feel the timing was rotten, as he surely had knowledge of it. Regardless if he would have called before tendering the offer, or right after, he should have called Burke personally. He had called Regier before tendering the offer to Vanek, and his relationship with Burke was much more cordial, therefore he should have given Burke the courtesy of the phone call, even if right after tendering the offer.

A friend in the media tried to chase down why Lowe did not call Burke, but there is no one available who knows the answer since all the Oilers' lips are sealed as to the incident. There are some vague rumors that Lowe did not appreciate Burke's alleged private comments to others in the business about the Vanek offer, and therefore prompted the lack of courtesy...but the reporter was not able to quote or speak to anyone who could/would verify. It was all through third parties, therefore it cannot be classified as anything more than a rumor.