das_hips Wrote:I'm not sure I follow. You initially provided that Jacques Martin had an impedance on the teams offensive abilities while Alfredsson played on the same team as Hossa, and Havlat. Disregarding that they rarely played on the same line
You know what I recommend you do to see just how poor your "
they rarely played on the same line" argument is? Go
here.
Then click on any of the games where Alfie had points. Note:
* Daniel Alfredsson 1 (Martin Havlat)
* Wade Redden 1 (power play) (Daniel Alfredsson, Martin Havlat)
So, in two of Alfie's three points in that series featured assists from Havlat.
Granted, as skippy would call me out on, this is a very small sample size (given it was yet another playoff loss to the Leafs), and I don't have the time nor inclination to see just what percentage of his points involved Hossa or Havlat on the ice with him, but just clicking on a few random games I found:
- Martin Havlat 29 (power play) (Daniel Alfredsson, Radek Bonk)
and
- Wade Redden 15 (power play) (Daniel Alfredsson, Marian Hossa)
and, even when I go back to the beginning of the season:
- Radek Bonk 3 (power play) (Daniel Alfredsson, Marian Hossa)
Am I cherry picking here? Absolutely. There are plenty of non-Hossa and non-Havlat goals that Alfie is on (hell, I'd already forgotten that Peter Bondra was a Sen for a bit), but your efforts to suggest that Alfie played in some non-Hossa and non-Havlat vacuum us absurd. It is pretty clear - from a few random clicks - that while they may have not played a regular shift together, they obviously spent some time on PP together. In fact, if I remember correctly, didn't Alfie QB that PP?
das_hips Wrote:your argument then became that Alfredsson has benefitted from the emergence of Spezza and Heatley. After which, you simply ignored that and claimed that Heatley and Spezza were better players than Havlat and Hossa. You argued that Alfredsson's numbers were better since the departure of Martin because the team no longer employed a defense-first approach, and then eliminated that as rationality.
Well that's a fun little attempt you've made at trying to manipulate the sequence of events. I also like that you clipped part of my quote (about Martin), but not the whole thing, which was:
cferneyh Wrote:Since the 2004 season, his production has picked up. I think there are a lot of factors that have contributed to this - the "new" NHL, the Sens firing Jacques Martin (and dropping Martin's "defense first" approach), and - most importantly - the maturation of Jason Spezza.
So when/where/how has my argument changed? I point to a number of pretty obvious factors. You took issue with me attributing Alfie's increased production to Spezza. In fact, you said it was perhaps the other way around, which is kinda funny given that you later claim they rarely play together. I guess just having Alfie on the bench makes Spezza tap into his true potential, if you are to believed. :lol:
das_hips Wrote:Regarding the notion that Ottawa has had superior offensive depth than that of a Calgary, or Toronto, or whoever, I won't disagree.
Wait....you took issue with my pointing out that Alfie has always been surrounded by better talent, but you agree that Alfie has always been surrounded by better talent?!?
das_hips Wrote:When a third line (I think they call it an 'energy' line these days) scores a goal, it is against an opponents third line. To assert that when Alfredsson has scored, or done well against an opponent is done against a somewhat inferior line is probably without justification. If Ottawa were to play a low-scoring team, that team would most certainly apply a defensive approach to all elements of the game. When a top line, or a second line is on the ice, it is either matched by equal offensive talent, or a line consisting of defensive forwards (see Stanley Cup Finals, 2007).
Uh, that's kinda my point. Sundin is going to face the other team's
#1 line, or
best checking centre, each and every shift. Is Alfie? Or would the opposing coach reserve that player/line for the Spezza line? And, remember, it is YOUR argument that they rarely play together, and we can agree that Spezza's line is the #1 line, no?
das_hips Wrote:Is it beyond comprehension that an NHL player would take a financially sound contract (5-8 years at that. How many players did the same that year, or have done so since?)
cferneyh Wrote:Brad Richards
Martin St. Louis
Chris Pronger
Scott Niedermayer
Joe Thornton
Martin Brodeur
And that's just off the top of my head.
das_hips Wrote:You mentioned players who signed contracts for several years who are being paid more than Alfredsson (with the exception of St. Louis),
Uh, they are being paid more because they signed their contracts
after Alfredsson did. Again, do I again need to remind you of the concept of
market rates? NHL salaries continue to increase, not decrease, which is why Bryan McCabe is getting paid more than d-men who signed deals prior to his. Accordingly, since each of these players signed after Alfie, it is only logical they will get more.
das_hips Wrote:and whose contracts are generally much shorter than those of Alfredsson's.
Much shorter? Huh?
Brad Richards - 5 years
Martin St. Louis - 6 years
Chris Pronger - 5 years
Scott Niedermayer - 4 years
Joe Thornton - added 3 years when there was still a year left, making it 4 years
Martin Brodeur - 6 years.
das_hips Wrote:cferneyh Wrote:Also, I think it is kind of funny that you think Alfie's deal was all about doing what he could to stay when he structured his deal to get a $7.5 million signing bonus, mere months before the lockout. Seems to me that someone (or someone's agent) was expecting salaries to drop, or plateau, with the new CBA and as such made sure he got as much up front as he could. Funny that.
.
Months before the lockout? Yes, you're correct. Month's before the introduction of the roll-back? Nope.
No, just a few months before it was widely acknowledged that it was going to be a long drawn out battle, and Goodenow told players that they should be prepared to sit out for two seasons. Just before all that, Alfie cashed in a $7.5 million bonus cheque. Considering his role on the bargaining committee, I hardly see that as a coincidence. I'm curious to know if you know of any other players who took huge signing bonuses just before the lockout. If you can't accept that it was a calculated risk that has come back to bite him in the ass, that's fine. But it's pretty clear that that is exactly what it was.
das_hips Wrote:Daniel Alfredsson is making half of that of Dany Heatley next season. Is Dany Heatley going to be over-paid? Perhaps a bit, yes. Is Daniel Alfredsson going to be underpaid (even at your $6.5 million calculation), definitely.
Again, I
never argued that. I argued your assertion that he took a paycut to stay in Ottawa. He didn't. While you've done your best to try and twist arguments, or turn the argument into something else, etc, the simple fact of the matter is his deal averaged out to a contract that was indicative of his value to the team at that time. The 24% rollback, the $7.5 million signing bonus, his increased production, and escalating salaries have all contributed to make that deal look bad (for him) now, but at the time it was well within the range of similar contracts being handed out. Despite your efforts to move this discussion elsewhere, or misrepresenting the basic facts of his contract, the simple fact remains - he took a deal at market rates. No more, no less.
das_hips Wrote:Daniel Alfredsson is the first European Captain to take his team to the Stanley Cup. That must hurt.
First European Captain to lose the Stanley Cup too!
.
