Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Pittsburgh, the logical choice for Parise and Suter?

If Pittsburgh wasn’t already doing a hard sell on Zach Parise and Ryan Suter’s agents, Yahoo Sports’ Nicholas J. Cotsonika just penned one for ‘em, imagining what Cotsonika called a dynasty-in-the-making team truly evolving into just that with this summer’s marquee free agents choosing what he seems to believe is the only logical place for either to play:

If you’re Zach Parise or Ryan Suter, is there anywhere you’d rather play than Pittsburgh? The Penguins can take a run at the top two UFAs on the market, Zach Parise and Ryan Suter. (Getty)Let’s see. You could be paid well. If you’re Parise, you could be the long-awaited winger for Sidney Crosby, who just so happens to be your buddy. If you’re Suter, you could bolster the defense of a talented team that includes Crosby, Evgeni Malkin, James Neal, Kris Letang and Marc-Andre Fleury. In either case, you could work for good-guy coach Dan Bylsma. You could have a great chance to win the Stanley Cup year in and year out.

Oh, and you could do it all in a U.S. market where hockey matters but doesn’t matter too much – important for low-key American stars like Parise, from Minnesota, and Suter, from Wisconsin.

Parise and Suter didn’t seem like realistic options for Pittsburgh a couple of days ago. But now that general manager Ray Shero has cleared salary-cap space by swinging deals at the NHL draft at Consol Energy Center, the Penguins can make a push for at least one of the top unrestricted free agents July 1. Especially if Shero can clear some more space – by, say, moving defenseman Paul Martin and his $5 million hit – they might even be able to make a push for both.

But what about other teams, like Detroit or Minnesota?

Both could go to Detroit or Minnesota. The Red Wings have the cap space to make a splash, and their savvy management has been able to reload for years without high draft picks. They especially need Suter after the departures of Nicklas Lidstrom and Brad Stuart. The Wild has cap space and Midwestern allure. Minneapolis is Parise’s hometown team and close to Suter’s home state. But some of the Wings’ key pieces are older. How long can they defy gravity? And is the Wild close enough to winning? Does anyone know if the Wild can win long-term?

Both should have other options. Parise could go to, say, Los Angeles. The Kings have cap space and a hole at left wing. They just beat the Devils to win the Cup, and they have a young core. The beach ain’t bad, either. But is he a West Coast guy? Suter could go to, say, Chicago, if the Blackhawks can clear cap space by trading Niklas Hjalmarsson and his $3.5 million hit.

No doubt others will be in the mix, or will want to be, and Pittsburgh isn’t necessarily perfect. Some teams might be willing to pay more money or do a front-loaded deal – perhaps especially Detroit, with owner Mike Ilitch aggressively trying to keep the Wings among the elite. Parise or Suter – or both – might have to take less to fit into the Penguins’ salary structure, and the Pens won’t do front-loaded deals, even with a potential lockout looming.

He goes on at some length, and it’s written like a love letter.

Filed in: | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

« Previous        < 1 2 3 4 >       Next »

Avatar

when the floor is lowered and the ceiling is raised as you guys suggest

God DAMN IT would you STOP making shit up?

Try to argue THE WORDS WE ARE TYPING, not the moronic inferences you are making, please.

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 03:33 AM ET

Avatar

If the floor is so low that the poor teams can afford to make it and nothing is done about the ceiling then basically there is no cap it’s pointless.

NOBODY.  IS.  SUGGESTING.  THIS.

See what I’m saying?

Yeah, you’re saying that blue is purple and that green is hamburger.

Oh, you’re the only one allowed to make stupid f*cking inferences?  Sorry.

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 03:35 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

The 70/10 example was extreme, but it’s not what I was suggesting.  Of course the floor should be a sane amount indexed to the cap ceiling.  That’s what makes this so dumb:

Lowering the floor and saying let the cap continue to raise with revenues

It’s like you think anybody here is suggesting that the floor should be fixed once and never allowed to rise.  If you can find me anywhere in here that gives you a good reason to infer that’s the recommendation, then please provide that, otherwise please burn this strawman and forget you ever created him.  It’s better for you that way.

parity was the reason for the lockout in the first place.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA You believe that.  HAHAAHAHAHHAAAHHHHHAAAAAAHAHAHHAAAH

[breath]

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAAAH

Yep… the Rangers voted for a lockout because they were afraid the league just wasn’t competitive enough.  Come the hell on, man.

Revenues are up because the big teams are making more but the little poor ones are staying the same

Yes, because they’re losing more money. Because they’re forced to spend more money on player salaries than they can afford.

You keep saying you know about collective bargaining. That is great.  I’m sure a theoretical physicist knows about rocking chairs.  If I want one actually BUILT? I’m going to a carpenter.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 03:35 AM ET

Avatar

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 01:35 AM ET

God damn it, you are an entertaining read, JJ.

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 03:37 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

JJ you my friend are a tool and not a very sharp one. The cba was set up with the floor being a 55% of the cap, well if you lower the floor and let the gap increase then that percentage goes down and thus competitive advantage the top teams have increase. Thus parity is diminished and thus the league is weaker as a result. If only certain teams can spend whatever they want , then we become the MLB. There is a cap in the MLB too, is that a competitive league? No? why? No parity! What is happening to that league with no parity? They are drawing less crowds! What does that result in? Less league wide revenues. What does that result in? The gap widening again because the floor has to be lowered because the poor teams are making less then they were before. It’s simple economics. How is that hard to understand?

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 03:37 AM ET

Avatar

a) NO, the floor was not set at 55% of the cap, it was set as $16M less than the cap.  There’s a difference.  If the floor was set as 55% of the cap then the floor this coming year (with the cap being $70.3M) would be $38.6M, but that’s NOWHERE NEAR what it is going it be.  The floor this year will be $54.3M if the cap is $70.3M.  Do you see the difference?  Is it as clear as day to you as it is to EVERYONE ELSE?

Jesus Christ, nobody is saying you lower the floor and raise the cap.  We’re ALL saying that you keep the floor as a fixed PERCENTAGE of the cap.

Do you get it?

Is that simple enough?

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 03:41 AM ET

Avatar

And there is, of course, no B)

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 03:42 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

Ummm you guys are saying lower the floor and leave the ceiling the same. Find me where you guys say otherwise, all I have seen is suggestions to lower the floor nothing else, not inferring anything, just responding to what is being said Garth. You also are pretty dimwitted too apparently, if you can’t get that what you guys are saying is inferring exactly what I’m accusing you of. No you haven’t come out and said we don’t want the cap anymore, but your suggested solutions would result in basically the same thing.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 03:42 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

Hey bub it was originally set at 55% then changed to 16 million so try again, sunshine. I read the CBA many times over and if you had you would have know the 55% number was the original figure used.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 03:44 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

The cba was set up with the floor being a 55% of the cap

No it was NOT.  The CBA was set up with the floor being $16M below the cap.  That’s ACTUALLY IN THE WORDING OF THE CBA.

The fact that it just so happened to be 55% of the cap has no bearing, considering that the projected floor for next year will be 77% of the salary cap (please look that up so we can stop pretending you know how the cap works)

The floor indexes directly to the cap. It is always $16M below the cap.  If the cap hits $100M, the floor (under the current CBA) would be $84M.  Let’s do some math:

84/100=84%

To let the floor go down would actually be to get closer to the original percent accidentally set by the numbers.  This is precisely what I am recommending.  I want the floor to be closer to 55%, not lower than that. I definitely want it to be lower than 77% of the cap.

There is a cap in the MLB too

The MLB’s cap is not a hard cap.  I already explained the luxury tax. You are intentionally refusing to learn because I’m embarrassing you at this point.  I’m starting to feel badly for how ignorant you’re starting to look.

You say you know CBAs, but you think the floor is set as a percentage of the cap.  That is sad.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 03:45 AM ET

Avatar

Ummm you guys are saying lower the floor and leave the ceiling the same.

No, dummy, we’re saying that the ceiling is going to be what it is, and that THIS YEAR the floor should be lowered because IT WOULD BE A PERCENTAGE OF THE CAP.  In fact, the SAME percentage of the cap that it was when the cap was introduced.

Jesus.

Do you honestly think we’re saying that the floor should go down every year?  NO. We’ve been talking about THIS YEAR.  Holy shit, you are the owner of the thickest skull in the known universe.

but your suggested solutions would result in basically the same thing.

No they wouldn’t.  And for f*ck’s sake would you STOP INFERRING???!?!!?

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 03:45 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Ummm you guys are saying lower the floor and leave the ceiling the same.

So you’re the one saying raise the cap to increase the gap between floor and ceiling.

Not often people so readily admit to creating strawmen, but bravo to you for doing so.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 03:48 AM ET

Avatar

Hey bub it was originally set at 55% then changed to 16 million so try again, sunshine.

Then you understand that the difference between cap and ceiling is FIXED AT $16M AND NOT A PERCENTAGE OF THE CAP.  We are advocating that the ceiling be A PERCENTAGE OF THE CAP, NOT A FIXED DOLLAR AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE.

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 03:48 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

Seriously, do actually believe what you post? If the floor gets lowered to accommodate the poor teams. But revenues continue to rise for the rich teams but not the poor, the cap will go up because overall revenues will go up and so will the floor at a fixed percentage would have to go up too, even if the poor teams are still not profitable. So what do you do then? Lower the floor again and move the percentage gap wider still? Nice viscous cycle there.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 03:50 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

One time lowering won’t fix the issue as I’ve said previously. Because as the median revenues have increased over the years as the rich and Canadian teams are doing very well and growing, the same cannot be said for the lower teams they are treading water, so for them a one time lowering will do nothing to help them other than for one year.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 03:54 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

50.5 (b)

Look it up - Page 199 of the CBA, at the top.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 03:54 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

Revenue sharing only works if the percentage of sharing makes a dent, which if it did we wouldn’t be talking about a cap going up while in the same breath talking about lowering the floor.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 03:56 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Seriously, do actually believe what you post? If the floor gets lowered to accommodate the poor teams. But revenues continue to rise for the rich teams but not the poor, the cap will go up because overall revenues will go up and so will the floor at a fixed percentage would have to go up too, even if the poor teams are still not profitable. So what do you do then? Lower the floor again and move the percentage gap wider still? Nice viscous cycle there.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 01:50 AM ET

I’m going to translate this statement and feed it back to you in idiot-speak:

IF YOU LOWER THE FLOOR AND THE LEAGUE MAKES MORE MONEY THEY THE LEAGUE WILL HAVE TO SPEND MORE MONEY.

WHAT IF THE SMALL MARKET TEAMS CAN’T MAKE A PROFIT WHILE SPENDING LESS MONEY THAN THEY OTHERWISE WOULD WHILE ALSO BRINGING IN MORE MONEY THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN?

Yes, if the small-market teams cannot survive a fundamental change in the CBA by where you index the floor to the cap, where they ONLY WAY THEY WOULD BE FORCED TO SPEND MORE IS IF THEY ACTUALLY MAKE MORE, then we have a serious problem.

Also, it’s spelled “vicious”, you person-who-claims-to-have-read-the-NHL-CBA-multiple-times-despite-showing-a-clear-lack-of-knowledge-for-how-it-actually-works.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 03:58 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

Yes I’m aware of article 50.5 just confirms what i said about how it works. Ty for finding it for me.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 04:00 AM ET

Avatar

it’s not a one time lowering, it’s a switching of the system from a 16m differential to a % based differential.

Ok, so somebody understands.

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 04:01 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

You’ve just proved all my points JJ you dolt. Are you really that blind to see everything I said you just proved for me lol WoW And fyi if you are going to comment on my grammar and spelling at this time of night when I’m not proof reading what i type, then you really have lost the battle and getting petty tom petty

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 04:02 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Yes I’m aware of article 50.5 just confirms what i said about how it works. Ty for finding it for me.

So the article that does not have “55%” anywhere in it confirms what you said about the floor being set intentionally at 55% of the cap while the part that says the cap is set at $8M above the midpoint and the floor is set at $8M below the midpoint (which actually DOES appear in that section) is disproved?

I honestly have no idea what you’re playing at.  I just actually proved you wrong.  This is the part of the show where you’re supposed to admit that you were actually wrong because it’s proven.

If you’re that knowledgeable, great.  You have two minutes to explain to me how the midpoint is set every year.  The clock starts when I hit “post”.

You get two minutes to prove you haven’t just looked it up, because anybody who has read through the CBA multiple times should know this off the top of his head.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 04:03 AM ET

Avatar

the Payroll Range shall be
constructed by adding $8 million to the Adjusted Midpoint to establish the Upper
Limit, and subtracting $8 million from the “Adjusted Midpoint” to establish the
Lower Limit.

So that’s a static, $16M difference between the upper and lower limits.

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 04:04 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

HTO thank you for agreeing with me I’ve spent the last hours saying the system is broken and lowering the cap floor percentile won’t solve it because we have a broken model. But all anyone wants to do is argue with me about stuff that isn’t going to fix a damn thing, I used it earlier and i’ll use it again, lowering the floor is just putting off the inevitable.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 04:05 AM ET

Avatar

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 02:02 AM ET

It’s completely amazing that you think you’ve been proven right.

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 04:05 AM ET

Avatar

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 02:05 AM ET

Wow, Australians are DUMB.

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 04:06 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

You’ve just proved all my points JJ you dolt. Are you really that blind to see everything I said you just proved for me lol

Hahahaha.

You made an impossible if/then and I pointed that out. I fuching knew I should be careful about aiming logical concepts over your head.  You’ve missed so many of them to this point.  I really am at fault for that.  I should have known you wouldn’t understand.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 04:06 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

If you need to know more about the history of the NHL cba i suggest you can wikipedia it where you’ll find this little tidbit

The CBA also contains a “Lower Limit of the Payroll Range”, which is the minimum that each team must pay in player salaries. The lower limit was originally set at 55% of the cap, but is now defined to be $16 million below the cap; therefore the 2011–12 minimum is $48.3 million.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 04:07 AM ET

Avatar

I should have known you wouldn’t understand.

Yeah, you’re stupid.

I agree with the dumbass who keeps changing his arguments and inferring things that weren’t implied.

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 04:08 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I’ve spent the last hours saying the system is broken and lowering the cap floor percentile won’t solve it

That’s because we’re arguing in favor of ESTABLISHING the cap floor percentile, since it’s currently not set as a percent, but as a fixed amount.  The cap floor next year will be 77% of the ceiling.  That is dumb.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 04:08 AM ET

Avatar

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 02:07 AM ET

Then you understand that the difference between cap and ceiling is FIXED AT $16M AND NOT A PERCENTAGE OF THE CAP.  We are advocating that the ceiling be A PERCENTAGE OF THE CAP, NOT A FIXED DOLLAR AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE.

Posted by Garth on 06/24/12 at 04:09 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 02:07 AM ET

Wait a cocksucking minute… did you just quote WIKIPEDIA at me in response to a quote from the actual NHL CBA?

Redux time:

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAAAAA oh man HAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHA

[breath]

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHHAH

HAHAHAAHHHHAHAHAHAH

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 04:10 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

wow i hope you guys are drunk or from alberta, because seriously if you re-read everything you will look pretty foolish right now.

Hockeytown I think you are the only one to comprehend what I’ve been saying and that’s sad, because usually this is a pretty intelligent group of guys.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 04:10 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 02:10 AM ET

By the way, your time is up on explaining that you know anything about the CBA.

Thanks for playing.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 04:11 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

You do realize that amendments have been made to the CBA and thus the one you have there is not the original just the most current.

Also it doesn’t matter if you change it from a fixed dollar amount of a percentage of revenues, it’s still a flawed system. As i’ve been saying all night, when the league revenues continue to grow with teams losing money, doing a one time percentage lowering or fixed amount lowering will only help for one year. Because when the revenues continue to grow that percentage will turn into a dollar figure for the cap and if the poor teams can’t afford that number then what? you are in the same position as you are now.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 04:15 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

You do realize that amendments have been made to the CBA and thus the one you have there is not the original just the most current.

You do realize that the CBA has a change summary which clearly outlines every change that has been made to the CBA, right?

Now you’re flat-out lying about things and that is sad for you.

when the league revenues continue to grow with teams losing money

Why are teams losing money though?  Maybe it has to do with spending up to 65% of their individual revenues to meet the salary floor?

Why wouldn’t they be able to make money if you lowered their costs?  The Maple Leafs don’t spend 65% of their revenues on player salaries and they make money.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/24/12 at 04:19 AM ET

awould's avatar

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 02:15 AM ET

I have no dog in this fight about the CBA, been mildly amused reading all of this. I can say, however, that you are not making any sense. You’ve contradicted yourself numerous times and have routinely taken these other guys’ words out of context (or thin air).

it isn’t hard to understand the effect it would have of changing the structure of the CBA from a fixed difference to a percentage difference. Yet somehow you’ve managed to not understand it.

From your arguments, i can surmise that you believe the current system sucks, that you’re not sure what the current system is, that you think a %-based system would be no different and that maybe you actually don’t want a cap floor at all. I’m really not sure what the hell you are talking about anymore….

goodnight. go wings. fleury sucks.

Posted by awould on 06/24/12 at 04:21 AM ET

George Malik's avatar

Friends, we’re at a hundred and thirty comments here, and something tells me that you’re not all engaging in polite discourse about the aesthetic value of $500,000-plus homes in Southeastern Michigan as opposed to Southwestern Pennsylvania…

If you’re going to keep arguing for the sake of arguing, and if you’re going to continue to make this personal, it is entirely possible that you will find this entry’s ability to take comments disappear.

This article was posted at 7:26 PM EDT and it’s 2:21 AM EDT as I’m writing this. If you don’t feel you’ve successfully made your point by now, I’m afraid that you might be preaching to a lost cause.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 06/24/12 at 04:21 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

When did I say that and what did i say that ever could be used to infer i did. I said your plans will not work. I also said no plans will work unless all revenues are equally shared between the teams or you get rid of the poor markets and bring in financially viable ones. Like I said can’t slap a band aid on a severed torso and expect it to live.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 04:22 AM ET

Oz_Santwyk's avatar

Yes no need to remove the rights to post it’s all in fun and quite entertaining for all involved otherwise we wouldn’t continue it.

Posted by Oz_Santwyk from Perth Australia on 06/24/12 at 04:26 AM ET

« Previous        < 1 2 3 4 >       Next »

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com