The Glencross contract: Comparables

Robert Cleave
May 24 2011 01:01AM

           

 

Curtis Glencross' recent deal has been met, in large part, with acceptance amongst the fan base, NMC notwithstanding. The Provost native has been a consistent presence in the Flames' top nine since his arrival from Shelbyville in the summer of 2008, regularly outshooting and outscoring his competition along the way.

His new deal more than doubles his past ticket to a cap average of 2.55M per season through 2015, a figure that did get me wondering if there were any players that seemed to match Glencross' role and salary in the wider world, and if their contract year performance was analogous to what we've witnessed from number 20 this past year.

The first thing I noticed when I was looking at salary numbers is that there weren't many wingers making a stipend within 250k on either side of 2.55M last year, and of those that were, most really weren't reasonable comparative figures to Glencross, in that they had either signed as RFA or were players that had signed UFA contracts well into their thirties.

As a result, I really only found two wingers that had signed in the last few years for less than 3M that really struck me as similar players to Glencross. Those players were Dan Cleary and Steve Ott. Two other players that had inked UFA deals for exactly 3M were Colby Armstrong and Radim Vrbata, and they also seemed to fit the profile to a degree. I was really looking for players that had signed multi-year deals as UFA in their late twenties, scored around 40 points and had played decent comp in doing so.

First, a comparison of boxcars is in order to get things started. I'll use each player's platform year in the charts, so that will be 07/08 for Cleary and Vrbata, 09/10 for Armstrong and Ott, and last season for Glencross:

  

Player G A P SH%
Cleary 20 22 42 11.3
Vrbata 27 29 56 11.0
Armstrong 15 14 29 14.9
Ott 22 14 36 15.1
Glencross 24 19 43 16.1

 

Vrbata seems out of place here, but as we all know, sometimes there are circumstances that boost or depress offensive totals for players. Not every player gets equal PP time, or they may play tougher competition, which often supresses a player's scoring output. Glencross did shoot a high percentage, which is a bit of a red flag. Still, his past production suggests that 43 points wasn't out of line.
 
Next, here's breakdown of time on ice and points per 60 minutes, both at EV and on the PP:
 
 
  EVTOI EV Pts EV Pts/60 PPTOI PP Pts PP Pts/60
Cleary 12:22 29 2.08 02:39 12 4.65
Vrbata 12:55 35 2.06 03:32 16 2.90
Armstrong 12:03 24 1.53 00:38 2 2.34
Ott 13:06 23 1.46 01:59 11 4.58
Glencross 12:40 35 2.08 01:10 5 3.29
 

Glencross stacks up with the best of this group at EV. Armstrong and Ott lag, but in the case of Armstrong in particular, there are some extenuating circumstances that I'll get to in a bit. The power play time is instructive in its own way. Glencross is routinely a player that gets the dregs in terms of PP icetime and linemates when the Flames are up a man, so his production is understandable. Makes one wonder what his point totals would look like if he got more of a sniff at 5v4.

Armstrong wasn't a PP regular in Atlanta two years ago, either, while the other three got a boost from being at least semi-regular fixtures on their team's powerplay setups that season. Ott and Cleary were second unit players, while Vrbata was on the first group most nights. He wasn't very productive with all that PP time, obviously, although in fairness, that Coyote team wasn't very good. Hard to score whe you don't have the horses around you and all that.

Oushooting numbers are also worth a look in this case, so the final table will show the quality of competition each player faced, the relative Corsi figure for the player in question, and their respective ZS numbers, with rankings amongst their fellow forwards. As always, I filter Behind The Net's numbers for players that average at least 10 minutes of EV ice time and play in at least 40 games.

I also added the EV Fenwick tied numbers from Hockey Analysis, along with the player's subsequent salaries, both raw and with the first season's cap hit adjusted for inflation to the salary cap since they signed. As an example, Dan Cleary's new deal was signed in the summer of '08, with a 56.0M cap pending. His deal for 2.8M was exactly 1/20th of that season's cap, so I converted the number as if he was signing it this summer against next year's possible 63.5M cap number, based on Bill Daly's remarks to the Sports Lawyers' Association this past weekend:

 

  RelCorsiComp RelCorsi ZS % Fen. Tied Salary Converted
Cleary 4th of 9 0.1 (7/ 9) 59.5% (5th hdst) 0.602 2.80 3.18
Vrbata 4th of 11 -2.6 (9/11) 49.3% (6th hdst) 0.502 3.00 3.40
Armstrong 2nd of 11 0.9 (6/11) 47.1% (7th hdst) 0.489 3.00 3.20
Ott 4th of 10 -3.9 (10/10) 48.6% (2nd hdst) 0.470 2.95 3.20
Glencross 6th of 11 4.0 (3/11) 51.1% (3rd hdst) 0.551 2.55 2.55

 

Glencross had a bit of an easier go than Armstrong, so I'm inclined to give the former Rebel a bit of a break in terms of his productivity overall. Armstrong played the other team's best every night in Atlanta, so as I mentioned earlier, the fact that his scoring offense was down a touch isn't a surprise. Ott is a mediocrity, and his contract might end up being the worst of the bunch in the end, since his is the only other deal with a NTC.
 
The others fall mostly in line in terms of competition, and you can see the difference decent teammates can make. Cleary was certainly nothing special in tems of outshooting and had a nice cushy ZS number driving his Fenwick percentage. A rising tide lifts all boats, etc, etc. Glencross got a bit of that action this year because the Flames were better in the collective than the 09/10 Stars or Thrashers as well as the 07/08 Coyotes, but he's been a consistent outshooter for three years running relative to his team, so you can make an argument that he's the tide, if you will. 
 
I'm not quite sure that Curtis Glencross would have gotten 5 years at 4 million dollars as a few folks have hinted, although it only takes one GM to make it so, but had he been offered a four year deal elsewhere for between 13-14 million, or 3.25 to 3.5 M per season, I wouldn't have been shocked in the slightest. He's likely taken a hit to the wallet to stay in Calgary, and in the main, the brass hasn't done badly based on the past market. His contract is no hardship for the club unless he falls off the face of the planet, and he's given no hint of that in his time in Calgary, so I'm mildly optimistic that his new deal will prove to be good value over the next four years.

  

 

1a1030a8151ca7a0d81aea58f0fb1dbc
Robert Cleave is a perpetually grumpy Winnipegger.
Avatar
#1 FireOnIce
May 24 2011, 04:46AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Good to see that the comparable analysis tends to bode well for GlenX.

One thing about Armstrong - didn't he play with Crosby for a while? That may have inflated his numbers somewhat, as well as playing with Malkin. I think the same can be said about Cleary - pretty sure he has played with the likes of Zetterberg on and off over the seasons. If I am remembering correctly, this would seem to inflate their numbers somewhat.

A quick look at Armstrong says I am correct (~32% TOI with Crosby) in 07-08, while Cleary has indeed played with Henrik and even Pavel in 07-08 and 08-09.

GlenX has played with... Olli Jokinen? Eric Nystrom? Craig Conroy? Rene Bourque? He seems to have been able to put up similar/better numbers than these comparables with crappier teammates than the others (save Vrbata and Ott).

Avatar
#3 Kent Wilson
May 24 2011, 07:33AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Those all strike me as strong comparables. Incidentally, Vrbata is a guy I would like the Flames to look at this summer (assuming they get rid of Hagman and Kotalik that is).

As for Glencross linemates, the best he's played with is probably David Moss.

Avatar
#4 rubbertrout
May 24 2011, 07:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

How many of his points did he get in how many games? This is an example of a guy riding a hot streak pure and simple.

The Flames had better hope that the cap goes up and that the owners are willing to eat a few contracts because giving 3-4 line pluggers 4 year deals with NMCs is a mistake.

Avatar
#7 mslepp
May 24 2011, 08:23AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
rubbertrout wrote:

How many of his points did he get in how many games? This is an example of a guy riding a hot streak pure and simple.

The Flames had better hope that the cap goes up and that the owners are willing to eat a few contracts because giving 3-4 line pluggers 4 year deals with NMCs is a mistake.

^ That's funny.

My only problem was with the NMC. Not because it was given to Glencross, but because there are so many on the team already and they said they were going to shy away from that.

Good comparisons here.

Avatar
#8 rubbertrout
May 24 2011, 09:08AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Robert Cleave

Were we talking about the Oilers' failings here? No. Great comeback to my point about the Flames signing to point out a mistake by the Oilers that occurred years ago (Hossa has been on three teams since then no?).

I'll admit that I was exceedingly angry at Lowe and Co for letting GlenX walk while doing the annual Edmonton whale hunt but that wasn't the point to my comment.

He got 29% of his production this year in 23 days. That means a hot streak. That hot streak doesn't happen and he doesn't sign a 4 year deal.

I don't have a problem with the cash. The term is about a year longer than I'd like but they still might get value from him over the term. Giving a NMC, term AND cash to a guy who is 3-4 line material and rode a hot streak is a mistake.

EDIT: By the way, if the solution to the Flames' problems is giving a depth guy more PP time so he can justify a contract with more points methinks there might be a problem.

Avatar
#9 otto
May 24 2011, 09:28AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@rubbertrout

Scoreface got the NMC and term by leaving cash on the table,he didn't get all three.

Avatar
#11 rubbertrout
May 24 2011, 09:36AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
otto wrote:

Scoreface got the NMC and term by leaving cash on the table,he didn't get all three.

He didn't get what he would have got on the open market but the comparables suggest he did just fine cash wise. I'd say he got all three.

Good luck signing Tangs to a reasonable contract when a 3-4 line guy gets this kind of money, term and a NMC.

Avatar
#12 rubbertrout
May 24 2011, 09:43AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Robert Cleave

How on earth am I supposed to present evidence as to what someone "might have" signed for on the open market when they never got there?

I'm a believer in advanced stats to a point but CORSI alone doesn't tell the whole story. I like GlenX as I've said before. I just think the combination of cash, term and a NMC (not just a NTC) given the needs of this team and the fact that nearly everybody on it has some kind of movement restriction (not just Kotalik and Stajan) is a mistake.

If you average the stats at the end of the season he does OK but that doesn't take into account the long stretches of indifference you see from him on the ice. Someone who plays really well in fits and starts and then stinks it up for long stretches may statistically look OK at the end of the year but is still a wildly inconsistent player.

Good luck signing Tangs (who is a key offensive player on an offensively challenged team) when this is your benchmark. More term, dollars and NMCs to come I guess.

Avatar
#13 Kent Wilson
May 24 2011, 10:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@rubbertrout

Glencross has been consistently good for the Flames since arriving. He had one poor stretch at the start of this past season, which has somehow grown into this "he's grossly inconsistent!" meme. He isn't. His outshooting and ES production is remarkably consistent. He's been amongst the best on this club by those measures since leaving Edmonton.

Avatar
#14 rubbertrout
May 24 2011, 10:06AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Kent Wilson

If you look at it at the end of the year yes. Depending on when you use your benchmarks for the statistical production you can make him look as good or as bad as you want to. In terms of his day to day play I would disagree.

I recognize that this is the eternal conflict between the "saw him good" and "stats him good" (which I do actually agree has merits depending on how it is used and sample size) doctrines and we may need to agree to disagree on this point.

CORSI and ES production are useful tools but they are not the complete answer when looking at individual players.

Avatar
#16 Kent Wilson
May 24 2011, 11:05AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
rubbertrout wrote:

If you look at it at the end of the year yes. Depending on when you use your benchmarks for the statistical production you can make him look as good or as bad as you want to. In terms of his day to day play I would disagree.

I recognize that this is the eternal conflict between the "saw him good" and "stats him good" (which I do actually agree has merits depending on how it is used and sample size) doctrines and we may need to agree to disagree on this point.

CORSI and ES production are useful tools but they are not the complete answer when looking at individual players.

Well here's the thing RT: by my eye alone I disagree that Glencross is inconsistent. I've rated him as one of the best on this club qualitatively since he arrived, outside of his curiously poor play in November of 2010. He, Conroy and Moss wrecked things in his first season here. They beats their opponents heads in, they did it on a nightly basis and it was obvious even if you weren't counting anything. He's been a key cog in that sort of machinery since he jumped aboard.

Whats more, the numbers agree with me. So I'm not moved by your "stats are a mere tool" canard, which is always wielded by people who want their subjective interpretations to trump objective measures.

Which isn't to say he didn't enjoy a ridiculous hot streak this season. He did and I was cautioning against the team re-signing him on that basis alone (in fact, I suggested the Flames should trade him at the deadline as a result), but there's just no evidence that he disappears for large stretches of time. He has moments where he takes dumb, hot-headed penalties and he's never going to lead the team in scoring but that's probably the worst you can say about him. At 2.55M, I have no complaints.

Avatar
#17 propositionWes
May 24 2011, 11:17AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

If GlenX was as "consistent" as his detractors claim he should be then he would be a 40 goal player with a huge contract.

He has the ability to be a game changer on some nights, to expect that every night is just not reasonable.

Avatar
#18 rubbertrout
May 24 2011, 01:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Robert Cleave

Please re-read my comment number 8. Particularly the part where I say

I don't have a problem with the cash. The term is about a year longer than I'd like but they still might get value from him over the term. Giving a NMC, term AND cash to a guy who is 3-4 line material and rode a hot streak is a mistake.

Now you want to make it as though my complaint is all aout the cash? It is the combination of all three things that makes this contract a mistake. I've NEVER said it was about the cash.

>

EDIT: I don't see anywhere if the comparables have a NMC. I think Armstrong might have one. What about the others?

Avatar
#19 rubbertrout
May 24 2011, 01:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Kent Wilson

I guess we see things differently and I'm beinging to think that people don't even read my comments.

You are being selective in your assessment of what I'm saying. I think it is a combination of by the eye and the stats. The stats (especially CORSI) can be manipulated depending on your sample size and your start and end times. Using end of year numbers averages out poor stretches. Using PPG doesn't take player durability into account. These are facts.

Saying that I'm a person so "wants [his]subjective interpretations to trump objective measures" couldn't be farther from the truth and is a huge generalization that is inconsistent with what my comments actually say. There is value to the stats but they aren't the be all and end all. They have to be taken along with the rest of the package--I know stats guys hate the "saw em good" but it is a reality. I fyou have nothing to do with the shot being directed towards the net you still get the CORSI credit. That isn't always indicative of what the player does.

I like GlenX but I think he takes a lot of nights off. I've always thought so. You disagree. That's fine and it's your prerogative. To tell me I'm full of it because I don't believe that advanced stats are the bible doesn't change what I see.

What I see is a guy who signed for a decent contract amount, for one year too long and with a NMC that should not have been given to a player of his caliber keeping in mind the role he plays on the team, the cap woes of the team, and the current (more valuable) players (IE Tangs) that have yet to be signed.

Is there something I'm missing here?

Avatar
#20 Vintage Flame
May 24 2011, 02:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Lol.. When do you know someone knows they have LOST an arguement? When they tell their opponent that the can "agree to disagree."

Avatar
#22 Vintage Flame
May 24 2011, 02:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@rubbertrout

Can't say I agree with you that GlenX takes a lot of nights off. He has had some off nights, but for the majority of the season, the guy works his bag off.

You say that you have no problem with the cash, but the term is too long and you don't like the NMC? Unfortuantely, the 3 came as a packaged deal. In Glencross' situation, the only thing you can really complain about IS the money... You don't have a problem with that, so the other 2 factors should be moot.

Scoreface took a HUGE haircut in signing with the Flames before he reached free agency. The money was grossly under what he was going to get offered on the open market, whether he deserves it or not, he was going to get it. I have no doubt in my mind there were teams out there that were ready to offer him 3.5-4 Mill/season. And I suspect Edmonton was a team that WAS looking his way.

The term of the contract is also no surprise. We all said we would have liked to have seen a 3 year term, but that wasn't going to happen. He was in his prime age range and was set up for the big score. The starting point of any contract he was going to get offered was 3 Mil over 3 yrs. So why are you surprised he got another year, by cutting that price?

He also got the NMC because he loves this city and this team. All he asked is if he was willing to commit to the Flames, were they prepared to do the same? He has a new family and wants to be able to put down some roots with a new baby without having to go to the rink wondering if this team, that he committed to, is going to re-build with or without him.

THERE... No CORSI numbers or advanced stat.. just common sense. Sometime a player signs based not on money or stats, but on the relationship he has with that team. Look at all the years Ray Bourque stayed with Boston. I'm not calling GlenX Bourque's equal, but the factors are very similar.

Avatar
#23 rubbertrout
May 24 2011, 02:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

What I haven't heard from anyone at all is how the fact that your 3/4 line guy's deal, however much you love him or his contract, is going to have an impact on a guy that you absolutely can't lose or replace in Tanguay.

It's all well and good to say "give him a NMC because he took less money" but not on a team that gives out NMC and NTC like candy. Like it or not there are (I think) 11 guys with some form of restriction on their contracts on this team.

Giving one more with the first contract signed by the "new" group doesn't suggest this trend is going anywhere anytime soon. You could have distanced yourself from Dazza's NTC bonanza and been reluctant to hand one out with your first signing but now any player of note is going to want or expect one.

Avatar
#24 Vintage Flame
May 24 2011, 03:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@rubbertrout

Signing GlenX does not have anything to do with them signing Tanguay. They are going to give Tangs what they think and feel is right, regardless of what they paid Glencross.

Glencross is not even close to a 4th line forward either. He might get dropped to the 3rd for a shift or two if he's dragging, but this guy will be on the 2nd line. And get 2nd line PP time.

FYI.. Tanguay will also probably get a NMC.

Avatar
#25 Scott
May 24 2011, 03:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Vintage Flame

I get what Rubbertrout is saying though, THe way the flames use the NMC/NTC it becomes less like a perk for the player and more of an expectation. Which means the team will have less bargaining power for the players down the road they wish to sign.

So "if" the flames didn't want to give out a NMC to Tangs, they become forced with a decision of lose Tangs to free agency or give out another one.

IMO i don't mind the NTC for either of these guys, I figure that unless the roof caves in, they want these guys in the lineup anyway.

Avatar
#26 Vintage Flame
May 24 2011, 03:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Scott

But just because one player gets a NMC, it has nothing to do with the negotiations of another player. Feaster even said, players under negotiation cannot come to him and say, "Curtis got a NMC, so I want one." It just doesn't work that way.

YES.. They have been given out to undeserving players before.. See Stajan and Kotalik, but unfortunately those cases have NOTHING to do with Curtis or Tangs.

In a perfect world I would love Feaster to say there can only be so many on the club, so because Curtis and Tangs deserve them, we are taking away the NMC's from Kotalik and Stajan. I just doesn't work that way.

I don't think the number of clauses they have, have any bearing on their bargaining power. I just don't.

Avatar
#27 Scott
May 24 2011, 03:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Vintage Flame

I see your point, but I've never been involved with negotiations, but the player could say, i want X amount of money, because i'm comparable to this guy, and he also has a NMC so I feel I need one too.

if the player doesn't want to budge from this because whether they get it from Calgary or another NHL team, they beleive they will get the NMC in a contract, this forces the Flames hand if they really want this guy, ie Tangs.

Of course I think we both know Tangs is getting one any one, but you get my point.

I just think the player will feel slighted by the organization if they feel they deserve one, everyone else on the team has one, and yet the team refuses to give them one.

Avatar
#28 mslepp
May 24 2011, 03:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

re: Glencross Inconsistency

I have to disagree with Kent Wilson on this one. I don't believe it was just a bad stretch at the beginning.

Outside of that amazing run GlenX had, I found it very hard to tell which guy was going to show up. The hustling, hard-hitting game-changer? Or, the looks-like-he's-hungover floater.

Off the top of my head I point to one game in particular, Boston (right after Winter Classic), where he played, quite honestly, one of the worst games I've ever seen him play. He literally didn't accelerate past a stroll the whole game... however, he opportunistically pounced on a rebound with a couple minutes left, scoring a goal and becoming a hero for the next couple minutes when he had taken the whole other 57 minutes of the game off.

This is what I find frustrating with him. I'm not sure if this is a conditioning problem, or maybe a diet problem or just a lack of total compete, but it worries me. A NMC compounds that worry.

Glencross is now being paid as if he's one of the top 3rd line players in the league and he will need to show up every night to prove his naysayers wrong. I'm glad he's still on the team, and I hope he proves my worries wrong as well.

Avatar
#29 rubbertrout
May 24 2011, 03:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@Vintage Flame

I'm not buying that at all. Anyone who says that what other people have received in the past has nothing to do with what other people ask for (and receive) is kidding themselves. Is it directly translateable? No. But If I'm Tanguay and I see that a far lesser player gets term, competitive money and a NMC clause I might be wondering why I couldn't get one too.

When they give yet another NMC to another player that will bring the tally to 12 or so. I'm not sure how much flexibility you have to deal a guy to make a move to get better when everyone has movement restrictions. Maybe they'll be able to get Modin to come out of retirement.

If GlenX is really a second line player then this team has more issues than I thought it did.

EDIT: If it was just Stajan and Kotalik that would be one thing but it is Kipper, Reggie, Bouwmeester, Iggy, Bourque, GlenX, Langkow, Jokinen, & Sarich

Avatar
#30 Monaertchi
May 24 2011, 04:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Vintage Flame

"But just because one player gets a NMC, it has nothing to do with the negotiations of another player. Feaster even said, players under negotiation cannot come to him and say, "Curtis got a NMC, so I want one." It just doesn't work that way."

Of course it does.

Avatar
#31 Vintage Flame
May 24 2011, 04:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
rubbertrout wrote:

I'm not buying that at all. Anyone who says that what other people have received in the past has nothing to do with what other people ask for (and receive) is kidding themselves. Is it directly translateable? No. But If I'm Tanguay and I see that a far lesser player gets term, competitive money and a NMC clause I might be wondering why I couldn't get one too.

When they give yet another NMC to another player that will bring the tally to 12 or so. I'm not sure how much flexibility you have to deal a guy to make a move to get better when everyone has movement restrictions. Maybe they'll be able to get Modin to come out of retirement.

If GlenX is really a second line player then this team has more issues than I thought it did.

EDIT: If it was just Stajan and Kotalik that would be one thing but it is Kipper, Reggie, Bouwmeester, Iggy, Bourque, GlenX, Langkow, Jokinen, & Sarich

I don't really recall asking you to buy in to what I'm saying. My point wasn't to convince you but to merely refute what you were saying. You obviously have not been listening to the interviews with GlenX or his agent OR the Flames in negotiating with him. The reasons GlenX signed with the Flames for what he got is what I told you. GlenX said himself that the only reason he waited as long as he did to sign with the Flames is because he thought the Flames would trade him as soon as he did sign. The NMC reassured him that would not happen, thus the contract was signed.

I know you like to think you know how this team works, but let's face it, you don't have a clue. The fact of the matter is, neither do the majority of people. But I'm sure Bob and Kent know more than you or I put together.. so you coming in here, poking the bear, doesn't bode well with the rest of us.

That's the problem when you come trolling. Eventually you are going to say something that gets more people refuting your... "argument" [for lack of a better term] The ratio of NMC's has no effect on the play of the team and their performance in the league. It is a back office variable. What Bob and Kent tried to explain to you is that the numbers GlenX produced and the value of that play on the market, is what led to this contract. Trying to explain to you that each NMC clause is INDEPENDENT of the others. Do we have too many, yeah, but not because another 2 are given out to GlenX and Tangs. Just because some bad ones weren't given out, doesn't reflect the decision of teams to give out justified NMC's to others.

You buyin that???

Avatar
#32 Vintage Flame
May 24 2011, 04:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Monaertchi wrote:

"But just because one player gets a NMC, it has nothing to do with the negotiations of another player. Feaster even said, players under negotiation cannot come to him and say, "Curtis got a NMC, so I want one." It just doesn't work that way."

Of course it does.

Not if the GM is doing his job properly. Feaster aims to correct the mistakes in this manner that Sutter created.

Avatar
#33 rubbertrout
May 24 2011, 07:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Vintage Flame

If you listen to the Fan for your insight I think I've already heard enough about your opinion.

I'm not trolling. Just making my point.

Being told that NMCs are independent of one another (obviously) when my point was about how player expectations are ALWAYS associated with what other people get makes it clear to me that you just don't get it.

This is confirmed by the fact that you apparently actually believe that GlenX is actually a second line player. No sense arguing with someone who buys into that logic. Keep drinking the koolaid and listening to the Fan. I'm sure you'll be in the playoffs in no time.

Avatar
#34 Vintage Flame
May 24 2011, 09:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
rubbertrout wrote:

If you listen to the Fan for your insight I think I've already heard enough about your opinion.

I'm not trolling. Just making my point.

Being told that NMCs are independent of one another (obviously) when my point was about how player expectations are ALWAYS associated with what other people get makes it clear to me that you just don't get it.

This is confirmed by the fact that you apparently actually believe that GlenX is actually a second line player. No sense arguing with someone who buys into that logic. Keep drinking the koolaid and listening to the Fan. I'm sure you'll be in the playoffs in no time.

I'm so glad that your expertise extends to my knowledge base as well. The Flames obviously should have hired you as the GM, what with your plethora of knowledge, err.. speculation.

No my insight does not come strictly from the fan, it comes from being a fan, since day 1. it comes from following every aspect of this team that is available as a resource, which includes current and former NHL players. Tell me rubberducky.. what's your resume bolster?

And again your mediocre at best opinion, is wrong. Player expectations are NOT associated with what other people get. Players salaries are associated through peer performance and what they are earning. A player's expectation is based on their past and current performance and value to his team. Their is a correlation that if a player gets a certain contract that a comparable player receives, then he is expected to PERFORM up to that comparison. That is different from what you said.

And believe me bud, I had heard enough of your opinion after your first post.

Avatar
#35 rubbertrout
May 25 2011, 07:25AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
through peer performance and what they are earning

IE what other people get. Someone's been eating retard sandwiches . . .

Avatar
#36 Vintage Flame
May 25 2011, 01:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
rubbertrout wrote:
through peer performance and what they are earning

IE what other people get. Someone's been eating retard sandwiches . . .

You weren't exactly clear in your post. If you are referring to a player's expectations of what he should be paid compared to his peers, then yes I agree with you. Your post made it sound like the expectations of the player's performance was associated to what others get paid. I didn't agree with that. And thus the reasoning behind my post.

That being said I don't think it's always THAT way. I think when a team is trying to decide what to pay their UFA's, they compare him to his peers and what they get paid, end of story. I don't think they have much of a humanity factor to their formulas. However, I think for some, and be it a VERY small minority of players, that they also consider other factors. Thus why some players are more open to the "Home town discount". I think Curtis is one of those cases and I also believe Tanguay is going to be in that same boat.

That's all I'm saying. I don't think the NMC's for Curtis or Tanguay [if or when he gets one] are factors in the Flames, or Sutter's lousy motives in giving them out like rewards or whatever was going through his head. I agree that they never should have tendered the NMC's to Sarich, Kotalik or Stajan. Hell they probably should never have given them to Kipper or Regehr either.

Comments are closed for this article.