PickupHockey.com - Free Hockey Pools, Office Pools

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beans15

Now I have to deal with 2 people that are wrong! Really!

First Alex, the team decided to buy of the contract, meaning he was paid to not complete the agreement. He did only play 4 years by the choice of the team and received compensation to make the contract end early.

We can all agree to the fact that he did play 4 of 5 years. The 5th year was cancelled with the buy out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beans15

My deepest apologies Alex. For some reason I have the ability to confuse you with other posters. I normally have an excuse for mixing up you and Nuxfan but in this case I can even use that old standby.

Again, I am sorry. I have edited the original post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beans15

Now I have to deal with 2 people that are wrong! Really!

Firstly, the team decided to buy of the contract, meaning he was paid to not complete the agreement. He did only play 4 years by the choice of the team and received compensation to make the contract end early.

We can all agree to the fact that he did play 4 of 5 years. The 5th year was cancelled with the buy out.

Now, Joshua (and anyone who is as annoyed as I am) please grab a calculator and solve for x:

$4.66 + $5.45 + $4.70 + $3.80 = x


Now add $2.1 to x


What number do you get?

Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beans15

Of course you are staying out of this one. You know how to both read and use a calculator so the argument get's pretty one-sided at that point.

I just enjoy the fight. Especially when I am right. I have no issue when people disagree with my opinions, but facts are facts. People who disagree with facts are people I do not understand.

Again, my apologies for the confusion. I should know better by now.



Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beans15

I really wish we could move past this over paid vs underpaid conversation because its clouding the argument at hand. If you want me to say that Alfie was overpaid for the past few seasons and his current deal is an overapayment I can do that. But that doesn't change a few key facts. Doing my very best to stay out of the personal shots, I would really like your most honest answered on the following:

Between the years of 05/06 and 08/09 Alfredsson played 4 seasons and made $18.61 million. Add the salary values up in any order and you will get the same number. Agreed?

If Alfredsson would have been asked to play his final year of his agreement, based on the value of $24 million over 5 years, he would have been owed $5.4 million to receive the total amount of the contract. Agreed?

At the teams request, Alfredsson received $2.1 million to effectively cancel his contract giving the team the ability to renegotiate another long term deal. Agreed?

My final question: what was the total amount Alfredsson received in compensation ( playing and buy out) for $24 million contract?



Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beans15

Joshua, you have been arguing this point about Alfredsson being over/underpaid and it's not what I am arguing at all. My entire point has not been if he was worth his money, it was if he was paid what both parties agreed upon. He wasn't. The math isn't relevant.The point is simple - Alfredsson had an agreement for 5 years. He was paid for 4, then asked by the team to renegotiate. He did and then got paid for another 4 years.

You prepaid bar tab analogy is perfect. The part you are missing is when I reach for the 5th beer, the bartender tells me, "Hey, why night buy 4 more beers right now and I'll give you a deal." I say yes and then at the end of the night the bartender says, "Deal's off and if you don't like it you can go drink somewhere else."


And Selanne is a completely different story and situation. Selanne was and has been treated respectfully by his organization so he, in turn, treats his organization with respect. Ottawa, on the other hand, made promises to their franchise player of 17 yrs then casted him aside like a piece of garbage.

There is a significant difference.



Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beans15

Ok, one more time just to see if you can see a different point of view, let me highlight the key points:

1 - Alfredsson signed 5 year contract what was signed as a $24 million agreement (where or when the roll back happened is irrelevant, the total dollar value is correct)

Where do you get $24 million, from cap geek taking the cap hit of $4.816 over the 5 year term right! This is where you are wrong. NHLnumbers.com has the correct cap hit at $4.414. The contract was not taken to term but had it been it was not 24 million over 5 years it would have been $22.07 based on there numbers.

2 - It was the TEAM and not Alfredsson who instigated the 'buy out'. The buy out was to the advantage of the Senators to be able to resign their player for another 4 years, at their price.

How does buying out the lowest paying year of a contract to hand over 2/3 of the unplayed contract benefit the team, especially when the give Alfredsson twice the pay he was scheduled to make for this year in his new contract, plus the buyout.

3 - The TEAM should have paid Alfredsson $24 m to play 5 years. They paid him $18 to play 4 yrs then provided him with a $2 m buyout for a total of $20 million.

That's because you are using the incorrect formula to calculate his 5 year contract value to play out a full 5 year contract which he did not.

4 - If Alfredsson would have played out his entire deal he would have made $3 m more. He gave $3 million to the team

This is where you math is at its worst. How with your incorrect 5 year contract at $24 million, which was paid at $20 million become a $3 million loss. 24 - 20 = 4.

5 - When players were making $6+ million a season AFTER the CBA roll back, Alfredsson was making $5. He left around $1 m/season in each of the 4 years he did play of his 5 yr contract.

He was signed for less than other players on other teams and younger players on his own team with more upside. But he was still well paid. This is your opinion he was underpaid, but my belief that the team overpaid in following years.

6 - I need to remind you again, the TEAM instigated the buy out. Not the player.

The team instigated the buyout? Fact or fiction? How do you know that Alfredsson didn't instigate the buyout, whining about his low pay? Whatever or whomever caused the buyout, it benefitted the player, not the team to pay a player for not playing to the term end of the contract in its lowest paying year, to sign him at a higher value contract.

Let's go back to the beer analogy. Alfredsson is the bartender providing the product and the Senators are people drinking the beers. The Sens ask for 5 beers for $24 dollars. The bartender agrees. After drinking the 4th beer the drinker says, "Ok, I want 4 more beers but I want to play $20 for those beers. I'll pay you $7 for each of the first 2 beers, then $5 for the 3rd, and I might not want the 4th one or you might be closed before I can finish it, so I'll only pay you $1 for the last beer." The bartender says, "But I still own you 1 beer from our original deal." The drinkers says, 'Yes, but we'll give you $2 for that beer so we can move on to this deal for 4 more beers."

They gave him $2 million for a year they didn't receive. Why is this so hard for you to understand. Beer analogy, they didn't get the fricken beer.

So, for 8 beers, the drinker pays the bartender $44. All the while, the bartender could have very easily sold those same 8 beers for $50 or more.

This is stupid but I'll play your game. Why do you think they could have sold 8 beer for $50 when they had a contract for 9 beer at $44, but only served 8 for $42. The bartender owes them a beer they paid for but didn't receive and an apology for insulting them when they tried to buy more beer.

How does the drinker lose in this deal?? They got the 8 beers they wanted for a discount price. The bartender then offers the drinker another beer or two, if they want, at a price of $5 per beer. They already bought 8 beers at a discount but they say, "No way! Are you nuts! These beers are not worth $5!" So the bartender tells the drinker to get off the stool so someone else can sit down, drink the beers, and pay the money.

Maybe the last 4 beers seemed watered down. Not the quality of beers he had in the first round, plus the bartender now has an attitude.

I can't understand how the bartender is the bad guy in that scenario. Help me get there.

This is the dumbest thing I have responded to yet. You sir are cut off!


Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beans15

See, this is where I can't argue with something other than logic.

Let's me explain:

1 - You refer to the buy out as something other than team initiated. Do you have any proof of this??

I am not saying it was team or player initiated. You are stating it one way or the other without proof.

2 - You continuously talk about a 9 year deal. It was a 5 yr deal that was bought out (by the team) and a 4 year deal. Two different deals.

The 2 different contracts overlapped in 1 year, ie, 1 affected the other.

3 - You continuously return to this point that Alfredsson was overpaid in the final 4 years. I never argued that. What I have always argued is he was under contract to be paid X and he didn't get paid X.

You are arguing with incorrect math assuming Alfredsson didn't get his rightful pay, because that's what he claims, whereas there are always 2 side to every story. I have shown you where your math is wrong and where the variable's are, but you refuse to do that math as I have shown. This started not as a math lesson, but by my saying my opinion of Alfredsson and his actions throughout.

The only constant right thing you have stated is the line that follows this one below!

Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beans15
I can't understand how the bartender is the bad guy in that scenario. Help me get there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

I'm trying Alex, I really am. Beans your right one contract signed at a different time does not affect another contract, but if one affects terms set under the prior contract the have a bearing on each other. Is that all you have left to bitch about? Because if that's it then lets let it rest!

"I now realise that the Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada's finest hockey team, is better than the Ottawa Senators - and always will be. PS - LOVE that Dion Phaneuf! "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beans15

That has been my point from the start. There are two separate and distinct agreements. The 2nd agreement has never been argued. The first agreement was for $24 million (after the roll back) and Alfredsson received a shade more than $20 million including the buy out. How many years he played, how many points he scored, and every single other argument you have presented are completely irrelevant to my point. The team agreed to pay him $24 million for 5 years. The team (A+B=C) instigated a buy out. He recieved $20 million. The team benefited from that.

That has been my point from day one.

Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

I have a way to perfectly illustrate how the math on capgeek is flawed, thereby your arguement incorrect as well. If Alfredsson was scheduled to make $24 million in 5 years between 2005-2009 and was scheduled to make 3+ million in 2009, how does $18.1 actual pay + $3.15 100% contract value in 2009 = $24 million? Answer that riddle and you will see why your math doesn't make sense. There has to be a bonus or incorrect math involved with capgeeks formula.

"I now realise that the Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada's finest hockey team, is better than the Ottawa Senators - and always will be. PS - LOVE that Dion Phaneuf! "

---