THE ROCK BOTTOM

Wanye
February 09 2010 09:14AM

"This is as bad as it gets" - Shawn Horcoff, 5.5 million per season, commenting on a combined -17 effort by Moreau, Pisani, Strudwick, Staios and himself after a 6-1 loss to the Coyotes.

Oh so this is as bad as it gets? This here is the low point that we can all mark in our calendars is it? February 9, 2010 will be the day we can tell our grandchildren about in 50 years, smoking on an astro pipe while some sort of robot attendant stokes a virtual fire and keeps our laser rocking chair from rocking too fast is it?

"Yes, those were dark days children" we will say whilst slowly e-rocking back and forth, "long before Nick Stadjuhar Jr. was drafted by the Oilers first overall and won the Hart in his rookie year. " The gathered grandchildren will nod knowingly and talk will wind its way around to the new downtown arena which is almost out of the planning stages by that point.

Thank the Gods of Hockey we can officially mark this day in all of our lives and that the steep decline is over and we have arrived at the very bottom.

HOW LONG WILL WE STAY HERE?

"We have to play better, that's all there is to it."

- The very same Shawn Horcoff, still making $5.5 million per season.

If we aren't seeing value from a guy that makes more money than Ryan Getzlaf, at least we are getting top drawer on ice analysis as a throw in on the deal. "You need to play better do you Shawn?" Thank the Ghost of Vernon Fiddler that you have come to this conclusion 58 games into the season.

Unless we are mistaken Mr. Awesome, you have the worst plus minus in the entire league. You read that correctly. No one has a worse plus minus than you though some of your teammates are giving you a run down the stretch.  We see you there Patty O'Sullivan, second worst in the NHL. And you too Robert Nilsson, 4th worst in the league and playing as though you trigger a bonus clause in your contract if you finish even worse. But we are really talking to you Master Horcoff.

You are the absolute worst there is.

That's what she said.

There is no time for jokes.

Not when we are looking 35 points up in the standings to find the Phoenix Coyotes. Not when we are enviously watching the 2nd last place Leafs lose by a goal to the Sharks and peddling hope out of the ACC just as fast as it can be shoveled.

OH AND PS

How about Penner being 23-23-46 and +4 on the season? Had you told us at the start of the year that the Oilers would be dead last in the entire league and not a soul in the OilersNation would be mad at Penner, we would have punched you right in your sass mouth and then taken your sister to the Sizzler for a nice quiet dinner.

Well done DP, all of us who knocked you can eat it. You have proven your measure as a man. As brutal as the team is this year you have rebounded magically and are earning every cent you are earning. Can you maybe share some of your magic donairs with Horcoff? Maybe just order him one and smear it in his face? Maybe for your ol' pal Wanye?

09049f03ecb006ab29372206f2a88f75
Blog so hard motherf**ckers try and find me. Email me at wanyegretz@gmail.com or tweet me @wanyegretz provided it is about Jordan Eberle or babes.
Avatar
#51 deepoil
February 09 2010, 11:18AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@The Towel Boy

Alex Trebek has a better approach..... when discussing fans reaction to the Oilers performance this year.....

www.youtube.com/watchv=GU2w72KAkQQ&feature=related

Avatar
#52 deepoil
February 09 2010, 11:22AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Gregor - any chance of these women athletes becoming ice girls......... this is a cross border shopping ad from DENMARK.

www.m2film.dk/fleggaard/trailer2.swf

Avatar
#53 deepoil
February 09 2010, 11:26AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
The Towel Boy wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

Yah, that sums up my feelings.

Seems the url for a drunk Alex Trebek was incorrect.... try this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU2w72KAkQQ

Avatar
#54 Lofty
February 09 2010, 11:30AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
JonW wrote:

Do you SMMMMEEEEELLLLLLLL what Oil [pause] is cooking.

nope... just what there deficating

Avatar
#55 Ender
February 09 2010, 11:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Aleslav Smidsky wrote:

As for contracts. I dont know anywhere else in the business world where you cant terminate a contract or get rid of a employee when he aint performaning up to par.

Try terminating that 3-year contract on your cell-phone plan without buying it out. Make sure you tell them it's because they're not performing up to par.

Avatar
#56 Aleslav Smidsky
February 09 2010, 12:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Ender

WTF! How did you know I signed a 3 year contract?

We are dealing with people here thou, not machines. When I broke the ball on my BlackBerry, I complained and got a new one. Can we do the same with Horcoffs shooting and face-offs?

Avatar
#57 Ender
February 09 2010, 12:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Aleslav Smidsky wrote:

WTF! How did you know I signed a 3 year contract?

We are dealing with people here thou, not machines. When I broke the ball on my BlackBerry, I complained and got a new one. Can we do the same with Horcoffs shooting and face-offs?

Perhaps not, but it's not really the same thing. You're getting excellent value for your cell-phone contract (by the sounds of it) and they're living up to your expectations so you have no reason to switch. But what if your Blackberry broke and when you asked them what you should do, they told you where you could shove the old one and offered to sell you a new one for $700? Oh and by the way, they said, we're guessing that our service can be expected to drop your calls about 50% of the time in the future. Know what you could do about it? Ask Horcoff; he knows.

Avatar
#58 Aleslav Smidsky
February 09 2010, 12:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

It's fair to say; I dont know, You don't know and probably even Horcoff don't know.

You know who knows? NFL and FIFA. The structure of the NHL is a joke, from contracts to inconsistency of the refeeres and players respect for fellow co-workers.

What I'm really trying to get at here is, my leftover spaghetti. It's getting cold.

BRB.

Avatar
#59 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
February 09 2010, 12:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Aleslav Smidsky wrote:

It's fair to say; I dont know, You don't know and probably even Horcoff don't know.

You know who knows? NFL and FIFA. The structure of the NHL is a joke, from contracts to inconsistency of the refeeres and players respect for fellow co-workers.

What I'm really trying to get at here is, my leftover spaghetti. It's getting cold.

BRB.

So the NFL modle is better? You train your whole life to make the NHL and sign that big contract. 2nd pre-season game you blow up your knee, career over. Contract gone.

Avatar
#60 Archaeologuy
February 09 2010, 12:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F

I dont mind guaranteed contracts, i personally believe though that a bought out contract shouldnt count against the cap. Player gets all the money, team saves all the Cap.

Avatar
#61 Aleslav Smidsky
February 09 2010, 12:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F

Sh!t Happens. People suffer career ending injuries and are put in crappy life circumstances all over in all kinds of proffesions. What makes the NHL douchers special?

Avatar
#62 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
February 09 2010, 12:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Archaeologuy wrote:

I dont mind guaranteed contracts, i personally believe though that a bought out contract shouldnt count against the cap. Player gets all the money, team saves all the Cap.

Theirs all kinds of loopholes available for rich teams. It will be interesting to see which ones are added/kept next time they negotiate.

Avatar
#63 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
February 09 2010, 12:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Aleslav Smidsky wrote:

Sh!t Happens. People suffer career ending injuries and are put in crappy life circumstances all over in all kinds of proffesions. What makes the NHL douchers special?

I guess my main point is that you are just complaining to complain. Every sport (or industry for that matter) has it's issues. To sit at home and think "everyone else is an idiot" is laughable.

Avatar
#64 Aleslav Smidsky
February 09 2010, 01:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F

WTF are you talking/complaining about? The only laughable issue here is with the NHL, I ever called anyone an idiot.(I dont know if I should now)

It's not my fault Horcoff and the NHL are poorly structured.

Avatar
#65 TonyT
February 09 2010, 01:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I'm just throwing this out here. But, I can't take another 5 years of Shawn "[Edmonton] is a blue collar town, they just can't wrap their heads around how much we make" Horcoff. Having said that, I would be willing to trade first overall just to get rid of Horcoff. What kind of return could we expect if we traded EDM 1st rnd & Horcoff for _____________?

Avatar
#66 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
February 09 2010, 01:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Aleslav Smidsky wrote:

WTF are you talking/complaining about? The only laughable issue here is with the NHL, I ever called anyone an idiot.(I dont know if I should now)

It's not my fault Horcoff and the NHL are poorly structured.

The NHL is a multi-billion dollar company that has made thousands of people rich beyond their wildest dreams, and guess who's footed the bill? Guys like you and I.

I think people need to step back a little and realize what's really "laughable" here.

Avatar
#67 rubbertrout
February 09 2010, 01:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Archaeologuy wrote:

I dont mind guaranteed contracts, i personally believe though that a bought out contract shouldnt count against the cap. Player gets all the money, team saves all the Cap.

Except then you don't really have a cap. Toronto can buy everyone out because they have the money and not be punished for bad decisions. Then it is more like baseball. Of course Toronto can't win at baseball either so maybe it doesn't matter.

Avatar
#68 SquidRx
February 09 2010, 01:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Everybody slow it down here a second. When did Vernon Fiddler die?

*starts two minutes of silence*

Avatar
#69 Archaeologuy
February 09 2010, 01:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@rubbertrout

I see that side of it, but the Cap is still there. The team cant go over it. The clubs can do the same thing right now by burying a player in the minors. If they did it this way the player in question can still find a new contract with a different club in the NHL. Yes. It would mean that a team like TO or the Rangers could pay big cash to guys then buy them out, always staying at the Cap Max. That option would be very costly in the end though.

Avatar
#70 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
February 09 2010, 01:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Archaeologuy wrote:

I see that side of it, but the Cap is still there. The team cant go over it. The clubs can do the same thing right now by burying a player in the minors. If they did it this way the player in question can still find a new contract with a different club in the NHL. Yes. It would mean that a team like TO or the Rangers could pay big cash to guys then buy them out, always staying at the Cap Max. That option would be very costly in the end though.

So why not just eliminate the cap?

Avatar
#71 Archaeologuy
February 09 2010, 01:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F

Because I believe there should be a maximum per season that a team can spend on salary. My solution in no way allows teams to go over the Cap, it allows teams to cut players so they DONT go over the cap.

Avatar
#72 SquidRx
February 09 2010, 01:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I'm already starting to get excited about the Oklahoma City Pumpjacks. They are planning on leaving all the players in Springfield when they move right?

(note: Pumpjacks is not the official name of the yet to be monikered team, but I can't see them dusting off Cracker Cats.)

Avatar
#73 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
February 09 2010, 02:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Archaeologuy wrote:

Because I believe there should be a maximum per season that a team can spend on salary. My solution in no way allows teams to go over the Cap, it allows teams to cut players so they DONT go over the cap.

Which is essentially the same as having no cap. The Rangers and Leafs would have 100 million dollar payrolls again withen a few seasons.

Avatar
#74 Archaeologuy
February 09 2010, 02:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F wrote:

Which is essentially the same as having no cap. The Rangers and Leafs would have 100 million dollar payrolls again withen a few seasons.

I know logic isnt your strong suit, but try to follow me here.

The On Ice product can in no way exceed the Cap. They may well be paying 100 million because they accumulated 40 milliion in Salary that they bought out, but those players they bought out would be free to find employment on other clubs. Teams like the Rangers would still be forced to fit a 23 man roster into ~60 million in Space, just like the rest of the clubs.

Avatar
#75 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
February 09 2010, 02:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Archaeologuy wrote:

I know logic isnt your strong suit, but try to follow me here.

The On Ice product can in no way exceed the Cap. They may well be paying 100 million because they accumulated 40 milliion in Salary that they bought out, but those players they bought out would be free to find employment on other clubs. Teams like the Rangers would still be forced to fit a 23 man roster into ~60 million in Space, just like the rest of the clubs.

Ha-ha, funny guy. You've shown three times now that your head is basically filled with marbles and yet you are throwing stones.

I understand what you are getting at, it would SLIGHTLY limit the ability of the big spenders, but it would still give them a far bigger advantage over the small market teams then they currently have.

I've said for years, the NHL is basically working with a soft cap. The NHL just needs to decide how far they want to either tighten or loosen the spending (or I guess leave the same)

Avatar
#76 jeanshorts
February 09 2010, 02:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

You know what would probably be even worse?

If all of this was going on while we were paying Thomas Vanek and Michael Nylander like $12 million this year between them.

Avatar
#77 Archaeologuy
February 09 2010, 02:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F

If you honestly believe that you have shown on any occasion that my "head is filled with marbles" then you are very sadly mistaken. You still dont grasp how the Cap works in any way. I dont even know why I'm bothering to argue with you based on your repeated belief that the Oilers should spend to the Cap no matter what.

NHL teams can do the very thing I suggested right now simply by burying players in the Minors, which has ingraciously ended the careers of players like Mogilny and Andreychuk. The only difference with this suggestion is that the players are less insulted by being forced into the AHL.

Back to the 3 times Ive proven to be blatantly wrong or misguided. Please tell me how.

Avatar
#78 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
February 09 2010, 02:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Archaeologuy wrote:

If you honestly believe that you have shown on any occasion that my "head is filled with marbles" then you are very sadly mistaken. You still dont grasp how the Cap works in any way. I dont even know why I'm bothering to argue with you based on your repeated belief that the Oilers should spend to the Cap no matter what.

NHL teams can do the very thing I suggested right now simply by burying players in the Minors, which has ingraciously ended the careers of players like Mogilny and Andreychuk. The only difference with this suggestion is that the players are less insulted by being forced into the AHL.

Back to the 3 times Ive proven to be blatantly wrong or misguided. Please tell me how.

I don't grasp the cap eh? I had to explain to you 9 months ago how front loading works and why it is a benifit for the team as well as the player. I have a very good working knowledge of the cap.

I don't believe they should spend to the cap no matter what, I believe it's when you have cap space that is important, not simply having it. Given the current structure of the team and working under the assumption that close to half a dozen rookies will be coming to the team in the next 2/3 years, added to the fact that theirs around half a dozen more players that will be on RFA contracts gives a pretty good indication that cap space wont be a major factor for at least 3-4 years.

I told you I understand your concept of buying out players with no cap consequence and yes it is an option, however on a scale of 1 to 10 with hard cap being 1, no cap being 10 and the current sittuation being 5 - the buyout option would push the NHL to a 7 or an 8 when it comes to creating parity/allowing small markets to compete.

Avatar
#79 Archaeologuy
February 09 2010, 02:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F

I still think it's absolutely a poor idea for players to have incredibly front loaded contracts as it leaves them prime candidates to be placed in the Minors as their usefulness declines. It also causes salary spendage to be higher than the actual Cap, which in turn has increased the amount other players have lost in escrow (a direct result of Spending vs Income being mismatched). This has caused members of the NHLPA who make the minimum and are fighting for their careers to make even less because guys like Horcoff take 7 million up front and significantly less at the end.

You didnt explain anything as if it was some truth. You have an opinion, that is all. Same here on my end. I back my opinion up, you support yours.

I honestly dont believe that my suggestion would alter much in the way that the teams do business. Teams can buy out players now, the difference being that the players make less money and the teams are penalized via the cap. I look at the loopholes and think that the teams are more tempted to bury a guy than buy him out, so I suggested a different way.

Do you think that they could tweak the buyout/cap hit in another way?

Avatar
#80 Phil
February 09 2010, 03:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

this article needs to be put into major circulation, pictures and all.

BRAVO!

Avatar
#81 Milli
February 09 2010, 03:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

you know what I don't get, why we had a strike so someone could turn down 100 million dollars??????? I can handle the strike, but cap seat prices, players salaries.....I mean, can anyone imagine what it must feel like to say no to 100 mil? Or to be Horcoff (who I still like) and be offered that ridicouls contract???? I'm sure he thought it was an error at first....

Avatar
#82 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
February 09 2010, 03:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Archaeologuy wrote:

I still think it's absolutely a poor idea for players to have incredibly front loaded contracts as it leaves them prime candidates to be placed in the Minors as their usefulness declines. It also causes salary spendage to be higher than the actual Cap, which in turn has increased the amount other players have lost in escrow (a direct result of Spending vs Income being mismatched). This has caused members of the NHLPA who make the minimum and are fighting for their careers to make even less because guys like Horcoff take 7 million up front and significantly less at the end.

You didnt explain anything as if it was some truth. You have an opinion, that is all. Same here on my end. I back my opinion up, you support yours.

I honestly dont believe that my suggestion would alter much in the way that the teams do business. Teams can buy out players now, the difference being that the players make less money and the teams are penalized via the cap. I look at the loopholes and think that the teams are more tempted to bury a guy than buy him out, so I suggested a different way.

Do you think that they could tweak the buyout/cap hit in another way?

I guess what what it boils down to is what the league wants to accomplish, and then establish how far it wants to go either way to limit or increase spending.

I do like your idea in the fact that a guy like Drury could be bought out and then resign elsewhere for 3 million bucks to continue his career, it would also likely lube up the amount of transactions.

But the pitfalls would be that the Rangers would likely buy out Drury/Redden/Rosy this summer and go grab Kovalchuk and Marleau, which I believe was a big part of what the NHL was trying to get away from when they first implemented the cap.

I don't think theirs a right answer.

Truce on the insults?

Avatar
#83 Archaeologuy
February 09 2010, 03:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F

Truce indeed.

Comments are closed for this article.