How many teams spending in the bottom 10 of the league have won the Stanley cup in the last 30 years. Answer - zero. Most of the cup winners in that timeframe have been in the top 10 in spending. I believe the Canes and Lightning are the only two exceptions.

Spending more doesn't guarantee a winner. But it's pretty close to a prerequisite.
- prock

I think this is a correlation-causation situation. All of this is for the most part true

A) Most good players are paid roughly what they're worth
B) Most Teams with lots of good players compete for cups

Conclusion: Not all teams with high payrolls are good, but teams that are good often have high payrolls.

Well you did respond to this post of mine, where that was exactly what I was talking about.



And you tried to spin it away from it.
- Doppleganger

I didn't spin away from it. I addressed one part of it. The important part.


What you're doing now, that's spinning.

I think this is a correlation-causation situation. All of this is for the most part true

A) Most good players are paid roughly what they're worth
B) Most Teams with lots of good players compete for cups

Conclusion: Not all teams with high payrolls are good, but teams that are good often have high payrolls.
- Morris

Yea, obviously just spending money on anybody doesn't make you a good team.


But if you don't spend money on players that are worth it, you're not going to win.

Ottawa's decision not to give their best d-man what he was worth began the demise of the franchise... and if they do the same thing with Ryan, who will want a very high contract, it will set them even further back.

Yea, obviously just spending money on anybody doesn't make you a good team.


But if you don't spend money on players that are worth it, you're not going to win.

Ottawa's decision not to give their best d-man what he was worth began the demise of the franchise... and if they do the same thing with Ryan, who will want a very high contract, it will set them even further back.
- Feeling Glucky?

But Chara was NOT Ottawa's best D man at the time..........Redden was.

50 points and a + 35, while Chara had 43 points and was a +17.

Yea, obviously just spending money on anybody doesn't make you a good team.


But if you don't spend money on players that are worth it, you're not going to win.

Ottawa's decision not to give their best d-man what he was worth began the demise of the franchise... and if they do the same thing with Ryan, who will want a very high contract, it will set them even further back.
- Feeling Glucky?

I don't know why any Sens fan would be on EM's side. They're not a bad team by any means, they've got a pretty young core group of guys and they have two fairly decent long-term contracts on the books for Turris and Karlsson.

But if their owner isn't prepared to spend money on Ryan, Methot etc. let alone add some of the elite talent needed to compete then it's all for nought.

Even if he wasn't such a mess financially, he's still a guy that criticizes other team's play styles and pretends like he's CSI over freak accidents.

Can any Sens fan tell me why they're not worried about EM?

I don't know why any Sens fan would be on EM's side. They're not a bad team by any means, they've got a pretty young core group of guys and they have two fairly decent long-term contracts on the books for Turris and Karlsson.

But if their owner isn't prepared to spend money on Ryan, Methot etc. let alone add some of the elite talent needed to compete then it's all for nought.

Even if he wasn't such a mess financially, he's still a guy that criticizes other team's play styles and pretends like he's CSI over freak accidents.

Can any Sens fan tell me why they're not worried about EM?
- Morris

An owner who has the back of his players, is a bad thing?

An owner who has the back of his players, is a bad thing?
- Doppleganger

He's making himself and his team look stupid. I bet any money that Karlsson probably wishes he would just stfu already.

An owner who has the back of his players, is a bad thing?
- Doppleganger

Nope, but that goes beyond having a player's back into your own personal crusade.

That was beside the larger financial point though. Aren't you worried about that?

Take Daniel Alfredsson for example. The financial issues with Melnyk didn't allow him to have the face of the franchise's back.

But Chara was NOT Ottawa's best D man at the time..........Redden was.

50 points and a + 35, while Chara had 43 points and was a +17.
- Doppleganger

Yup. Points and +/-. That's all there is to look at in d-men.

Yup. Points and +/-. That's all there is to look at in d-men.
- Feeling Glucky?

Well they were certainly putting Chara on the ice a lot more than Redden by the end of his tenure in Ottawa.

Yup. Points and +/-. That's all there is to look at in d-men.
- Feeling Glucky?

Ask any Senator fan who watched both Redden and Chara play after the lockout, and the rules that eliminated the clutching and grabbing, that Chara and other D men depended on. The Sabres ( in the playoffs) would just dump the puck into Chara's corner (when crossing the blueline) and force him to turn, and then just out skate him to the puck, as he could not hook, grab or hold then up...........and if he did, he was penalized. His game was exposed by the rule changes and Redden just was able to play within the rules and was the better of the two.

Well they were certainly putting Chara on the ice a lot more than Redden by the end of his tenure in Ottawa.
- prock

Yeah, shuttdown D-men play a few more minutes per game than most. That's normal for most teams, as the opposition do play their top two offensive lines more than the bottom two lines.

Ask any Senator fan who watched both Redden and Chara play after the lockout, and the rules that eliminated the clutching and grabbing, that Chara and other D men depended on. The Sabres ( in the playoffs) would just dump the puck into Chara's corner (when crossing the blueline) and force him to turn, and then just out skate him to the puck, as he could not hook, grab or hold then up...........and if he did, he was penalized. His game was exposed by the rule changes and Redden just was able to play within the rules and was the better of the two.
- Doppleganger

As prock pointed out. The coaching staff obviously didn't think it was that big of a deal, giving Chara 5 minutes per game more than Redden.

Yeah, shuttdown D-men play a few more minutes per game than most. That's normal for most teams, as the opposition do play their top two offensive lines more than the bottom two lines.
- Doppleganger

But Chara wasn't just a shut-down d-man, he was also an offensive powerhouse.

But Chara wasn't just a shut-down d-man, he was also an offensive powerhouse.
- Feeling Glucky?

Redden had 50 points and a + 35

Chara had 43 points and was a +17

Ask any Senator fan who watched both Redden and Chara play after the lockout, and the rules that eliminated the clutching and grabbing, that Chara and other D men depended on. The Sabres ( in the playoffs) would just dump the puck into Chara's corner (when crossing the blueline) and force him to turn, and then just out skate him to the puck, as he could not hook, grab or hold then up...........and if he did, he was penalized. His game was exposed by the rule changes and Redden just was able to play within the rules and was the better of the two.
- Doppleganger

Then why in the 06 playoffs did they play Chara 3 more minutes of ES a game and why was he a 0 in +/- as opposed to Redden's -2?

By the way, here's the penalty breakdown for those two during the series:
Game 1
Chara (Roughing - coincidental)

Game 2
Redden (tripping)
Redden (interference)

Game 3
Chara (Hooking)
Redden (Cross Checking)

Game 4
Chara (Holding)

Game 5
Redden (tripping)
Chara (interference)

I count 6 minutes for clutch and grab stuff for each, and 2 minutes each for general rough stuff.

I don't know why any Sens fan would be on EM's side. They're not a bad team by any means, they've got a pretty young core group of guys and they have two fairly decent long-term contracts on the books for Turris and Karlsson.

But if their owner isn't prepared to spend money on Ryan, Methot etc. let alone add some of the elite talent needed to compete then it's all for nought.

Even if he wasn't such a mess financially, he's still a guy that criticizes other team's play styles and pretends like he's CSI over freak accidents.

Can any Sens fan tell me why they're not worried about EM?
- Morris

If he doesnt spend to keep our tallent, then his profit margins will take a hit in terms of attendence.Its still hasnt recovered from the whole alfie mess ,if he (frank)s with the fans much further he will face a boycott at the gate

Redden had 50 points and a + 35

Chara had 43 points and was a +17

- Doppleganger

So it's clear based on this that Chara was better then?? Also that ottawa valued him more (because they played him more??)

So it's clear based on this that Chara was better then?? Also that ottawa valued him more (because they played him more??)
- burn

Muckler pooched us big time there ,he was lost to us the moment he screwed hossa over with a trade to atlanta before the ink was dry on his contract.

If he doesnt spend to keep our tallent, then his profit margins will take a hit in terms of attendence.Its still hasnt recovered from the whole alfie mess ,if he (frank)s with the fans much further he will face a boycott at the gate
- top shelf 15

You keep talking about how Melnyk will pay for him, the Sens fans would boycott, etc, but seemingly ignore that they may offer him a contract, but it will require Bobby Ryan to actually want to sign it.

Then why in the 06 playoffs did they play Chara 3 more minutes of ES a game and why was he a 0 in +/- as opposed to Redden's -2?

By the way, here's the penalty breakdown for those two during the series:
Game 1
Chara (Roughing - coincidental)

Game 2
Redden (tripping)
Redden (interference)

Game 3
Chara (Hooking)
Redden (Cross Checking)

Game 4
Chara (Holding)

Game 5
Redden (tripping)
Chara (interference)

I count 6 minutes for clutch and grab stuff for each, and 2 minutes each for general rough stuff.
- Morris

Did you watch the entire series?

You keep talking about how Melnyk will pay for him, the Sens fans would boycott, etc, but seemingly ignore that they may offer him a contract, but it will require Bobby Ryan to actually want to sign it.
- prock

Hey maybe your right,and we have to trade him .But iam just trying to look at things from a buisness point of view.Bobby Ryan and a good team makes money ,Prospects and picks on a forever rebuilding team hurts the bottom line ,and right now EM needs the bottom line to be good or his whole house of cards will fall

Hey maybe your right,and we have to trade him .But iam just trying to look at things from a buisness point of view.Bobby Ryan and a good team makes money ,Prospects and picks on a forever rebuilding team hurts the bottom line ,and right now EM needs the bottom line to be good or his whole house of cards will fall

- top shelf 15

sources?

Redden had 50 points and a + 35

Chara had 43 points and was a +17

- Doppleganger

Yup. Not much difference offensively, but Chara was way better defensively.

Chara also actually scored more, while Redden feasted on assists from the Sen's star forwards... at even strength, they both had an equal amount of points, but Redden had more on the power play, because he played there significantly more, as Chara had to be saved for the penalty kill.

Chara played 2 minutes more per game on the PK, and one minute less per game on the PP.

sources?
- Doppleganger

Logic ??,EM cant keep selling the rebuild forever ,he will need to show he means buisness or we become the montreal expo,s version 2