Two dudes blogging and podcasting about the San Jose Sharks, straight from sunny California.

post Four For Four now?

August 2nd, 2010, 9:46 am

Filed under: blog — Written by Mike

Well, it turns out even the $2.75M arbitration award was too rich for the Blackhawks’ blood.  They ditch Niemi and sign Marty Turco for one year, $1.3M.  I guess you could say Doug Wilson’s evil plan of signing Hjalmarsson to an offer sheet really paid off.  The Hawks now have to go with a goaltender who’s last 5 years of save percentage are .898, .910, .909, .898, and .913.  I consider .900 to be the Mendoza line for goaltenders, and .910 is roughly NHL average.

The Hawks are delightfully, wonderfully screwed for goalies.  According to Hockey’s Future, the Hawks have only one goaltending prospect in their top 20, Alec Richards at #11.  Richards posted great numbers his last year at Yale, but has been unable to crack the magical .900 mark in either the ECHL (in a full season) or the AHL (only six games).  A blue chipper this guy ain’t.

The annoying thing about Turco is his ability to play well against the Sharks.  Each of the past three years Turco has posted a better save percentage against the Sharks than his season average.  It’s not statistically huge, but it’s irritating.  I guess the one upside is we are only facing the Hawks four times this year, versus the customary six against Dallas.

34 Comments to “Four For Four now?”

  1. Doug says:


    Just a month ago you guys were talking about what a true playoff goaltender Turco is, and that that’s what the Sharks need, etc, etc. Now, the Hawks sign him for 700k less than Doug Wilson gave Niittymaki, even though Turco is a much more established goaltender, and somehow it’s the Hawks who have made a bad move. Turco is an established #1 goaltender, who can handle the puck. A true number 1, and they’re paying him 1.3 million. That’s unheard of. Before this year, you either had to choose between a true, established #1 goaltender for 4-6 million per year, or a young, and/or unproven goaltender, for 1-2 million. But now the Hawks have gotten the best of both worlds: a proven #1 for backup goaltender money.

    As for them not having any top goalie prospects, before last season, how high was Antti Niemi ranked on hockey’s future, I wonder? The undrafted goalie who I’m sure wasn’t even on HF’s radar. Hmmmmm….

    And they have Crawford who at least they believe in.

    But whether they have a ton of top goalie prospects or not, it doesn’t really matter. It’s the least important position to have prospects in. Case in point: The Avalanche don’t have a ready goaltender before last season, they sign Craig Anderson for less than 2 mil per, and he helps them go from the worst team in the west to the 8th seed. Huet isn’t up to snuff for the Hawks, they call up their undrafted goalie Niemi. SJ doesn’t have a ready goalie, they sign Niittymaki. Tampa signs Ellis. My memory is failing me on the other numerous examples, but the point is every offseason there are serviceable goaltenders who can give a team a more than acceptable 910% or higher save percentage for 1-2 million dollars. If Turco doesn’t want to resign with the Hawks after this season you can rest assured they’ll have no trouble finding another serviceable guy for low money.

    Moral of the story though is don’t be hypocrites. You both agreed a month ago that Turco is a playoff goaltender, and something the Sharks need, except he’d be too expensive. Which basically means you two were of the opinion that he’d be a great pickup for the sharks, but just that he wouldn’t be affordable. So now the Hawks picked up that good goalie, and he ended up being more affordable than the lifetime backup DW signed to be the Sharks #1, yet somehow now it’s a bad move for the Sharks. Instead of citing the good playoff stats you guys brought up to make the case that he’s a good goaltender, and would be perfect for the Sharks, you’re now citing mediocre regular season statistics to make the case that he’s not a very good goaltender.

    You see the problem there, yes?

    If they both matter, then you should have citied both reg season and playoff stats in both instances. If only the playoff stats matter, since afterall Chicago is going to make the playoffs regardless of how Turco plays in the regular season, then you should have citied the playoff stats in both instances, instead of using the favorable stats to convince yourselves he’s a good goalie when you wanted him on your team, and then using the unfavorable stats to convince yourselves he’s a bad goalie when he signs (at a huge discount, I might add) for the team that eliminated your team.

    Please, for once, take a look in the mirror. Maybe it’s not too late to salvage a little objectivity.

    • Mike says:

      I’m perfectly willing to cop to things I’ve said, but I don’t have a real clear recollection of me touting Marty Turco. Doug thought the Sharks would sign him this offseason- I argued against it. Mostly for the reasons I put in this post- he was great once, but that day was quite a while ago.

      Can you be more specific about the particular episode you are referring to?

      • Tom says:

        Not to jump in something that isn’t any of my bees-wax… but Mike is correct. Doug believed Turco would be a Shark not Mike…

        You’re confused.

        But I think Turco is better than Neimi anyhow… and I still don’t want either damn one of them on the Sharks…

        • evilducks says:

          I don’t think either of them liked Turco even then. Doug was just sure that Turco was going to be a Shark.

    • Patrick says:

      Turd, meet punch bowl.

      Doug, you must really dislike yourself to continue spending your leisure time reading a blog that you so obviously dislike.

      I’m sure everyone else appreciates the lesson in how that post “should have” been written, and looks forward to you starting your own blog! Perhaps “Douche on Hockey”?

      • Ian says:

        LOL, Douche on Hockey! I am totally remembering this in case I am ever able to write more then 2 lines that make sense.

    • nick says:

      Ryan? Ryan Garner? Is that you?

  2. Ruben says:

    An angle many are missing when discussing this team… Marty Turco will not be playing in front of the same team Antii Niemi did. Many are saying Turco will be rejuvenated and will improve by playing in front of a better defense in Chicago. For 48 minutes a night, it is true that he will play in front of a great defense, but for 10-12 minutes a night he will be playing with the Jay Leaches and Dan DaSilvas of the world. And does anyone really think that their top four DMen will not miss a single game all year? What if Brian Campbell goes down for two months again? Imagine Jay Leach being the best option on the 2nd pairing… have fun with that, Turco!

    As of now, Chicago has the best core in the NHL. But I don’t think they win the Central without incredible luck in the health department. No depth, no promising rookies to hope to provide production for a low cost, a known below average goalie on the downslope of his career.

    My predictions:

    Chicago takes home 95 points and a 7 seed, faces San Jose in the 1st round.

    Turco goes 2.45GAA/.908 SV%

    Toews leads league in TOI for forwards by a full :30, wins Ross, scores no goals in playoffs from being rundown. Gets called a playoff choke by dumb sportswriters.

    • Tom says:

      I just can’t wait to hear all those whinny Hawks fans say, “why are they chanting Tuuuur-co?!”, like they do with Campbell…

      And those patented Turco meltdowns where he gives up the puck in a tie game to Marleau right in front of the crease or behind the net…

      Good times are comin’ boys!!

  3. Doug says:

    “I’m perfectly willing to cop to things I’ve said, but I don’t have a real clear recollection of me touting Marty Turco. Doug thought the Sharks would sign him this offseason- I argued against it. Mostly for the reasons I put in this post- he was great once, but that day was quite a while ago.

    Can you be more specific about the particular episode you are referring to?”

    Mike – I’ll tell you what exactly im referring too when i find the podcast you two discussed Turco. Which one was it that you recall Doug advocating for him, and you arguing agianst it?

  4. Doug says:

    I did my research – listening to your podcast, initially. Now you’re the one asking for proof of what you said exactly, and I’m trying to accommodate you, but since im such a loyal fan, i have a ton of DOH podcasts on my itunes, including somewhere in the range of seven since the season ended when you could have talked about Turco. I tried going through a few quickly but I couldn’t find it. You’re not going to have any chance at proving me wrong until you have the exact quote, and I can’t get you the exact quote until you tell me which podcast. what this sounds like to me is you know which podcast, so you went and listened to it after i called you out, and after listening to it heard exactly what you said and realized i was right, and now you don’t want to own up to it. it’s understandable but personally you seem pretty firm in your stance that you haven’t been hypocritical, so im pretty curious to hear it again too. you never know maybe im misremembering…

    • Mike says:

      So now you think I’m lying about it. This is how arguments work- you make a claim, and then you provide facts to back it up if the claim is disputed. If I had unlimited time, I might consider going back and checking the tape out of charity to you. Needless to say, after this last little gem, I’m not feeling too charitable.

    • Kit says:

      Couldn’t the same thing be said about you? Not that I heard the podcast either, but when you call someone out it is up to you to provide quotes like Mike said. So you could have gone back and heard the podcast and found out Mike was right. At that point you didn’t want to own up to your mistake but instead point the finger away from you and accuse Mike. What I’m trying to say is that that accusation has no facts and the same accusation could be made about you.

    • Patrick says:

      That looked fun, let me try…

      what this sounds like to me is you know which podcast, so you went ahead and listened to it after you called Mike out, and after listening to it heard exactly what he said and realized you were wrong, and now you don’t want to own up to it.

  5. Doug says:

    Wow. I go on one vacation and Evil Doug implodes the comment thread.

  6. Tom says:

    Actually Mike… No one wins. I for one am saddened and grieved by the series of events that has transpired here.

    Perhaps a duel is in order? Maybe an olde’ English white glove slap fest? Or better yet let’s have an old fashion cage match to the death!!!!! Doug S. can emcee the event, on the podcast of course, and well sell tickets!!!

  7. Tom says:

    Fight fight fight fight fight fight fight!!!!

  8. Doug says:

    Guys, Mike, you said, “this is how arguments work- you make a claim, and then you provide the facts to back it up if the claim is disputed.”

    You’re forgetting that that’s what I did in the first place. Here are quotes of me providing the facts in my earlier comment.

    “Just a month ago you guys were talking about what a true playoff goaltender Turco is, and that that’s what the Sharks need, etc, etc.”

    “You both agreed a month ago that Turco is a playoff goaltender, and something the Sharks need, except he’d be too expensive.”

    You’re likely thinking I did not provide an exact quote of what you said, and that therefore I haven’t really really provided “facts,” but a fact doesn’t have to be a direct quote in this instance as long as the paraphrasing of what you guys said, on my part, is accurate, or, factual.

    And as for not having the exact quote, and the notion that that fact somehow makes what I’m saying invalid, or, and this is via the people copying my theory and applying it to me, that it means I’ve listened to it again and realized I was wrong… do either of you two dudes remember every single quote from every podcast, exactly? That’s rhetorical, and obviously not. But does that mean you two can’t remember points you’ve made and conversations you’ve had? You can remember the gist and thesis of something without remembering every word. What reason would I have to bring this up if it didn’t have basis? Just think about my motivations here, and that might tell you all you need to know about the validity of what I’ve been saying. I like your show, except for these types of gaffs. I like you two as people. You seem like good dudes. So why would I take my time to post the things I’ve been saying if you hadn’t really said what I’m accusing you of saying?

    And as for how arguments work, the way “arguments” work in court anyway is that the defendant’s attorney is aloud access to all of the prosecution’s files and witnesses. Now I am the one being prosecuted – you are saying I made a claim about you without the backing of facts, that I claimed you said something you didn’t, and I am trying to defend myself and the claim I made. I wouldn’t expect you to go back through all the podcasts if you didn’t already know which one I referred to, but if you know then you should tell me and we can get the exact quotes out in the open. That’s what we both want, no? I want to exact quotes so I can point out what exactly you said that ended up being hypocritical, and you want the quotes so you can point out that I was imagining the whole thing, and that you never said anything that ended up being hypocritical in light of these most recent comments you’ve made regarding Turco.

    So it’s in both of our best interests for you to tell me which episode you two discussed Marty Turco. And if you think I’m not making the proper effort to provide proof you’re mistaken because, like I said, I did try, for about an hour on the bus, kind of fast forwarding through the Goodbye Nabby episode, and one or two others I thought might be the correct one, listening to quotes every 60 seconds or so of podcsast time to see if I heard Turco or goaltending mentioned. So I did make an effort, in part because I would like to have an objective blog/podcast to read and listen to that focuses on the Sharks, and I think you two have the potential to end up being that, but in order to grow into that role you first have to be made aware of the instances in which you have failed to be objective, so that you can learn from those instances.

    So, if you want this settled once and for all, tell me the episode, and we can let the exact quotes decide who’s right.

    If you’re still not inclined to do so, which would be unfortunate, but if you aren’t, I can tell you once again from memory what was said, and why your recent comments are hypocritical.

    First off, this is Mike and Doug’s site. Not just one or the other of yours. So if Doug, for instance, thinks Turco is a great goalie, but you, Mike, come on here after Chicago signs him and say it’s a bad signing (or anything negative and to the contrary of what Doug believes), that is being bias just by omission. It is both of your websites, and the website represents both of you, so choosing to only publish the negative opinion regarding Marty Turco and the Hawks would be bias in that scenario.

    Luckily that’s not the scenario though, because both of you ended up in agreement that Turco is a good goalie and would be a good fit with the Sharks. Here, again, is the hypocrisy.

    In one of your episodes, discussing goaltending, Nabokov, Turco, and more, maybe both of you mentioned some stuff about Turco being from Dallas and not liking that aspect of it, maybe you didn’t make any remarks about that at all, although I think there was one or two remarks to that general effect. Regardless it at the least seemed kind of the tone of the podcast at this point was like a ‘I know it’s Marty Turco and I shouldn’t like him because he’s Turco, our rival, and it’s Marty fricken Turco, but I have to be true to the stats and how I feel.’ That was the vibe I was getting from Doug, when he said something along the lines of you know what, ‘I’m going to say Marty Turco,’ as a goalie the Sharks should strongly consider. And then you, Mike, were kind of like ehh, really? You weren’t sure about it initially. Then Doug started talking about it more, and he mentioned that Marty Turco is a ‘playoff proven goaltender,’ I think is either exactly what he said or very close, and Doug, as I said, and this is part of what’s so contradictory, Doug started citing favorable playoff statistics. So, again, I’ve said this already, but I’ll say it again: when Doug (and you coming up) thought Turco could be a Shark, while he was still UFA and not affiliated with your team’s rival that recently knocked your team out of the playoffs, so in other words when you guys could still be objective about it, Doug used favorable playoff statistics to argue that Turco was a good goalie, and that the Sharks should get him. And Doug was saying he thought Turco was a great playoff goalie, and a proven playoff netminder. So that’s Doug down. He clearly thought well of Turco. He clearly thought he’d be a good fit for the Sharks, except he mentioned that he’d likely be too expensive. That was the only bad thing he said about the notion of signing Marty Turco. His overall argument was basically that Turco would be great to have, but he’s just too good that we wouldn’t be able to afford him. And now of course he’s signed for significantly less than Niittymaki, who is a career back-up netminder. So the Blackhawks got a career starting goaltender and ‘proven playoff goaltender’ for significantly less than Doug Wilson had to pay for a career back-up netminder. But of course you try to spin that like it’s the Blackhawks who got screwed, and screwed by the Sharks GM Doug Wilson, no less.

    So, like I said, that’s Doug. That’s what he said. You probably remember, and other listeners do too I’d wager, but if you don’t just ask him and I’m sure he’ll tell you that he said those positive things about Marty Turco.

    But what about you?

    You started out not necessarily in strong disagreement, but maybe in a little disagreement, or if not disagreement, at least uncertainty about Doug’s argument. But then, after Doug made his argument, he said to you that Turco is a proven playoff goaltender, and maybe he mentioned ‘who can make the big saves’ and other things to that accord, but I don’t rememebr that for sure. What i do remember for sure is him saying to you that Turco is a proven playoff goaltender, and then, posed as a question to you, “Isn’t that what we need?”

    And you said “Yes. You’re right.”

    So once again, Doug clearly thought Turco was a good goaltender, and the best option for the sharks if only he’d be available for less the 3-4 million (might have even been higher that you two were speculating he’d get), and after hearing his argument you were clearly convinced enough to say that yes, he was right about the sharks needing Turco. And how did he come to that conclusion in the first place, a conclusion which he then convinced you of? Marty Turco’s playoff stats.

    So once again, when you two had hope the Sharks might sign him, when he was a UFA, both you and Doug formulated your favorable opinions of Turco based on his playoff stats, since playoff stats are all that matter for the Sharks at this point in time anyway, and you two knew that. Doug felt strongly enough about Turco to try and convince you of it. Doug is on record saying he thought Turco to be a great playoff goaltender, and that the Sharks needed him, and you are on record agreeing with him on that point. Both of you came to that conclusion based on playoff statistics.

    Then he signs with the Blackhawks, and you write your article, and it completely ignores the playoff stats you two were so high on only a month or two earlier. Instead it focuses only on his regular season stats. You write the article from the point of view that it was a bad signing for the Blackhawks at 1.3 million, even though you and Doug, especially, were talking like you would have been thrilled to have him at 2.5 million per or maybe even more than that.

    Moreover, why do I get the impression that if he had signed with the Sharks for 1.3 million, and the Blackhawks had signed Niittymaki for 2 million per, you two would have written something praising Doug Wilson for signing a proven playoff netminder for such a low sum when your rivals had splurged 2 million per on an unproven career backup with almost no playoff experience?

    You can try to deny that but come on man, be honest, you ~know~ that is true. I mean just picture it, please. In their cap crunch, Chicago signs Niittymaki for 2 million per season, then a day later, out of the blue, Doug Wilson signs Marty Turco, a goalie you thought was going to command 4 million per year, for only 1.3 million! You guys would have been praising Doug Wilson like praise was going out of style, and who could blame you. That would have at least been fair, because you guys said you wanted Turco from the beginning, and then when you got him it wouldn’t have been flip flopping. Even when he wasn’t a shark, and you two were just speculating objectively about players not on the team, even then you wanted him and said good things about him, so it’s natural that you’d continue to say good things if he signed with the Sharks. It’s just BS when you do go back on an opinion, and use contradicting stats to do it, when he signs with your rival for less money than DW had to splurge on Niittymaki, even though going into free agency Turco was the much more highly touted goalie.

    I think I’ve proven it pretty well here. I don’t know what else there is to add. I’ll just sum it up quickly here.

    Doug initially became convinced that Marty Turco was a good playoff proven goaltender that the Sharks needed by looking at his playoff statistics. You, Mike, hadn’t studied those statistics pre-show like Doug had so you weren’t sure about Turco initially, but once Doug shared those statistics with you you said you agreed with him. The only issue for you two was that he’d cost too much.
    Then Doug Wilson signed Niittymaki instead at what is an inflated number compared to Turco’s, and Turco signed with the Blackhawks for less money. Only after he signed with your rival did a negative comment about Turco come from you guys. Instead of using the positive playoff statistics which were the basis of yours and Doug’s previous stance that Turco would be a good goalie for the Sharks, or any team in need of a good playoff goalie, to sign, you used less favorable regular season statistics in a post painting the ‘Hawks signing of Turco as a bad one for the Blackhawks, evidenced by this quote: “I guess you could say Doug Wilson’s evil plan of signing Hjalmarsson to an offer sheet really paid off. The Hawks now have to go with a goaltender who’s last 5 years of save percentage are .898, .910, .909, .898, and .913. I consider .900 to be the Mendoza line for goaltenders, and .910 is roughly NHL average.” Not only that, but anyone with common sense can hypothesize that if Turco had signed with the Sharks instead and Niittymaki had signed with the Hawks, that the article would have either been completely praising, or, at minimum, that it would have contained both Turco’s regular season and playoff statistics, and in that case that its overall thesis would have been something along the lines of “the regular season number’s aren’t great, but they aren’t bad either, and this will be the best team he’s played for in awhile so they will likely go up. But, much more importantly, his postsaeson numbers are stellar, and Doug and I were discussing only a little while ago that a proven netminder like Turco is exactly what the Sharks need, and for Doug Wilson to get him at only 1.3 million, about 3 million less than we thought he would get, is nothing short of brilliant. Another great move by Doug Wilson. Boy oh boy does this make up for the Wallin signing. And Chicago paying an unproven backup in Niitymaki 2 million per, more than Turco’s making? That just makes this even better.”

    You can either admit that you would have held that stance or not. I can’t prove hypothetical what if’s, but I don’t need to in this case. With or without the last part about how you would have reacted differently if Turco had signed with the Sharks, what you did is still the definition of flip-flopping, and hypocrisy. Not only did you completely change your stance from ‘Doug you’re right Turco is exactly what the Sharks need’ to ‘Turco signing with the Hawks = Doug Wilson really screwed them,” but you used one set of statistics when coming to conclusion A – that Turco is a good goaltender and would have been a good signing, and then you used different statistics to come to conclusion B., that Turco is a below average goaltender. You came to two contradicting conclusions on the same player during the same offseason, which is flip-flopping. The fact that the initial conclusion came when the player was a free agent who was being rumored to join your home team, and then that the flip-flopping occurred after he not only did not sign with your team, but signed with your team’s big rival, shows that the motivation for the flip-flopping was that of bias towards your home team.

    And to pile on top of that, to support the bias flip-flopping, you guys cherry picked contradicting statistics both times in order to support contradicting arguments. Doug used only Turco’s playoff statistics, probably because that’s all that matters for the Sharks goaltender – playoff performance, but regardless he used only playoff statistics when coming to the conclusion that Turco was a good goaltender, which would have been fine if Mike used only his playoff statistics when covering his signing with the Blackhawks, but he/you didn’t. Doug used only playoff statistics to argue Turco was a good goalie, and you used only regular season statistics to argue that he’s not a good enough goalie to be a good signing at 1.3 million. Cherry picking statistics is a cardinal sin in journalism. Either you take both regular season and playoff statistics into account, always, or you choose to only use one or the other when talking about a player, but once you choose, you keep it consistent. In other words, if you’d used the playoff statistics both times, or the regular season statistics both times, it would have been fine. The fact that only the statistics that best supported each hypocritical argument were chosen in each instance is the problem. The statistics, or abilities of a player, are supposed to dictate the argument. The argument, or bias, is not supposed to dictate the statistics that are used. Whether you, Mike, consciously or subconsciously chose to only publish Turco’s negative statistics without mentioning his playoff performances, the results are the same. And it’s made even worse by the fact that when you and Doug were considering him for the Sharks, his playoff performances were all you talked about. I don’t know if I’m getting through here or not, but if I am then by now you’re starting to see the inconsistencies here. When the talk is about Turco as a Shark, it’s all about his stellar playoff stats, what a great playoff goaltender he is, playoffs playoffs playoffs. When all of a sudden it’s Turco as a Hawk that’s being discussed, there’s not one peep about the playoffs, or his playoff stats. Then all of a sudden the save percentage numbers from his regular seasons get published instead. In conclusion, it’s inconsistent, and – no coincidence, the inconsistencies always, always seem to favor the Sharks here at Dudes on Hockey. As in, you cherry pick the positive statistics about the Sharks, or free agent players you believe might be Sharks soon, while ignoring all the negative statistics, and then it’s the opposite about non-Shark players, or players you thought would sign with the Sharks, or wanted to sign with the Sharks, but who didn’t. Then you cherry pick the bad and leave out the good.

    That is exactly what happened with you guys when discussing Turco, and it’s bias, hypocritical, contradictory, inconsistent, and unfair.

    I’m sorry to have to be the one to say it because I do like you guys, but it’s the truth. When I listen to your podcasts you two both come off as really good, positive guys, the kind of people who if everyone was like you there would never be any wars or violence, so I don’t want to make either of you feel too bad, but something had to be said. If you want to try and understand where I’m coming from, it’s like sometimes when I’m listening to you two talk about hockey, it’s probably very similar to what it’s like for you two when you’re listening to Ray Ratto talk about the Sharks. It’s very frustrating when you know the truth about something but you’re listening to other people talking about it thinking they know the truth about it, when they don’t. Another example is you’re an L.A Kings fan, and you’re listening to hockey pundits talk about “I totally understand Dean Lombardi not being able to get Kovalchuk, because it’s as he said: the contract they offered to Kovalchuk had a cap hit of 5.33 million, but if they’d decided to match the Devil’s offer, with a cap of 6 million, they wouldn’t have been able to re-sign Drew Doughty the next year, and that’s totally understandable.”

    So if you’re a fan of the Kings there, a fan that knows better, and you’re listening to this pundit who thinks he knows what he’s talking about, when really all he’s doing is making an excuse for Dean Lombardi’s lack of progress this offseason, that can be very frustrating, especially when you consider the following. The L.A Kings aren’t the only team with a high-profile restricted free agent to sign next offseason. Zach Parise is due for a big raise next offseason, just like Drew Doughty is. Only Zach Parise is a forward and a former 40 goal scorer, and therefore much more of a comparable to Ilya Kovalchuk than Drew Doughty. In other words, if Lou Lamoriello can get away with signing Ilya Kovalchuk to that type of contract, and with that type salary structure, without running the risk of Zach Parise’s agent trying to use it as a starting point for his client’s next contract, then Dean Lombardi could have gotten away with signing Kovalchuk to whatever contract he wanted to offer Kovalchuk without running the risk of not being able to re-sign Drew Doughty, and others. Not to mention that Zach Parise is going into his third contract, whereas Drew Doughty’s next contract will only be his second.

    So the whole notion of “It’s not about cash. It’s about cap,” which Tim Leiweke, CEO of the Kings, said with regard to the Kovalchuk situation, that whole notion is a joke. At a 5.3 million per year cap hit, the Kings could afford him, and afford to re-sign all their young players, but at 6 million per year cap hit, they couldn’t? .7 million in cap hit with regard to Kovalchuk is a breaking point when they’re paying Anze Kopitar 6.8 per year, as well as one of the worst contracts in the league paying a rapidly declining, slow of foot, 34 year old Ryan Smyth 6.25 million for two more years? The bottom line is if New Jersey can afford to sign Kovalchuk to a 6 million dollar cap hit contract when they only have 3.698 million in cap space remaining, and still be able to retain Zach Parise next offseason, then there’s no reason the L.A Kings can’t sign Kovalchuk to a 6 million dollar cap hit contract and still be able to retain Doughty, Jack Johnson, and Wayne Simmonds next year, considering they 12.8766 million in cap room.

    So there’s an example. You’re a Kings fan, and you’re listening to that, and you know the facts, but the pundit obviously doesn’t, and he’s just making excuses for why you’re team is going to fall right back out of the playoffs next year for lack of offseason progress made by your team’s General Manager. That’s a frustrating experience, and when you guys say the Sharks don’t have the cap space to bring in some player, when really they do, and I know they do, or when you guys flip-flop on something like this Turco thing, it very much takes away from what is otherwise a very entertaining podcast featuring two very pleasant, dedicated, and otherwise intelligent people.

    And, regarding Turco, I’m not even saying I disagree that Niemi is better than Turco now. I wouldn’t contend your opinion of Niemi over Turco if that’s what you really think and if you said it from day one and didn’t flip-flop. It’s the ‘they’re screwed now, and because of Doug Wilson’s brilliance’ type of tone that I have qualms with. And also the fact that you’ve called out the Turco signing as negative at a 1.3 million cap hit, yet haven’t classified the Niittymaki signing at a 2 million cap hit as negative. At least for the short term, I don’t think Turco will be a bad deal at 1.3 million. In fact, I think Turco will provide very good value at that price, if only for this next season. But, it’s possible that he won’t, and if you wanted to make the argument that signing him for that price was a bad move for the Blackhawks, and you hadn’t flip-flopped, fine. That’s okay. But if you’re going to call Turco at 1.3 million a bad value signing, then you have to call out the Niittymaki signing too. Niittymaki has never been a better goaltender than Turco, so by definition if he’s always been the inferior goaltender, but is now getting paid more than Turco, and the signing of Turco was a bad signing by the Blackhawks in your estimation, then by the law of transitive properties and syllogism the Niittymaki signing must also be considered a bad signing in your estimation.

    So, in conclusion, just be consistent guys, and objective, and fair to all the teams, including the Sharks. Being bias towards them probably hurts them more than it helps. You guys have touched on this before, the media not holding the team accountable, and how maybe that hurts the organization. So by being objective, and negative, when called for…the Huskins and Wallin signings would be the most notable examples of late…you could actually help the organization much more than you’d help them by continuing to praise everything they do.

    • Evilducks says:

      I don’t have to read this whole diatrab of bullshit to know that’s what it is. The first couple sentences prove it.

      “You’re forgetting that that’s what I did in the first place. Here are quotes of me providing the facts in my earlier comment.

      “Just a month ago you guys were talking about what a true playoff goaltender Turco is, and that that’s what the Sharks need, etc, etc.”

      “You both agreed a month ago that Turco is a playoff goaltender, and something the Sharks need, except he’d be too expensive.”

      You’re likely thinking I did not provide an exact quote of what you said, and that therefore I haven’t really really provided “facts,” but a fact doesn’t have to be a direct quote in this instance as long as the paraphrasing of what you guys said, on my part, is accurate, or, factual.”

      While you’re right you don’t need to provide exact quotes and paraphrasing would be fine, you still need to cite the source. You did not. For all we know you’re paraphrasing the voices in your head. Until you provide a source you haven’t provided facts and have just provided hearsay, which is not facts.

  9. Tom says:

    Take yer Prozac dude and turn your goddamn computer off.

  10. Doug says:

    I citied the source(s): Doug and Mike. If you listened to the most recent podcast you’d know that Doug actually admitted to saying he endorsed Marty Turco as a playoff proven goaltender, as I said he did. He also did not seem to know which podcast he said it in, same as me, but what’s important is that he said it, Doug agreed with him, and he admitted to saying it, which going back and getting the exact quote is even more irrelevant now than it was to begin with. I’m glad you didn’t read it because it was not directed at you, and it has nothing to do with you. The post is in response to Mike. I tried to sum up the hypocrisy concisely in the first few posts, and it did not work, so I really went over it in detail in that post, thus the length. It may be long for the blog generation, but if it was on paper it would only be a couple pages long, akin to a newspaper article, or the first few pages of a book. Mike may still not agree or admit to the Turco comments, but I doubt he will think the post is bullshit, and I’m sure both he and Doug will be happy to know they have listeners who are passionate enough about hockey to contribute to the comments in such a way. I don’t really care what someone with the name evilducks says because you don’t understand the notion of helping the team by being objective. The Ducks are evil for doing what they’re supposed to, being skilled and trying their hardest to win against the Sharks, and succeeding? Much more productive would be evildougwilson, for failing to build a Cup winner, or even Cup finalist, over his tenure. If every Sharks fan thought of him that way, there would be sufficient pressure on management to fire him, and he could be replaced with someone better. EvilMarleau, and that could ultimately get him jettisoned out of town for his lackluster playoff performances. EvilMclellan… you get the point.

  11. Doug says:

    That’s not a very nice thing to say, Tom.

  12. Doug says:

    You shouldn’t just say prozac as the default anti-depressant for the bud of your jokes either. I think it gives them an unfair advantage over the competing drug companies. Those drug companies, and the insurance companies for that matter, have been nothing but good to the American people, and I think they all deserve a fair shot at winning the hearts, and minds, and the serotonin in those minds, of said American people, and particularly the pre-teens and teenagers currently abiding in America. When you say “prozac,” and not “anti-depressant,” especially to the kids, when those kids go to their psychiatrist in search of some relief, they don’t ask their psychiatrist for whichever anti-depressant is best suited to their needs; they ask for prozac, because it’s the one they’ve heard of. You have to think about the large implications of your cruel comments before making said cruel comments. Cruel comments, in and of themselves, are great. I think they’re what makes America the great country it is, along with anti-depressants, and the drug companies, and insurance companies, that help provide them. But only when that cruel comment doesn’t hurt the drug companies, and the kids. But especially the drug companies.

    So next time, just try to take in the larger picture before acting, like the arbitrator did in the Ilya Kovalchuk case, next time you make a cruel comment over the anonymous internet (which I wholeheartedly encourage you to do).

    • Patrick says:

      Evil Doug – the irony, of course, is that in the time it took you to write those posts you surely could have found the quotes in question – if they exist.

  13. evilducks says:

    Well, I’ve gone through the podcasts dating back to the end of the Sharks playoff run and have found no mentions of how good Turco is or how great he’d be for the team.

    What I did find was:
    DoH 105: Mike discusses wanting to sign a vet (like Lieghton or Biron) that would split time with our kids and have a real goalie competition like we had with Nabokov and Toskala.

    DoH 103: Talk of potentially trading for a young goalie like Price, to which the dudes both didn’t really want to go, with our current goalie system in effect it would be pointless, unless it was a sure thing, like Bernier.

    DoH 101: The guys listed their top 10 goalies (of which Nabokov was late in the top 10’s). Turco didn’t make the list and wasn’t even hinted at as potentially being in either of their lists.

    That covers the last 2.5 months of podcasts, more than double the time frame you claim to have heard this in.

    With that actual evidence it seems hard to argue that either one of Mike or Doug thought that Turco was the answer to our problems.

    Doug does mention in some posts that he thinks Turco would sign in SJ at a reduced rate to have a shot, but nothing implying that he would be the best guy out there for us.

    I guess you’re going to have to provide actual evidence instead of just the voices in your head. Good luck with that douche bag.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.