Jarome Iginla and 5 other players who will never win a Stanley Cup

[belsarius]

I don't know if he will win the cup, but like a previous poster said I really didn't have LA as the number 1 contender the years they won. Who wins the cup seems to really depend on which teams can get hot at the right time.

I know the cup is a huge thing, like fantastically huge, but is it worth 10 million? It's easy to say from the sofa without that choice, but nearing the end of a career Iggy has the next 50 years to think about. A 1 in 5 chance to win compared to a 1 in 18 for 10 million extra is really not a hard choice when you think of providing for your family. A cup is what they all strive for, but at 37 there is a shadow of life after hockey.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Iggy would have to give up 8-10M over the next 3 years to play in L.A. or Chi. If you gave me a choice between 8-10M and a 5% chance of winning or a 50/50 chance (generous) at a cup ring I'd take the money.

I doubt Bos wins again any time soon and less money to spend so that wasn't going to work regardless.

Yeah but do you already have 80 mil in career earnings (not to.mention endorsements which I would guess put him over 100)?

That 8-10 mil likely makes a large difference in how you would live your life. Not so much for Iginla

[trackercowe]

Luongo came closest to winning a Stanley Cup, but he's the furthest of the bunch now.

Not true at all, the Flames were closer to winning the cup in '04 than the Canucks. Semantics I know, but the Flames were up 3-2, and didn't get blown out in game seven like Luongo and the Canucks did. Then of course there's the "It was in argument", and even if it wasn't, Jarome was a centimeter away from lifting that over his head in game six.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by cKy

Not to nitpick the article, but it says "Luongo came closest to winning a Stanley Cup, but he's the furthest of the bunch now"

I guess 2004's Game 7 of the SCF doesnt count for Iggy.

Interesting argument. A 3-2 SCF series lead vs a 3-2 series lead in OT


Edit: typo.


.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I don't know if he will win the cup, but like a previous poster said I really didn't have LA as the number 1 contender the years they won. Who wins the cup seems to really depend on which teams can get hot at the right time.

I know the cup is a huge thing, like fantastically huge, but is it worth 10 million? It's easy to say from the sofa without that choice, but nearing the end of a career Iggy has the next 50 years to think about. A 1 in 5 chance to win compared to a 1 in 18 for 10 million extra is really not a hard choice when you think of providing for your family. A cup is what they all strive for, but at 37 there is a shadow of life after hockey.

Maybe, but I guess that gets to the point of how much would you pay for a chance at a once in a lifetime experience?

If you have $70M, today, would you be willing to forfeit $10M (15% gross) for a much better chance of living your dream? Is $70M enough? Does that $10M add something more to their lives they couldn't have, at the cost of a 5% chance of reaching your dream vs 20%?

Obviously Iginla decided that he needed that extra ~$10M additional money that will give him a better life (and I guess family, though I think I probably see $70M as enough to get your kids to 18 as enough, maybe some people do not)...

yes summer is slow.....

[dissentowner]

Unless he is coming back to Calgary to do it I could really care less if Iginla ever wins a SC.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yeah but do you already have 80 mil in career earnings (not to.mention endorsements which I would guess put him over 100)?

An extra 10% of my career earnings vs. a marginally better chance to win a cup?

Vegas has L.A. at 9-1 to win the cup next year = 10%, let's be generous and give them 7-1 = 12.5%. Col is listed at 18-1 = 5%, let's be pessimistic and give them 24-1 = 4%.

So pretend these are your options (Chi would be similar)
1) L.A. 3 years @ 2M + 12.5% chance/year at a cup ring.
2) Col 3 years @ 5.33M + 4% chance/year at a cup ring.

I'll take the extra 10M thanks, It's not like he is choosing the money over a guaranteed cup ring.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Jacks

An extra 10% of my career earnings vs. a marginally better chance to win a cup?

Vegas has L.A. at 9-1 to win the cup next year = 11%, let's be generous and give them 7-1 = 14%. Col is listed at 18-1 = 5.5%, let's be pessimistic and give them 25-1 = 4%.

So pretend these are your options (Chi would be similar)
1) L.A. 3 years @ 2M + 14% chance/year at a cup ring.
2) Col 3 years @ 5.33M + 4% chance/year at a cup ring.

I'll take the extra 10M thanks, It's not like he is choosing the money over a guaranteed cup ring.

though it would make me hypocritical since i used %'s and my last post, Avs vs LA in a 7 games series, LA I would have to think the odds would have to be better then 3:1 for LA.... besides having equal talent, LA is far more clutch, they are much bigger (Avs are comparatively a small team) and LA has a far better defense, not to mention a difference making defenseman. Goal I'll call even.

Up until Iginla signed with Colorado, I don't think anybody here considered the Avs a contender. Especially not how they played against Minnisota in the playoffs; they couldn't even stand up to Minnisota, let alone LA, Anahaim, Chicago and St Louis who are all a tier ahead of them. Colorado is a tier 2 team.

[Steve Bozek]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

Article makes a good point. I was shocked when Iginla chased the money instead of going for less money and term to a true contender.

Well, he's tried the true contender route twice (the first still on his Flames' contract, and the second on a low-ball contract with attainable bonuses) and it didn't work for him. I think Boston's chances have peaked and are now diminishing. As others have pointed out, the teams that are likely contenders are near or at cap.

This time he's taken the money and picked a playoff team that is probably on the rise - a Stanley Cup shot for the Avalanche is not out of the realm of possibility within the term of Iginla's contract.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Unless he is coming back to Calgary to do it I could really care less if Iginla ever wins a SC.

But how much less do you think you could care? It must be a substantial amount to weigh in with this, no?

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

though it would make me hypocritical since i used %'s and my last post, Avs vs LA in a 7 games series, LA I would have to think the odds would have to be better then 3:1 for LA.... besides having equal talent, LA is far more clutch, they are much bigger (Avs are comparatively a small team) and LA has a far better defense, not to mention a difference making defenseman. Goal I'll call even.

Up until Iginla signed with Colorado, I don't think anybody here considered the Avs a contender. Especially not how they played against Minnisota in the playoffs; they couldn't even stand up to Minnisota, let alone LA, Anahaim, Chicago and St Louis who are all a tier ahead of them. Colorado is a tier 2 team.

I don't know if they are a contender this year at all, but they have the pieces that within 3 years I can see them making a serious run at it. Term is the key for me in the deal, if it was 1 year at 5mil I think that would have been a money chase over any chance at a cup for sure.

[Jer Bu]

Colorado's D looks pretty weak. But TBH, if the Rangers can make the cup final, the Avs can too. And the odds of it happening over the next 3 years are much better considering the talent this team is growing right now..

Where other teams had to add players to get better, the Avs will get better this year just by maturity and growth.

Duchene will be better, and he is already a point a game.

Landeskog will be better. he just put up 65 points, and is about to enter his "Stamkos year. he may lead that team in scoring this year.

Mackinnon will be significantly better and he already put up more than 60 in his first season.


Varlamov as a number 1 is respectable as well.

[trackercowe]

I think some people are writing off the Avs too quickly. Let's see where they are at once MacKinnon's game continues to progress, Duchene puts in a healthy season, and O'Reilly grows his game to be one of the more dominant two-way centers in the game. Also don't forget Cooke took out Colorado's best dman last year, and the series dramatically swayed once Barrie was out.

Then add in Iginla chemistry with Tanguay, Landeskog, Johnson, Vezina nominee Varlamov, and the newly acquired Stuart to the mix and you have a legitimate contender. There's a reason why they ended up winning their division this year. I think they have an excellent shot at winning a cup in the next few seasons, especially with the right move as the seasons go along.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I don't know if they are a contender this year at all, but they have the pieces that within 3 years I can see them making a serious run at it. Term is the key for me in the deal, if it was 1 year at 5mil I think that would have been a money chase over any chance at a cup for sure.

Well I think its pretty obvious this year, they are not a contender.... LA/Chicago is just too damn good. Not sure even Anahaim/St Louis can keep up with them, though those 2 are impressive.

Next year? Unlikely. Same as above. I don't see any D the Avs can get for free, so if they are to shore up their blueline, they will have to trade one of McKinnon, Landeskog, Duschene and ROR. Honestly their best chip to trade for a d-man might actually be Iginla,

In 3 years? Maybe, its when you'll some of those big 4 teams start to go into their early 30's (funny saying that in a thread with the eternal Iginla) but they still have to solve that issue of a defenseman. I also think they need a forward with some size too if they want to compete in a heavy Western conference, like a Bryan Bickell. Of coarse a lot of things can happen in 3 years, but even in 3 years, they mirror the Pittsburgh Penguins more than a contender IMO. 3 years is a long time though, hard to say where a roster will be... WE might be contenders in 3 years. (harr harr)

So at 37 years old, you choose a team that is a "maybe" in 3 years, when you are 40? Some people may see this as a smart move.... I think have probably hedged my bets on a 1-2 year deal and see how things go next year or the summer after.

[Cole436]

I don't know why people are so down on Colorado. They have a young team that's only going to get better.

Landeskog-Duchene-Iginla
Tanguay-Mackinnon-O'Reilly
McLeod-Briere-Mitchell

Johnson-Barrie
Hejda-Wilson

Varlamov

That seems like a pretty solid top 9, 4 and goalie.

It reminds me of Chicago after 08-09.

[getbak]

In 2009, the Kings had just finished 26th overall, after finishing 28th and 29th the two years prior. They had some good young talent in the system, but didn't look like a contender at all.

If you had signed a three-year deal with the Kings in the summer of 2009, you'd have your name on the Cup.


The Blackhawks weren't in very good shape in 2007 either. Even the Bruins didn't look like world-beaters three years prior to winning the Cup, and the team the Bruins beat for the Cup won the President's Trophy in 2011, but didn't even make the playoffs in 2008.


Much like the Kings and Hawks back then, the Avs have a solid collection of very good young players, and they're arguably ahead of where the Kings were in 2009 and where the Hawks were in 2007.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by getbak

In 2009, the Kings had just finished 26th overall, after finishing 28th and 29th the two years prior. They had some good young talent in the system, but didn't look like a contender at all.

If you had signed a three-year deal with the Kings in the summer of 2009, you'd have your name on the Cup.


The Blackhawks weren't in very good shape in 2007 either. Even the Bruins didn't look like world-beaters three years prior to winning the Cup, and the team the Bruins beat for the Cup won the President's Trophy in 2011, but didn't even make the playoffs in 2008.


Much like the Kings and Hawks back then, the Avs have a solid collection of very good young players, and they're arguably ahead of where the Kings were in 2009 and where the Hawks were in 2007.

LA had Doughty, Chicago has Duncan Keith and Keith Seabrook. Who does Colorado have? But you are right, they have a chance. Everyone has a chance. hell we even have a chance, since we just finished 26th and don't look like a contender, are we going to be LA/Chicago in 3 years too?
Just looking at the next 2 years though, I don't think they are a contender when compared to LA, Chicago, Boston. (or Anahaim, St Louis, maybe even SJ)

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Cole436

I don't know why people are so down on Colorado. They have a young team that's only going to get better.

Landeskog-Duchene-Iginla
Tanguay-Mackinnon-O'Reilly
McLeod-Briere-Mitchell

Johnson-Barrie
Hejda-Wilson

Varlamov

That seems like a pretty solid top 9, 4 and goalie.

It reminds me of Chicago after 08-09.

Briere, Iginla and Stuart are on retirement contracts. Three key pieces that make the Avs alot older.

[Scoreface]

Sedins are a package 'deal.' As in no deal. They don't even need NT clauses as they are joined at the hip. I'd definitely give Iggy the odds of winning the cup before those two even have a sniff before they whimper back to Sweden in the last year of their deal.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Jacks

An extra 10% of my career earnings vs. a marginally better chance to win a cup?

Vegas has L.A. at 9-1 to win the cup next year = 10%, let's be generous and give them 7-1 = 12.5%. Col is listed at 18-1 = 5%, let's be pessimistic and give them 24-1 = 4%.

So pretend these are your options (Chi would be similar)
1) L.A. 3 years @ 2M + 12.5% chance/year at a cup ring.
2) Col 3 years @ 5.33M + 4% chance/year at a cup ring.

I'll take the extra 10M thanks, It's not like he is choosing the money over a guaranteed cup ring.

Extending the same logic, Edmonton/Vancouver has a 55:1 odd (lets be pessimistic and say 66:1) = 1.5% chance of winning. If Edmonton paid another 10M (so 20M) would it be worth it?

For reference, Tampa is listed as 23:1 (lets be pessimistic and say 25:1) = 4%, Columbas is 33:1 = 3%... for an extra $5M, would it be worth it?