Moore-Bertuzzi civil case - Upd: Settlement reached (maybe not?)

[DaBoltsNIsles]

I have no problem with Moore getting the money, but he was never going to be a top six forward.

 

[forty_three]

Which experts would these be exactly?

Kevin Lowe, Mike Milbury and Doug MacLean.

And whoever that idiot is that said the Rangers and Leafs are the same.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Kevin Lowe, Mike Milbury and Doug MacLean.

And whoever that idiot is that said the Rangers and Leafs are the same.

I was gonna guess Burkie, then I remembered he was still GM in Vancouver during the whole thing (right?).

Feaster maybe? Cliff Fletcher?

 

[mattola]

Kevin Lowe, Mike Milbury and Doug MacLean.

And whoever that idiot is that said the Rangers and Leafs are the same.

I was gonna guess Burkie, then I remembered he was still GM in Vancouver during the whole thing (right?).

Feaster maybe? Cliff Fletcher?

here are his "experts" I guarantee you that Lacroix will come out and say they were close to signing him to a multi million dollar deal when this happened. I have no doubt in my mind Moore deserves a ton of cash here. but $68M not a chance.

 

[Harry Crack]

Big Bert deserves whatever happens to him

 

[Harry Crack]

Steve Moore just added $30 million to the civil suit...

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/n...-million-in-todd-bertuzzi-suit-133149964.html

or more like his slobbering gready ass lawyers did

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

Which experts would these be exactly?

Barry Melrose?

 

[jstewismybastardson]

Bro Dom moore with 8.1 shmill in career earnings to date

Would be all kinds of great if burkie was a defendant and argued against moores potential career earnings claim by saying that steve moore was a mouse riding on the backs of two elephants in sakic and floppa

 

[puckhead]

$68 million? what is he, fucked in the head?


oh, right.

 

[juliansteed]

Haven't gone over the numbers but I think the reasonable thing to do would be to simply base it on the average career length and average salary during that time period, keeping the lockout(s) in mind. I think it would be reasonable to give him a bit more than that. How much more than average would be fair to give him? I don't know, but I'm thinking somewhere in the 10-15 range maybe? It's impossible to say how much he would have earned and to some just the average might seem generous, but I wouldn't mind erring on the high side since it was mostly Bertuzzi's fault that we'll never know how much he would have made. I'd also expect him/his lawyers to aim higher than what he reasonably expects to get, knowing he almost certainly won't get the full amount.

That being said, $68 million still seems awfully high for lost wages. If that was to include pain and suffering and all that then it becomes a lot more subjective and I could probably buy it. But unless I'm misreading the article, it's all for lost wages. But that also seems to include post-hockey career wages which is interesting. Apparently he was set to make it big in the financial services industry. So why can't he any longer because of his injury? I wonder if their argument is that if he was a famous hockey player, more people (preferably high-end prospective clients) would want to do business with him, and/or he would have met a larger pool or wealthy pro hockey players we could have solicited to become clients?

 

[DragonfromTO]

Haven't gone over the numbers but I think the reasonable thing to do would be to simply base it on the average career length and average salary during that time period, keeping the lockout(s) in mind. I think it would be reasonable to give him a bit more than that. How much more than average would be fair to give him? I don't know, but I'm thinking somewhere in the 10-15 range maybe? It's impossible to say how much he would have earned and to some just the average might seem generous, but I wouldn't mind erring on the high side since it was mostly Bertuzzi's fault that we'll never know how much he would have made. I'd also expect him/his lawyers to aim higher than what he reasonably expects to get, knowing he almost certainly won't get the full amount.

That being said, $68 million still seems awfully high for lost wages. If that was to include pain and suffering and all that then it becomes a lot more subjective and I could probably buy it. But unless I'm misreading the article, it's all for lost wages. But that also seems to include post-hockey career wages which is interesting. Apparently he was set to make it big in the financial services industry. So why can't he any longer because of his injury? I wonder if their argument is that if he was a famous hockey player, more people (preferably high-end prospective clients) would want to do business with him, and/or he would have met a larger pool or wealthy pro hockey players we could have solicited to become clients?

I think that would seem more reasonable to me if Steve Moore had actually been an average NHL player.

 

[blindbaby]

Haven't gone over the numbers but I think the reasonable thing to do would be to simply base it on the average career length and average salary during that time period, keeping the lockout(s) in mind. I think it would be reasonable to give him a bit more than that. How much more than average would be fair to give him? I don't know, but I'm thinking somewhere in the 10-15 range maybe? It's impossible to say how much he would have earned and to some just the average might seem generous, but I wouldn't mind erring on the high side since it was mostly Bertuzzi's fault that we'll never know how much he would have made. I'd also expect him/his lawyers to aim higher than what he reasonably expects to get, knowing he almost certainly won't get the full amount.

That being said, $68 million still seems awfully high for lost wages. If that was to include pain and suffering and all that then it becomes a lot more subjective and I could probably buy it. But unless I'm misreading the article, it's all for lost wages. But that also seems to include post-hockey career wages which is interesting. Apparently he was set to make it big in the financial services industry. So why can't he any longer because of his injury? I wonder if their argument is that if he was a famous hockey player, more people (preferably high-end prospective clients) would want to do business with him, and/or he would have met a larger pool or wealthy pro hockey players we could have solicited to become clients?

Seems about right, IMO. I think you have to factor in pain, suffering (loss of a career, if nothing else). It's impossible to tell if that number is too high or two low, but, it's about average, so...

Edit: 68 million is completely over the top. I don't see why he doesn't just come up with a number that's reasonably reasonable and try to end this out of court? Perhaps he has?

 

[juliansteed]

I think that would seem more reasonable to me if Steve Moore had actually been an average NHL player.

Of course we'll never know if he would or would not have been. Anyone need a reminder as to why that is?

 

[puckhead]

Of course we'll never know if he would or would not have been. Anyone need a reminder as to why that is?

because he took a cheapshot on Markus Naslund?

 

[DragonfromTO]

Of course we'll never know if he would or would not have been. Anyone need a reminder as to why that is?

Well since we're talking about averages, the average peak year for a professional hockey player I believe is right around 25. And when Steve Moore was 25 he was well below average (it was essentially his first year with a "real" roster spot and he managed a sub 20 point pace). I'm not saying it would have been impossible for him to improve later than his expected "peak", but it shouldn't have been expected and it wouldn't have been probable.

 

[mattola]

because he took a cheapshot on Markus Naslund?

 

[juliansteed]

because he took a cheapshot on Markus Naslund?

The ironic thing is that the Naslund incident is more likely to be brought up by Moore's lawyers than any of the defence lawyers as it establishes a motive.

 

[juliansteed]

Well since we're talking about averages, the average peak year for a professional hockey player I believe is right around 25. And when Steve Moore was 25 he was well below average (it was essentially his first year with a "real" roster spot and he managed a sub 20 point pace). I'm not saying it would have been impossible for him to improve later than his expected "peak", but it shouldn't have been expected and it wouldn't have been probable.

I'd agree with that assessment if I could be convinced that 25 is the peak for a pro hockey player. Without doing much research (feel free to educate me ) I'm guessing it is closer to 30. Keep in mind that at 25 players are still eligible to win Rookie of the Year. During the Wings glory years I remember many hockey fans commenting on how part of the reason for their success was that they didn't bring a lot of their guys up to the NHL until they were 25+.

Let alone the fact that Steve Moore chose to start playing pro late as he went to Harvard for 4 years instead of turning pro and playing in the minors for a year or 2 as soon as possible. The minors would groom a player to be an NHLer earlier than NCAA. I don't think it makes a huge difference in the end, but if I actually thought that players peaked as young as 25 then I probably would think it made a much larger difference. Either way, I think his decision to play 4 years at NCAA would make him at least marginally more likely (again nothing is for certain) to be a candidate for a late bloomer than your typical late 2nd round pick that spent that time in some combination of the CHL and AHL.

 

[puckhead]

The ironic thing is that the Naslund incident is more likely to be brought up by Moore's lawyers than any of the defence lawyers as it establishes a motive.

I actually blame Brad May for the whole thing getting out of hand.
When Moore hit Naslund, May grabbed Moore right away.... and just .... well, that's it.
If May kicks the shit out him then and there, it's over.

 

[DragonfromTO]

I'd agree with that assessment if I could be convinced that 25 is the peak for a pro hockey player. Without doing much research (feel free to educate me ) I'm guessing it is closer to 30. Keep in mind that at 25 players are still eligible to win Rookie of the Year. During the Wings glory years I remember many hockey fans commenting on how part of the reason for their success was that they didn't bring a lot of their guys up to the NHL until they were 25+.

Let alone the fact that Steve Moore chose to start playing pro late as he went to Harvard for 4 years instead of turning pro and playing in the minors for a year or 2 as soon as possible. The minors would groom a player to be an NHLer earlier than NCAA. I don't think it makes a huge difference in the end, but if I actually thought that players peaked as young as 25 then I probably would think it made a much larger difference. Either way, I think his decision to play 4 years at NCAA would make him at least marginally more likely (again nothing is for certain) to be a candidate for a late bloomer than your typical late 2nd round pick that spent that time in some combination of the CHL and AHL.

Eric Tulsky on aging curves and "peak" ages

How NHL scoring rates change with age - SBNation.com

The initial piece by "Hawerchuk" of behindthenet.ca that he cites and worked from

NHL Points-per-Game Peak Age Estimation - Arctic Ice Hockey

One thing to watch out for when we think about how players age is the same thing I mentioned when we were talking about goaltenders, what's called "survivor bias". The players that are still around the NHL in their 30s tend to largely be the best players, because when lesser players decline they're no longer good enough for the NHL and so we as fans essentially take them completely out of the sample that we consider, making that sample significantly better than younger samples.